Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

It is very apparent that Kamala Harris was a prosecutor not a civil rights attorney. She shows the same mastery of the civil rights that personal accident attorneys have of federal bankruptcy law.

Kamala speaking with Jake Tapper about Trump on Twitter:

"They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. That has to stop."

https://x.com/robbystarbuck/status/1830960267007512803?t=hxj6aO7VUA4kDF1VkRbQnQ&s=19

[Randal]

Thought we wouldn’t click the link and you could get away with a flagrant lie, eh, terrorist-boy?

Kamala speaking... about Trump...

She wasn’t talking about Trump, she’s explicitly talking about Twitter and Facebook. The very same speech that conservatives are desperate to regulate and oversee!

You silly decietful fool.

[Don Nico]

Randal,
You got the sign wrong. It is the present administration that want the socialmedia to regulate content. Kamala persists in that insistence.

[Randal]

I don't see any such regulations being put in place by this administration. Whereas we had red-state regulation of social media at the Supreme Court just a few months ago and still trying!

You're abnormally deluded.

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/26/zuckerberg-meta-white-house-pressure-00176399

Abnormally deluded is denying the government censorship
Zuckerberg admitted to censoring due to Biden Harris administration requests.

[Randal]

White House pressure is not a regulation.

The whole point of Zuck saying he regrets cooperating so much is that he could’ve not cooperated so much. Meaning it was Facebook’s decision to cooperate, not an exercise of government power.

Or do you think every time Trump said "fake news" and "enemy of the people" as President it was "White House pressure" amounting to regulating and overseeing the media?

[Joe_dallas]

Randal 49 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
White House pressure is not a regulation.

No pressure is not regulation - though you intentionally distorted Nico's use of the term regulate. Yes the biden administration did try successfully to regulate speech via their pressure to have facebook censor speech.

[Kazinski]

First Amendment law says pressure or retaliation to speak or not to speak enough to deter someone of ‘ordinary firmness’ does violate the first amendment.

Where is your “ordinary firmness” scale rank threatening a multi billion antitrust action?

Reply is to Randal of course.

[Randal]

There was no threat of a multi-billion antitrust action. Nice fantasy you've got cookin'!

[Sarcastr0]

This threat continues to be right wing fiction. Twitter itself did not bring it up, which seems pretty good evidence that was not on their radar.

‘All government requests are inherently coercive’ was thrown out by the Supreme Court, hardly a liberal bastion.

[Kazinski]

No, it was Facebook that was threatened, not Twitter.

[Randal]

Neither was threatened.

[Joe_dallas]

Randal 9 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Neither was threatened.

Zuckerberg said otherwise

[David Nieporent]

You're lying. Zuckerberg never said he was threatened.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Randal — Doesn't that still leave you with both presidential candidates backing the notion of government regulation of private publishers? Not promising. Not promising at all.

With regard to press freedom, the only government-safe haven for expressive liberty has been private editing prior to publication—the legal regime which preceded passage of Section 230. To get back to that status quo ante requires government policy—and especially judicial policy—to rule out content-related government regulations of private publishers.

Instead, government needs policies to encourage among private publishers extensive diversity, and limitless profusion. Those smaller publishers can be empowered to compete with an eye to achieve business success by serving rival audiences. Only in that way can individual opinion be assured choice of outlets varied enough to support a marketplace of ideas consistent with both a healthy public life for the nation, and expressive liberty safe from government interference.

That method worked until Section 230 put an end to it, by enabling platform giantism. That delivered the tightest choke-points for public discourse since centuries ago, when established churches figured out how to censor everything. Diversity and profusion among private publishers was the historical corrective. No better method has been found since.

[David Nieporent]

With regard to press freedom, the only government-safe haven for expressive liberty has been private editing prior to publication—the legal regime which preceded passage of Section 230.

Stupid person continues to get 230 exactly backwards, failing to understand that the "legal regime" of 230 is far more protective of speech.

[Stephen Lathrop]

. . . failing to understand that the “legal regime” of 230 is far more protective of speech.

Wrong so many ways they preclude any attempt to detail all the answers. One summarizing observation might be worth a try:

Prior to Section 230, it was realistic for almost anyone to raise capital sufficient to set up a personal stall somewhere in the marketplace of ideas. I was able to do it by bootstrapping with 4 others a $200 investment apiece. That became seed money from which a multi-million dollar publishing business grew. It still thrives almost a half-century later.

Post-Section 230, it has become a mean-spirited taunt to suggest that anyone dissatisfied with the internet status quo ought to start his own platform. Almost no one thinks it realistic to attempt that with the financial means an ordinary person can mobilize.

Every new publishing platform thus foregone narrows protections for expressive liberty. Folks without basis for personal comparison tend not to notice that baleful change. You don't readily see what is not happening, but ought to be.

[David Nieporent]

Your "analysis" makes no sense, because it costs no more now to publish than it did pre-230.

And once again, all you care about is editors, not real people. Before 230, there were few outlets for UGC. Only if some gatekeeper decided he wanted to permit you to speak could you do so. The comments here would have to be individually approved by an editor before they could be seen by anyone. Post 230, people like EV can set up a comments section — and can even get it hosted by Reason — where we can publish things.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Before 230, there were few outlets for UGC. Only if some gatekeeper decided he wanted to permit you to speak could you do so. The comments here would have to be individually approved by an editor before they could be seen by anyone."

This is weirdly ahistorical, the sort of thing you'd need to be quite young to not laugh at. Section 230 was enacted in 1996. While you wouldn't find today's big social media platforms prior to that, there were plenty of BBS's about, and usually comments posted on them the moment you made them, the requirement for pre-approval to post a comment was pretty rare in my experience. In fact, I never encountered that sort of pre-approval for comments until fairly recently! Sure, you had to join the board, but after that it was wide open, at most you might get in trouble if you posted something really egregious.

In fact, the prevailing legal standard prior to Section 230 was that hosting services such as BBS's were only liable for user content IF they moderated it. If it was unmoderated, they were totally in the clear, so long as they took down illegal content when it was pointed out to them. So moderating user comments was actually legally risky pre-230.

Section 230 was section 230 of the Communications Decency act: It was intended to ALLOW moderation without incurring legal liability!

And even after it was enacted, most platforms did very little moderation until recently, as it was expensive in terms of man-hours, and few people wanted to volunteer for such a thankless job.

[David Nieporent]

No, that's mostly wrong. What you call the "prevailing legal standard" was something that was derived from the Stratton Oakmont case; that was in 1995. § 230 was enacted in 1996. Before Stratton Oakmont, providers moderated at will, without even thinking about liability.

While I am not as old as you, I am well old enough to be aware of the pre-CDA situation. My Internet experience dates back to the pre-web Usenet days of the late 1980s, and while I was never really a dial-up BBS person, I certainly remember when Compuserv and AOL were in their heyday as nearly walled gardens.

And, no, it's not remotely true that most platforms did little moderation until recently. Places like Compuserv, Prodigy, AOL had user forums where they often had (unpaid, volunteer) moderators. Because even back then there were trolls and spammers that would've made the forums unusable. Plenty of people wanted to volunteer.

[Brett Bellmore]

If your pre-230 experience included a lot of 'comments having to be individually approved before they were seen', it was pretty darned atypical.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Your “analysis” makes no sense, because it costs no more now to publish than it did pre-230.

Nieporent, that is true as far as it goes, and it can even be taken farther. By some metrics, such as cost to reach one audience member, internet publishing is more efficient than ink-on-paper ever was.

Unfortunately, by the metric of what it costs to start a new publication, and make it survive even a year or two, internet publishing is the more costly mode. Once again, too much is involved to explain why in detail. But as before, the point can be summarized. Business factors which favor platform giantism are likewise factors which penalize platform minimalism. Thus, in this new regime, a very large sum of money can be lost paradoxically, on an underfunded startup.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, there is no inherent bar to UGC which anyone can rightly blame on prior editing.

Taking as your example the VC, what percent of its commentary is not opinion? Only a tiny amount. A VC-like platform which declined that tiny fraction as too risky to publish would remain all but indistinguishable from the present VC. UG opinion can be published with legal impunity, and it would typically serve a publisher's business interest to publish lots of it—as it does here on the VC. As a huge bonus, the practice of prior editing would once again encourage platform-sponsored news gathering, which has all but disappeared under the current Section 230 regime.

What is inconsistent, is any attempt to make small platforms which rely on prior editing compete on an equal footing with giantistic platforms which do not rely on prior editing. Make everyone use prior editing—for instance by repeal of Section 230—and the smaller platforms could compete on a nearer-to-equal footing with the larger ones—which for the first time would have to do something everyone else in publishing has always had to do—make major expense factors scale at least somewhat in proportion to audience size.

The giantistic platforms would thus lose a principal sales tool which supports giantism—advertising rates per-audience-member which are a tiny fraction of those smaller platforms must charge to break even—whether or not the smaller platforms choose to use prior editing.

Platforms of both sizes are stuck with less-scalable costs of doing business. But for simple arithmetic reasons, those contribute a higher portion to advertising rates the smaller platforms must charge per member of their smaller audiences.

And we know that prior editing for every platform could work economically, because even when publishing costs were notably higher—during the ink-on-paper era, when everyone used prior editing—those costs were never so high that advertising customers could not be found to pay them. Today's costs, even with everyone using prior editing, would remain notably lower than those which previously supported a thriving publishing industry.

To summarize, you have a choice of alternatives.

On the one hand, without prior editing you will always get a publishing industry in which a few giant platforms control most of the UGC. That invites managers of those giants to indulge whatever ambitions they may cherish to control published content. That, in turn, invites political demands to control content by government oversight and regulation. We see that happening now. It is bad for expressive freedom, and bad for the public life of the nation.

On the other hand, with prior editing, a myriad of smaller platforms would regulate content privately, but without realistic threat that they would control alike a notable portion of UGC. With private publishers numbering in the tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, and competing not only in business but also ideologically, would-be UGC authors frustrated by one platform could choose among a host of others. And government would be powerless to control an activity so disorganized in the aggregate, and so various.

That is better practical protection for expressive freedom than internet giantism can ever supply. It is also better practical protection than anything else being proposed.

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

SL, no. Stop. No one is going to let you have control over what is allowed to be published ever again. Go find something new to fail at.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Vinni, where did I say I wanted to control anything? I said it's crazy to demand that government be empowered to control content on private internet platforms.

Problem is, there must be some control over what gets published, or all the platforms will go out of business, and nothing with get published. The money that keeps the platforms going comes from companies that will not stand for uncontrolled content. They never did in the past, and they never will. But no one has yet found any other place to get the money needed. So the challenge to get the money out of those companies, while not yielding content control to them, has always been a notable part of the art of publishing. Some publishers have been much better at that than others.

So those are your practical choices. On the one hand, government control, which will always turn out centralized and coercive. Or on the other hand, decentralized control, distributed among at least tens-of-thousands of rival private parties, whom no one can control in the aggregate.

Seems like an easy choice to me, Other than to deny that economics of publishing forces the choice, what is your alternative?

Or if you want to, deny that publishing economics forces a choice, and explain what alternative method you think will pay the bills. If anyone could come up with that answer, I would likely join in support of it.

However, do not delude yourself that my challenge is a trivial one. Facebook's annual operating budget is apparently ~ 50-times larger than that of the NYT. Facebook is a giant, but one among others. Some amount of money many times larger than Facebook's budget is what you have to find a practical source for, while not yielding content control to whomever comes up with the cash. Good luck.

[Randal]

Your problem is that society has chosen against you. We want gigantism on the Internet. That was the goal of Section 230, and we're happy about it.

Your lack of vision is your inability to see other solutions. Gigantism doesn't and shouldn't equal monopolism or even oligopolism. And, for the most part, it hasn't. Both Twitter and Facebook are on the decline. New social media giants come and go.

But even more importantly are the smaller players... like Reason. It's an example of an Internet giant compared to what a typical, say, print newspaper could publish on a daily basis... and the print newspaper would be much more capital intensive. The barrier to entry for a Reason-sized Internet publisher is very low, and that's largely because of Section 230. And there's plenty of competition among Reason-sized outlets.

So think about whether your concerns could be addressed simply by encouraging more Reason-sized giants and fewer Facebook-sized supergiants rather than returning to a pre-Section 230 world that's never coming back.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Randal, everything you said I can refute with one flippant remark. It never fails to piss off internet utopians so narrowly focused on outlandish views of personal entitlement that they forget entirely about practicalities. Here it is:

If you don't like the platforms as they are, start one of your own.

Prior to Section 230, that might have been practical advice. Post-Section 230 it has become a taunt. Try to figure out why that makes nonsense of your, "other solutions," advocacy.

[Randal]

What a strawman you've found! As if cracking into the print media business is something just anyone with $10 and a dream can do.

You aren't convincing anyone but yourself.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Randal — see my reply to Nieporent above, which I finished just after your post went up.

I agree with you that entry into media business today is not for folks of ordinary means. But that was not always so. Section 230 is mainly responsible for the change.

Without detailed explanations, most folks who did not experience the former publishing regime will not likely succeed to figure out what changed. Within the limiting scope of this blog, I have learned by trying that I am not up to the task of explaining it to folks like you. Internet utopians neither know much about the past, nor want to learn stuff which tends to frustrate present aspirations, however unrealistic.

I wish the trends were more encouraging, especially with regard to the public life of the nation, but those trends are what they are. It will probably take a long time, and repeated costly mistakes, before things improve.

[David Nieporent]

Within the limiting scope of this blog, I have learned by trying that I am not up to the task of explaining it to folks like you.

When one simply cannot get anyone to understand one's ideas — let alone convince anyone that those ideas are right — a possibility is that one is a misunderstood genius. The other, more likely one, is that one's ideas are just wrong.

[David Nieporent]

Prior to Section 230, that might have been practical advice. Post-Section 230 it has become a taunt.

No, dummy. § 230 is what makes that a reasonable proposal.

Once again: why do you think your experience decades ago running some lame newspaper in Idaho gives you any insight whatsoever into the Internet?

[David Nieporent]

The money that keeps the platforms going comes from companies that will not stand for uncontrolled content.

Unfortunately, your limited understanding of the industry makes you think that an advertiser supported model is the only model out there.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's the model for the largest platforms with the most reach.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's true, and that was a very negative development in the evolution of the internet. So long as people were using labor of love or user funded platforms, the preferences of the user prevailed.

For advertising supported platforms, the user isn't the customer, they're the product, and they get treated like it.

Users will never end up back in the driver's seat until we're paying for the service we're using again. 'Free' services are seductive, but ultimately pathological.

[David Nieporent]

Users will never end up back in the driver’s seat until we’re paying for the service we’re using again. ‘Free’ services are seductive, but ultimately pathological.

Revealed preference. Most Internet users prefer this model.

[Brett Bellmore]

Most people will eat lousy food if it's free. Doesn't mean they prefer tuna casserole to steak, just that they'll tolerate the free tuna casserole if the supply of free steak has been cut off.

My experience with social media platforms was that moderation was VERY light prior to them having achieved enough market power that they could afford to piss off users, and for some time after it wasn't awful. I was a member of a private group on FB, just some old friends who'd met on Pete Dupont's Intellectual Capitol, and kept in contact after it folded. We went YEARS with FB totally ignoring us. Then out of the blue in 2014 we started getting messed with by some 3rd party busybodies FB had given access to rummage around looking for stuff to be offended by. By 2015 it had gotten bad enough what with our group being repeatedly frozen for unexplained 'violations' that we had to jump ship to MeWe. Where we're back to being left alone, because MeWe doesn't do political moderation.

Really, it was only in the 2014-16 time frame that the major platforms like FB, Twitter, and Youtube got moderation crazy and started hunting for political content they didn't like, and taking it down.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — False assumption, non-sequitur, and mistaken conclusion.

[Kazinski]

Poor Randal, her first sentence: “He has lost his privileges and it should be taken down.” clearly refers to Trump.

And she is talking Twitter and Facebook, and I suppose eventually the NY Times and their content being regulated and controlled, which is the bigger point.

[Sarcastr0]

The short clip does not make that at all clear.

[Joe_dallas]

The left and Harris have made numerous references to banning trump from twitter. She specifically said “He has lost his privileges and it should be taken down.”

Nice try to deny the obvious

[Randal]

Well, a lot of Russia-funded right-wingers are claiming that "He has lost his privileges" refers to Elon. So it can't be that clear.

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

Video from 2019 before Musk purchased Twitter. Obviously not talking about Musk. Even without that info, it was obvious.

https://reason.com/2024/09/05/kamala-harris-vs-elon-musk/

[Randal]

No I know. Tell it to your Russian-operated buddies.

[Kazinski]

Whether its clear as i think it is or not is a a minor point.

The major takeaway is she thinks that Twitter,FB, etc should be stopped from "speaking to millions and millions of people" without government oversight and regulation.

There is no mistaking that part.

[Randal]

Yes, and that's unfortunate, but a) very different from saying that Trump's speech should be regulated and b) the same thing that Trump and the right are saying and actually doing.

[Randal]

Poor Randal, her first sentence: “He has lost his privileges and it should be taken down.” clearly refers to Trump.

But you didn't quote the first sentence. That she was talking about Trump once on her life doesn't mean you can truthfully take any quote of hers starting with a pronoun and say it's "about Trump."

[Kazinski]

I said she was talking about Trump and Twitter for context.

Her first sentence bears that out.

You claim i am lying because because my quote doesn’t quote the whole clip even though now you admit i characterized it correctly, because obviously she said it in the same unedited clip.

Poor Randal.

See ACL’s post below from the debate, where she is explicit she wants Trump censored on Twitter and FB, and Elizabeth Warren of all people takes the pro-freedom position.

[Randal]

Here's terrorist-boy talking about Kamala Harris:

"Of all people [she] takes the pro-freedom position."

[Kazinski]

No Randal, that was Elizabeth Warren i was talking about.

Please try to keep up, although i admit nobody expects it.

[Randal]

Just like it was Twitter and Facebook, not Trump, that Kamala was talking about.

Thanks for finally admitting to your lie! It's very becoming of you.

[Krayt]

Both sides want to regulate and oversee social media. The Democrats even threatened section 230 unless they “voluntarily” censored the way they wanted, and then the Republicans threatened it if they did.

None of this should be done. These are rotten people.

As for talking about Trump directly in this incident, I have no idea, I will accept your report, but it took 0 seconds in the larger picture before people spoke of how harrassing tweets of his, before an election, should be censored, labeled, go do your “voluntary” thing, or there goes section 230. Kamala Harris was an enthusiastic participant in the 2016 primary debates where they fell all over each other, one-upping the next over the wrenching damage they’d threaten on the companies.

Some genius operative thought of using that newborn arm twisting on political opponents. Was that the plan all along, or just opportunistic?

The facebook guy even specifically declined to do this to politicians and caught hell over it, including standing tall before Congress to explain himself.

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

Randal, your 5th grade English teacher called and said you need to repeat the class.

"Kamala speaking ... about Trump on Twitter"

She's explicitly talking about Twitter vis a vis Trump.

And then you lie even harder: "The very same speech that conservatives are desperate to regulate and oversee!"

Lying sack of shit. Trying to prevent Leftist dinguses like you from censoring everybody you don't like, is not "regulate and oversee". That's your own projection and lies.

[Randal]

Trying to prevent Leftist dinguses like you from censoring everybody you don’t like, is not “regulate and oversee”.

Uh, yeah, that's exactly what it is. Let me introduce you to Texas and Florida's attempts to regulate and oversee social media:

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/html/HB00020F.htm

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072

Both of which were found to infringe free speech, obviously.

[mulched]

Lookee lookee who cares about the free speech of big social media corporations but not about individuals.

One of those build your own Internet guys.

[Randal]

One of those build your own Internet guys.

Yeah... that's how it works here in America. Government doesn't regulate what the New York Times can say, instead we count on other newspapers. Government doesn't regulate what Fox News can say, instead we count on other channels. Go to Truth Social is you don't like Twitter.

The right's willingness to run to unconstitutional government regulation when they don't like the way someone is running their business puts the lie to all their whining about "freedom."

[Armchair]

“HARRIS: Senator Warren, I just want to say that I was surprised to hear that you did not agree with me that on this subject of what should be the rules around corporate responsibility for these big tech companies, when I called on Twitter to suspend Donald Trump’s account, that you did not agree. And I would urge you to join me because here we have Donald Trump, who has 65 million Twitter followers and is using that platform as the president of the United States to openly intimidate witnesses, to threaten witnesses, to obstruct justice. And he and his account should be taken down. We saw in El Paso that that shooter in his manifesto was informed by how Donald Trump uses that platform, and this is a matter of corporate responsibility. Twitter should be held accountable and shut down that site. It is a matter of safety and corporate accountability.”

WARREN: So, look, I don’t just want to push Donald Trump off Twitter. I want to push him out of the White House. That’s our job.

HARRIS: Join me in saying that his Twitter account should be shut down.

WARREN: No.

...(Warren talks about campaign finance reform for a bit. Harris returns to Twitter..)

HARRIS: I’m not finished. I’m not finished. And so what I am saying is that it seems to me that you would be able to join me in saying the rule has to apply to Twitter the same way it does to Facebook.

(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-kamala-harris.html)

What does this exchange demonstrate?

Harris has zero consideration for the first amendment. She’s willing to violate it, violate people’s freedom of speech. Institute government “oversight” across social media platforms, dictating who is allowed to post on social media…and who isn’t.

[Armchair]

Why this all matters?

Because Free Speech is a cornerstone of our society, one that allows for the people to be heard and for gradual change. And authoritarians in power who would try to stop that change, almost always put in laws to stop the freedom of speech.

Even in the US, this could be seen in the early days of the country. The 1st amendment was not incorporated to the states in those days. So the states were free to pass laws that impeded the freedom of speech. And they did.

Many of the slave owning states banned any type of speech that called out the evils of slavery, or called for freeing the slaves. They called such speech as "inciting rebellion", and justified it on those grounds. But we all know why it was really passed. To keep thoughts of freeing the slaves off the people's minds....

We see this again today. Concepts the people in power find undesirable, they attempt to suppress. Either through trying to pass formal laws (which is hard, given the 1st amendment), or through informal means (As the Biden-Harris administration has done).

[Sarcastr0]

From the group that wanted to make Facebook and Twitter common carriers, comes the expected 180 degree turn.

[Armchair]

This may surprise you, but a common carrier law is a way to ENSURE free speech and lack of discrimination.

That, in many ways, is why they exist. That's why AT&T, for example, cannot selectively choose to cut off all phone service to radicals of political stripes.

Ensuring free speech is critical. Harris and friends believe that the government should choose who can post on social media...and who can't.

[Sarcastr0]

Free speech via government mandate is an odd take.

Eh, not that odd. Authoritarians insisting they are the protector of the people’s liberty is a pretty common refrain.

I should also say the events of 2020 show some prescience in Harris’ concerns even if I disagree with her prescription.

[Armchair]

"Free speech via government mandate is an odd take."

It's actually the normal take.

The First Amendment mandates the Federal Government not interfere in free speech.

The 14th Amendment extends that mandate to the Federal Government ensuring the STATES also don't interfere with free speech.

Those laws filter all the way down to the city and local level, and in many ways to those corporations that would use their power to interfere in free speech.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Those laws filter all the way down to the city and local level, and in many ways to those corporations that would use their power to interfere in free speech."

Do you have any clue what the words you type mean? First, it's all about free speech, then you close with federal law does/should filter down to dictate to "corporations that would use their power to interfere in free speech." Which is just another way of saying you want the government to censor corporate speech.

When you aren't lying, you're intellectually incoherent.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Intellectual incoherence is the mother's milk of internet utopianism.

[Don Nico]

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

[Krayt]

From the guy who, more likely than not, supported common carrier status for ISPs, to stop them from preferring their own streaming services.

And the Republicans opposed. It's almost like two-faced, situational ethics hackery that's soullessly goal-oriented, rather than principle-oriented.

[Sarcastr0]

I did support that, for content and viewpoint neutral reasons.
Reasonable people can differ on that policy, but the structural monopoly and physical infrastructure make that a stronger case for that being good policy. It's not a hill I'm going to die on, however.

Compare and contrast with conservatives drama-needle-pegged unsupported viewpoint-based complaining that no one wants to hear their takes. Weak and ridiculous.

[jb]

The difference is that wire/fiber based ISPs are close to a natural monopoly (or in some cases due to local franchise agreements, government-enforced monopolies). There's lots of data showing that large swaths of the country have only one or two of these ISPs available at any given address. So it's not really possible for people to just switch to a different ISP if they don't like what one is doing, whereas it is trivially easy to switch social media networks.

At this point I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that wireless Internet provides enough competition that we don't need to worry that much about network neutrality anymore. It would be interesting to see if solid wireless Internet speeds are confined to the same places that already had decent ISP choices, but especially with Starlink we've now got an almost ubiquitous alternative for people where it's hard to run new physical infrastructure.

[Randal]

Common carriers are great. It's just not a concept that even applies to social media. Do you think wedding cakes should be common carriers? Does that even make sense as a concept in your mind? Social media is more like wedding cakes than ISPs.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Elegant take down. Exactly this.

One side is being hypocritical. How could you oppose common carrier status for ISPs but support it for social media companies?

The other sees a very natural distinction that warrants requiring ISPs to be neutral in ways that aren't necessary and don't operate the same as social media companies.

It's almost like one side is principle-oriented (at least on whether ISPs and/or social media companies should be treated like common carriers) and the other engages in two-faced, situational ethics hackery that’s soullessly goal-oriented.

[Kazinski]

Free speech by government mandate isn't really an odd take.

California and several other states have laws that prevent private employers from firing or discipling employees for first amendment projected speech.

California also requires private property owners that are open to the public to allow petition signature gatherers access.

Also remember the outrage when the Supreme Court struck the law mandating access for union organizors on private farmland. That law mandated the farm owners to allow speech they disapproved of but was not struck on those grounds.

Its one of EV's many pet topics, he has had a lot of those posts over the years, if you were paying attention.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinksi, EV's take mirrors your own. You both conflate speech and publishing. They are not alike. Speech comes free. Publishing costs a lot of money. The money has to come from somewhere, and it can't be the government.

The common carrier dodge is inapplicable for related reasons. Common carriers do not take on the expense to curate and maintain an audience. Common carriers do not practice the publishing-related activities which enable platforms to do that. If you want an internet publishing regime restricted to delivering each message to exactly one person you designate, common carriers might be the way to go.

[mulched]

Hosting social media posts is not publishing. It's more like email hosting -- just route the post to the listed recipients (followers).

The social media company only needs to pass along the message, just like the phone company or the ISP.

[Stephen Lathrop]

mulched — Another lapse into the internet utopian point of view. All utopians think about is what they see across their keypads.

You did not even consider how said routing was to get paid for, or why anyone would want to write something to be routed via a platform. The answer to both questions has to do with an audience, which the platform first mobilizes, then curates continuously, and then monetizes by selling access to audience members' attention. All of which are definitional field marks of publishing activity. All those you discounted to zero in your analysis.

[David Nieporent]

The social media company only needs to pass along the message, just like the phone company or the ISP.

No. Social media companies are not delivery services. They are broadcast media. (Which is a form of publishing, though a very very different one than Lathrop thinks he understands.)

[Brett Bellmore]

No, they're not broadcast media, they're their own thing.

The key point that distinguishes them from broadcast media is that the platform doesn't originate the content, it just facilitates getting content from person to person. Curation isn't an inherent part of what they do, it's more of a late addition after they'd developed a sufficient degree of market power that they could get away with pissing off their customers.

[David Nieporent]

Curation isn’t an inherent part of what they do, it’s more of a late addition after they’d developed a sufficient degree of market power that they could get away with pissing off their customers.

Curation is an inherent part of what they do, and it's done because that's what customers other than Nazis want.

[Kazinski]

The proposal to make them common carriers was to ensure they couldn't do by the backdoor what the government isn't allowed by the constitution.

You may not agree but it is not a censorship scheme.

But this is:
https://reason.com/2023/02/14/global-disinformation-index-state-department-list-risk-reason/

[Sarcastr0]

You may not agree but it is not a censorship scheme.

Yeah, I don't agree. Also you're carrying water for censorship.

[Randal]

"Making them common carriers" doesn't even parse. It makes about as much sense as making them into unicorns, or making them into newspapers as Lathrop dreams of.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, it's just Congress passing a law to kinda nationalizing social media companies so they stop disassociating themselves from Nazis and the like.

Normal free speech stuff.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not only has Trump declared a greater contempt for the First Amendment, and a lesser understanding of it, he is not mentally able to put together a complete, coherent sentence, let along conduct detailed questioning for which Harris has long experience.

[Armchair]

1) Whataboutism.
2) " I have always believed, and I've worked on it, that the climate crisis is real, that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time"

[Dan Schiavetta]

1. This is not whataboutism. We're talking about the same issue.
2. Harris's statement is true. And in touch with reality.

[Joe_dallas]

Yes – harris statement is true – She wants to censor speech.

[Krayt]

A look around the Earth, and sordid human history, shows you are disgustingly correct. Desire for censorship of one'e opponents in the power game is indeed in touch with reality.

[Randal]

What "rule that applies to Facebook" are they even talking about?

[OtisAH]

“It is very apparent that Kamala Harris was a prosecutor and not a civil rights attorney.”

Kudos, Kazinski. You are able to not only read publicly-known biographical information, but you interpreted perfectly as well!

[Krychek_2]

A song for our time:

Oh Donnie Boy, the bells, the bells are tolling
Make no mistake, they're tolling now for thee.
Your lies have failed, and all across the nation
Tis you, tis you must go and leave us be.
For comes November all the land reject you will
And send you forth to dark oblivion's void
May all the world forget you once deceived our kin
And by your name no more may any be annoyed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

From what i see, it is Heels Up who is in trouble.

[Krychek_2]

It's a bit rich that a Trump supporter would be mocking Harris ("Heels Up") for her alleged sexual improprieties. I think that's a bit like a morbidly obese person criticizing someone else's dietary choices.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's one thing to buy sex.
It is something far worse to be a whore.

[Kazinski]

Poor Ed, i can assire you, at least in my experience there is nothing unusual about younger women to be attracted to older men, even if they aren’t politicians, that might help careers.

Willie Brown is a legend in SF and Sacramento, and not only was a politician, but was a long time columnists at the SF Chronicle.

Nor was he an in typical insulat Democratic Black politician relying only on his base, he once pulled off a coup to become speaker of the Assembly by joining with the GOP minority to make him Speaker when he didn’t have enough Democratic votes.

To me her affair with Brown is a mark in her favor that just can’t be outweighed by her unhinged views on almost every topic.

And SF's decline can't really be laid at Brown's feet, the decline really got rolling under Newsom, Brown hasnt been mayor since 2004 when the city was doing quite well.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There are women whose careers were built by standing on their own two feet and there are women who got there with their heels in the air.

Where I am from, we call the latter "Dumb C*nts." I think the term applies to Heels Up...

[Krychek_2]

And that’s really what this is about, isn’t it? Misogyny. It’s always the woman’s fault.

Well, let's run with your claim below that she has bartered her soul. What would you say about a man who knows he's helping a woman sell her soul, for his own sexual gratification? Seems to me he's even worse.

[theobromophile]

He isn't on the ballot.

[Krychek_2]

He isn't but I was responding to Dr. Ed's claim that the woman is more at fault than the man.

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

Dr. Ed’s claim that the woman is more at fault than the man.

Ed says enough crazy shit that you don't have to make shit up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If a woman hires a prostitute, I say the same thing about the male prostitute. Same thing with gay, lesbian, or whatever combination.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Exactly. Man or woman, people should succeed on their own merits. That's why I never slept my way to the top.

[David Nieporent]

There are women whose careers were built by standing on their own two feet and there are women who got there with their heels in the air.

And then there's Dr. Ed, a psychopathic loser with no accomplishments in life who lies about everything.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And then there is David NeedleDick...

[Riva]

Interesting. Would you call someone a psychopathic loser if he thought it was possible to conclude that a political rival being killed would benefit the country?

[David Nieporent]

So you think Claus von Stauffenberg was wrong to try to assassinate Hitler?

[Riva]

I think, at that stage in WWII, Halter was not a mere political rival. And your flawed and ignorant WWII analogy raises other questions if this the philosophy that controls your view of domestic politics.

[Riva]

Anticipating the inevitable tedious insult intended to distract from your frighteningly scary ignorance, allow me to repost without the typos:

I think, at this stage in WWII, Hitler was not a mere political rival. And your flawed and ignorant WWII analogy raises other questions if this is the philosophy that controls your view of domestic politics.

[bernard11]

That's because you're a moron.

Only you, and a few of your fellow morons, could believe that appointment to a couple of commissions was the start of a smooth path to the Senate, Vice-presidency, and maybe the White House.

You've got bubkes - nothing, nada, rien, gar nicht, so you drag up some old rumors and innuendo and try to make a big deal out of them. If you took the same critical view of Trump's career you'd be ashamed to ever have supported him.

But you actually don't give a flying fuck. You just want to join in the slanders against Harris.

[theobromophile]

I can assure you that it isn't normal for young women to sleep with older married men, even if it can help their careers.

[Sarcastr0]

When the man is separated?

That seems like a pretty ordinary set of events, actually.

[theobromophile]

Separated = legally married, and no, even then, it isn't ordinary.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Noted sociologist theobromophile has assured us all. Case closed!

[theobromophile]

Unlike about 90% of the commenters here, I am a woman and have a lot of woman friends. Exactly zero of us have slept our way up the career ladder.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Since you're a woman, your individual experience in life gives you the authority to speak for the other few billion women on the planet as to whether their behavior is 'normal' for women or not?

You're going to have a tough time here.

[David Nieporent]

There is nothing to suggest that Harris “slept her way up the career ladder.” That is a double distortion. First, it implies that there was some sort of transactional affair, that she had sex with her boss in exchange for a promotion or something. But Brown wasn’t her boss, and she wasn’t having an affair. This wasn’t Monica Lewinsky. She was dating him, openly, publicly, for a year or two.

Second, it implies that he put her in the senate or something. In fact, her career has been in politics, through elected, not appointed, office. He appointed her to a couple of obscure board positions, sure. Did that help her subsequently? Maybe; I don’t know and neither does anyone else. But she had to get elected to all the important jobs on her resume. And did he appoint her in exchange for sex? No reason to think so; this was just ordinary political cronyism. When Harris stepped down from the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board that he had appointed her to, he replaced her with his business associate friend. Large number of Americans get jobs through friends and family.

Oh, and once again: yes, Brown was married. But he had been separated for a decade. For whatever reason he has never gotten a divorce, but he also hasn't been married except on paper.

[Riva]

Wow. With a defense like that, who needs political enemies?
Maybe I’m wrong about you, you really are against Harris.

[Frank Drackman]

So you're ugly, we get it

[Dr. Ed 2]

And how do you feel about the women who HAVE slept their way up the career ladder?

[Dr. Ed 2]

And I can assure you that there are young women who DON'T sleep with anyone for purposes of advancing their careers. I'm thinking of several of my former students, quite attractive but who refuse to do that and have sought my advice (such as it may be) on avoiding such things.

My standard question is "does he supervise you, have the ability to promote you, or in any way have influence on your annual performance review?"

[Krychek_2]

No it's not. The buyer and the seller occupy the same moral plane.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No.

One has bartered mere money, the other has bartered her soul.

[Mr. Bumble]

Assumes she has a "soul".

[Davy C]

This is like debating whether the hitman or the person who hires him is better. The transaction wouldn't exist in the first place without both sides. Which is just one reason I, for one, will be voting for neither.

[Sarcastr0]

Harris list your vote due to her 1990s dating habits?

[Martinned2]

To be fair, she dated men, so that's always going to be a deal breaker for some people.

[David Nieporent]

One has bartered mere money, the other has bartered her soul.

You might want to file an educational malpractice claim against your middle school health teacher; you don't seem to understand how sex works.

[David Nieporent]

It’s one thing to buy sex.
It is something far worse to be a whore.

1) Actually, they're the same thing.
2) Dating someone makes you a whore?

[Krayt]

Is it?

“If you eat meat, you cannot consider yourself morally superior to the butcher.” ‐- Robert Heinlein

This is doubly humerous, because claims she “slept to power” in California via Willie Brown, a detraction point by Trump supporters, implies cheesy, if ancient, tit for tat. Yet this is the source of the same tawdry observation of Trump that “they let you grab their crotch!” Because rich, powerful men, especially in entertainment, do take advantage of this.

[Krychek_2]

By the way, do we know that she actually did have sex with Willie Brown? This sounds like just the sort of made up story the right wing scream machine would come up with. Not saying it's not true; just asking if there's any actual evidence for it beyond the fact that it's getting repeated on right wing media.

[Sarcastr0]

They were dating, so I presume they were some bangin'.

The rest of it is just the right showing it's sexist and puritanical ass.

[Krayt]

Is it fair game to wonder if sex with a powerful older man had other motives than carnal lust? And in any case, implied power differentials are always sus, yo.

[Sarcastr0]

Wonder, my ass.

It's a political attack, and it's baseless speculation, nothing more.

[bernard11]

Just asking questions, are you?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It’s a bit rich that a Trump supporter would be mocking Harris (“Heels Up”) for her alleged sexual improprieties."

Trump is a man, and Harris is a woman. Even feminists admit that there is a double standard in society where men are allowed to be promiscuous and women aren't.

It sounds terribly unfair to me, but Trump doesn't make the rules.

[Sarcastr0]

How the fuck would you think 'sexism is bad but it exists' is a license to be sexist?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I don't make the rules either.

[Sarcastr0]

What an immoral position.

[jb]

Having identified a toxic feature of society, usually the goal is to try to avoid it or (even better) correct it.

You and Trump seem interested in exploiting it. Which, sure, is MAGA-ism in a nutshell, but it's not the part you're supposed to say out loud.

[Ilya Snowman]

'May all the world forget you once deceived our kin.'

Which 'kin' would that be? The millions of illegals?

You don't think the rest of the world still falls for your BS, do you? Your reputational damage for lying to the world non-stop for the last several years is irreparable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

SCOTUS says you can't give a juvenile a life sentence.

The Georgia school shooter is looking at four murder charges and nine attempted murder/etc. charges.

Say he only got 15 years for each murder and 2 years for each of the wounded individuals, and they ran consecutively, that still would be 78 year -- essentially a life sentence. Permissible?

And notice how we haven't seen a picture of him? Is he Black?
Heels Up wants to make this political -- that WOULD....

[not guilty]

"SCOTUS says you can’t give a juvenile a life sentence."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, Dr. Ed 2?

[Dr. Ed 2]

From Scotusblog:
"Justice Kagan announced the opinion for the Court in Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, holding, in a five-to-four vote, that “the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.” The Court has previously shown leniency to juveniles, holding in Roper v. Simmons (2005), that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death, and in Graham v. Florida (2010), that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide offenses. This case continues that trend."
https://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/eighth-amendment-prohibits-mandatory-life-without-parole-for-juveniles/

[apedad]

WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE.

That's an extremely significant qualifier that you omitted.

And you forgot, "Thoughts and prayers."

[Dr. Ed 2]

True -- but it's what I meant -- and why my 78 year figure is relevant.

[Krayt]

Eat your Wheaties, and maybe you'll live long enough to see fights over his paroles.

[Voize]

And "mandatory", he misplaced that one too.
Juveniles can receive life sentences, even life without parole sentences, as long as they are at the discretion of the court.
Jones v. Mississippi, 593 U.S. ___ (2021)

[David Nieporent]

WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE.

That’s an extremely significant qualifier that you omitted.

No, he got more than that wrong. Juveniles can get life without parole. He omitted the word MANDATORY as well. A juvenile can be sentenced to life without parole for homicide, as long as the court had the discretion to impose a lesser sentence.

[Longtobefree]

Of course, California is now working on parole for those sentenced to life without parole.

(it was newspeak that terrified me in 1984, not the damn cameras)

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

that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide offenses.

4 counts of murder aren't "homicide offenses"?

[not guilty]

"And notice how we haven’t seen a picture of him? Is he Black?"

I don't know what Georgia law does or does not require, but it is commonplace for police departments to withhold identifying information (including photographs) about juveniles in custody.

Has any school shooter been black? I don't recall any.

[Frank Drackman]

His name's "Cody" so I doubt it
Funny how we get "His"(is "he" really a "he" or is "she" a "he"?) name right away, but the 17 yr old that shot the Endangered Species in San Fran Sissy Co gets to remain anonymous (it would hurt his chances to get in Stanford!!!!)
I guarantee you Cody was on Ritalin and probably an SSRI (probably 1/2 the males in the school are)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

First name reported as "Colt."

Ritalin and SSRIs are VERY different drugs, and you should know that...

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm gonna guess that's why the "and" was in there.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, aspirin and vicodin are also very different and I'd question the medical wisdom of a MD who linked them together in a similar manner.

[Mr. Bumble]

Originally his name was reported as Cody, now Colt; also, apparently known by the FBI a year ago:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13814835/Colt-Gray-FBI-Apaleecha-school-shooting-online-threats.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

I saw that, and that child protective was also involved, and read it two ways.

Either were both entities (and the Sheriff's Dept) so incompetent that they missed this -- or did they put the idea into his head?
Did they push it to the point where he essentially said "why not do it?"

[David Nieporent]

or did they put the idea into his head?
Did they push it to the point where he essentially said “why not do it?”

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to VERY VERY Stupid Questions.

[Nelson]

It's Dr. Ed. Are you surprised?

[Dr. Ed 2]

How do you know?

[Frank Drackman]

I do, in fact I took a Pharmacology Course in Med School (only class I did top 10% in, I know my Drugs) did you?
They both can lead to homicidal/suicidal acts, in fact the SSRI's have a "Black Box" Warning, telling you your Depression may get first the first month of taking the medication, so please don't kill yourself until you've given the medication a chance.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

A lot of people don't understand that about anti-depressants: When you give them to somebody who's suicidal/homicidal, and apathetic, they relieve the apathy a lot faster than they do the suicidal or homicidal impulses.

So a lot of people go on anti-depressants and then kill themselves, or sometimes other people.

[Frank Drackman]

Hence, the "Black Box" Warning

[Dr. Ed 2]

The version I heard is that it gives them the energy to commit suicide, although the jury is still out on the antidepressants in general.

[Frank Drackman]

Dr Ed 2, just when I think you can't say anything stupider......
You go ahead and absolutely say something even stupider!
The "Energy to commit suicide" is that before or after their muscle turns to fat?
Now I'll give you your chance to redeem yourself,
Your thoughts on "Whole Language" reading ed-jew-ma-cation?

Frank

[Stella Link the dog]

REMF, just when I think you can’t say anything stupider……
You go ahead and absolutely say something even stupider!

"their muscle turns to fat?"

Damn, Mengele, what medical school do you claim to have attended where you learned so little about anatomy that you think that a woman can't get pregnant if she has an aspirin between her knees or so little about human biology that you think muscle can be turned into fat?

[Brett Bellmore]

Defining Myopenia and Myosteatosis

"Muscle tissue normally contains only small amounts of fat not intended for long-term lipid storage, but rather as a short term energy source for skeletal muscle contraction. Myosteatosis, characterised by excess deposition of fat into muscle, is considered to be a pathological phenomenon. The more fat a muscle contains, the less dense it becomes, and low density muscle is poor quality muscle. Low muscle density has been described in conditions of aging, detraining, various types of muscle atrophy, insulin resistance, Type 2 diabetes and most recently, cancer.”

“Myosteatosis”, nitwit, is colloquially referred to as “muscle turning into fat”. Or “fatty degeneration” of muscle. I’ve got it happening in a portion of my right bicep, thanks to having torn it in an accident.

[Stella Link the dog]

“Myosteatosis”, nitwit, is colloquially referred to as “muscle turning into fat”.

Muscle does not turn into fat, autie.

[Brett Bellmore]

What, you'd prefer "well marbled"?

[Stella Link the dog]

'What, you’d prefer “well marbled”?'

I would prefer that people not have the bat-shit crazy idea that muscle can be turned into fat and i would prefer that people who claim to have expertise, i.e. who claim to be medical doctors, not spread that false notion.

[Brett Bellmore]

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

Sure, muscle cells don't turn into fat cells, (Outside of a lab, of course; Epigenetic reprogramming can accomplish it.) but muscle tissue can get infiltrated with fat cells, "fatty degeneration", in which the actual muscle cells get replaced with fat cells, and... the muscle turns into fat.

[Stella Link the dog]

Brettmore says:
"Sure, muscle cells don’t turn into fat cells"
and
"muscle turns into fat."

and you call me the idiot?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, obviously I do, and you're doing a wonderful job of demonstrating why.

[Bwaaah]

I'm sure Stella has a point. I think it may be regarding his/her contempt for other commenters. But regarding relatively muscly tissue becoming relatively fatty tissue, I don't know what Stella's point is, much less is it a refutation.

Give it up, Stella. You got nothing meaningful here. That itch up your ass isn't going to go away like this.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Whole language" = "point and guess."

Psychological energy...

[Dr. Ed 2]

In fairness, I didn't know about the suicide issue with Ritalin, and the black box warning on Adderall involves misuse.

I still make a distinction between these drugs and the SSRIs.

[Frank Drackman]

So does the DEA, so do people in general, not really a problem people forging Rx's for Lexapro.

[hobie]

Sex and race have never been determinant in Ed's assessment of his fellow man.

[bernard11]

Nor have any other facts.

[Kazinski]

Yes there have been school shootings by blacks but usually they are gang related.

The Uvalde shooting was by a Hispanic.

The Nashville School shooting was by a white lesbian who thought she was male.

[not guilty]

A picture in the Daily Mail shows that the accused shooter is white. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13814347/colt-gray-pictured-georgia-school-shooting-apalachee.html?ito=pull-notification&ci=k0wYm7lTf2&xi=1882f6b3-515f-42d9-af0f-8cae9139f553&ai=13814347

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, I stand corrected.

This is interesting: "Online, his aunt vowed 'full throttle blood' as she claimed he'd been subjected to 'abuse' his entire life."

This case is going to trial, and I doubt that Georgia is going to make a deal -- hence this will come out and I think it should.

[OtisAH]

Its certainly possible a black Georgian teen is named “Colt Gray,” but not likely.

[Frank Drackman]

Auburn had a QB named "Cody" a few years BK6(Before Kick 6) but he spelled it "Kodi"

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

Marginal and cosmetic concerns.

We remain the main country where this is commonplace.

Seems bad.

[Frank Drackman]

Because we're the free-est, and you're free to leave

Frank

[not guilty]

In the appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals from the dismissal of the Mar-a-Lago documents prosecution, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, former Judge Nancy Gertner, Stephen Gillers, and James J. Sample have filed a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief advocating that the Court, if it reverses the judgment of dismissal entered in this case, should reassign the matter to another district judge on remand. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.24.0.pdf

The proposed brief is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.25.2.pdf

The motion and the brief do an excellent job of illustrating why this case is appropriate for reassignment on remand, including details of Judge Aileen Cannon's prior orders at the investigative stage which the Court of Appeals twice reversed, the batshit crazy order for proposed jury instructions which egregiously misstate the import of the Presidential Records Act, and the District Court's slow walking the case for the benefit of Donald Trump.

Judge Cannon's conduct in this case does for jurisprudence what Christian Szell (Laurence Olivier's character in Marathon Man) did for dentistry.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Is it safe?"
Your hard-on for all things TDS is duly noted.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It has somewhat amazed me the amount of rope she has been given even by people who readily agree she is acting like a corrupt hack. People who support removing her from the case repeatedly are patronized. At some point, it does come off as the proper thing to do.

[Riva]

Yeah, good point. If we pretend that Judge Cannon is not absolutely correct on the law. There is no federal statute giving the AG the power to appoint special counsel constitutional officers like Smith and the Nixon language is plainly dicta. Judge Cannon’s analysis dismantled Smith’s attempt to defend his appointment. His appellate brief just rehashes the same crap without any real response to Judge Cannon’s arguments, and ends up only highlighting how correct she was.

[David Nieporent]

Bot doesn't know law, but it can repeat talking points.

[Riva]

Thank you for the bat shit crazy perspective. Not sure I quite understand this unhealthy obsession for me. If you’re attracted to me in some weird bat shit crazy way, I’m afraid the feelings aren’t mutual.

As for Smith’s arguments, for anyone sane out there, he fails to respond to Judge Cannon’s analysis in any meaningful way. Not surprising when he really has nothing to work with given the complete absence of any statutory authority. After seeing his brief, I fully expect him to lose, notwithstanding the likely intellectual cowardice and bias of the appellate court.

[not guilty]

"As for Smith’s arguments, for anyone sane out there, he fails to respond to Judge Cannon’s analysis in any meaningful way. Not surprising when he really has nothing to work with given the complete absence of any statutory authority. After seeing his brief, I fully expect him to lose, notwithstanding the likely intellectual cowardice and bias of the appellate court."

Uh, have you actually read the Special Counsel's Eleventh Circuit brief? https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.18.0_5.pdf It is a highly effective takedown of Judge Cannon's lawless order of dismissal.

[Riva]

Not a very effective belittling insult, but lacking wit is not your fault. It’s just how you were born.

His brief is simply a childish regurgitation of the same arguments rejected by Judge Cannon. And his failure to respond to her arguments is apparent if anyone cares to read her order and his garbage brief. If anything, he makes his case look even worse. Maybe even you can understand this, which is why you keep posting this crap about his “effective takedown,” hoping someone, somewhere will actually believe your nonsense.

[not guilty]

Have you or have you not read the brief, Riva? It won't break your keyboard to give a yes or no answer to a straightforward question.

[Riva]

An insult is not a question you ass.

[not guilty]

Doofus, "Uh, have you actually read the Special Counsel’s Eleventh Circuit brief?" is definitely a question. Have you or have you not?

[Frank Drackman]

You first, have you or have you not stopped diddling puppies?

[not guilty]

Frank, if I were to write about diddling puppies, perhaps I would entertain questions about the subject.

As someone who has written hundreds of appellate briefs, I look a bit sideways at those who never have done so even once but nevertheless comment on others' work product.

[Riva]

Then you should have no problem arguing the merits of an issue without engaging in belittling insults and appeals to your own authority. When you feel like acting like an adult professional, get back to me.

[grb]

Riva : “…. arguing the merits of an issue …,”

So have you actually read the brief that you’re arguing the merits about? Your phony indignation leaves that question unanswered.

(Which is why you’re pretending to be insulted. Maybe it’s a new Turing test. Can Bot Riva mimic human strategies of deflection in a remotely convincing way?)

[Riva]

Not sure about that but you TDS deranged losers have certainly provided more than enough examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect to fill a couple of studies.

[Randal]

Dunning-Kruger! I'm starting to believe the RivaBot diagnosis.

Riva: which is greater, 9.9 or 9.11?

[Riva]

I’m somewhat flattered that all you TDS deranged losers are so intimidated by me. Let’s me know I’m hitting home. I’ll try to not let it go to my head.

[Randal]

Hm. It thinks we find bots intimidating?

[David Nieporent]

Actual lawyers, unlike bots programmed to repost ignorant right wing social media talking points issued by non-lawyers, agree that he has convincingly refuted her “analysis,” which consists of ignoring the text of statutes and Supreme Court decisions.

Did he regurgitate the same arguments she rejected? Sure. Because she was wrong, and those arguments were correct. These are issues of law, and so are decided de novo; he doesn't need to come up with new arguments, but just point out what she got wrong.

[Riva]

Actually no, little bat shit crazy groupie, an effective appellate brief would actually show how Judge Cannon’s analysis was in error. The arrogant thug clown Smith just thinks he can repeat his old arguments hoping the appellate panel will ignore the analysis in the order.

I don’t think any more comment is needed from the bat shit crazy community so I give you permission to move on and make an ass of yourself somewhere else.

[not guilty]

How many appellate briefs have you written, Riva?

Hell, how many have you read?

[David Nieporent]

Hell, how many have you read?

Not even the one we're discussing! (It does, contra bot, directly address and point out the many errors in Judge Cannon's ruling.)

[Riva]

Well I guess I stand corrected. The bat shit crazy community certainly has lot more to say.

[Sarcastr0]

One thing you have made clear is that there is no appellate brief that will convince you, so it is kinda funny for you to complain you just didn't find it convincing.

You're so overdetermined, I have no idea if you read the brief you're so disappointed by, much less the Cannon opinion you find so impressive.

[David Nieporent]

that the Court, if it reverses the judgment of dismissal entered in this case, should reassign the matter to another district judge on remand.

Popehat suggested on his podcast that Smith may well have concluded that letting the 11th Circuit get there on its own might be more effective than Smith explicitly asking for this relief.

[not guilty]

That may be Jack Smith's thinking. If so, the amici's briefing of the issue is still helpful.

Judge Cannon has made the federal judiciary look bad. I suspect that the Eleventh Circuit is none too happy about that.

[Riva]

Rejecting Judge Cannon’s clear and cogent statutory analysis would make the federal judiciary look bad. And they would look even worse relying on Nixon dicta to overrule her.

[windycityattorney]

Would it look as bad as appointing a special monitor to review classified materials seized during a valid search warrant? Was the appellate court's cogent analysis of that issue making them look bad or Judge Cannon?? Inquiring minds would like to know.

[Riva]

I appreciate the TDS afflicted primal scream provoked by the special master appointment, which while rare was not entirely unprecedented, certainly not as unprecedented as the Biden-Harris DOJ lawfare. But that’s of no relevance now. What is at issue is the legal merits of Smith’s appointment, not a special master. And Judge Cannon’s ruling effectively demonstrates that the AG lacks statutory authority to appoint special counsel officers like that thug Smith.

[not guilty]

Uh, the question of reassignment upon remand presupposes an appellate reversal of the District Court's ruling. In that context, prior reversals of the same District Court are highly relevant.

[Riva]

Merely being reversed? Uh, nope. In fact you may want to review another recent post here relating some comments of Prof. McConnell on this very issue. “On rare occasions, an appellate court will reassign a case, but this occurs only when the district judge has failed to comply with remand instructions in good faith (usually after multiple remands) or has openly expressed hostility to parties or lawyers. Judge Cannon has done nothing like this. Yes, she was reversed on the matter of the special master, but she complied with the terms of remand.”

My advice, just pretend the defendant isn’t President Trump then think about the issues, or even pretend it's your favorite democrat candidate. I bet you’ll come to some different conclusions.

[not guilty]

Professor McConnell conspicuously omitted any discussion of applicable Eleventh Circuit authorities. An ipse dixit assertion by a law professor is no more persuasive than an ipse dixit assertion by an untrained internet commenter.

[Riva]

It's not ipse dixit. It's reasoned commentary and bears far more weight than your childish insults. It appears your logical reasoning is as corrupted as your legal understanding when President Trump is involved.

[Sarcastr0]

Denying something is ipse dixit via ipse dixit.

Meta!

[Riva]

I note it is reasoned commentary. The Prof notes that Judge Cannon is not accused of failing to comply with remand instructions or showing hostility to parties or lawyers. Nothing that normally calls for reassignment. If you disagree then feel free to explain yourself, or at least go to your little AI tool and try to find a response. Something other than simply parroting “ipse dixit” as you seem to like to do.

[Kazinski]

I doubt they will do that for one reason, her opinion striking Smith as a legitimately appointed special counsel echoes the concern of at least one Supreme Court justice. It will be a close question as to whether the court will grant cert if they reverse Cannon, better not provoke any leaners by what would probably be seen as a swipe at Thomas.

Roberts in particular might be inclined to let a reversal be, but could change his mind if he thought the 11th was being disrespectful.

But like I said, it doesn't matter anymore. If Trump loses in 2 months, then who cares if he loses a few more rulings after that

If he wins the election its clear sailing after that, the lawfare is over, including Bragg and Willis's extravaganzas.

[Josh R]

I see Maduro has announced Christmas will be on October 1 this year. That’s Bananas!

[Riva]

At least he wasn't stupid enough to promise to buy homes for illegal aliens.

[Josh R]

An update on my bet with Commenter_XY. He said Harris will fall in the polls before the debate and I said she will not.

One week ago, Harris lead nationally by 3.3%-points and on average 1.4%-points in the swing states of AZ/GA/MI/NV/NC/PA/WI according to Nate Silver’s polling averages.

For me to win the bet, one week from now, Harris must lead by at least 2.5%-points and 0.5%-points respectively. She currently leads by 3.4%-points and 1.0%-points respectively.

[Ilya Snowman]

Was it a feature of the bet that the polls be real/accurate, or is that irrelevant?

[santamonica811]

One presumes that the polls will be either (the same one or ones that formed the baseline for the bet, or will be an average of the polls). Again, I presume that the bet will be: "She will go down in the [same!!!] polls by X date."
'Oh, no she won't.'

Pretty easy to measure. And using one set of polls for the starting point and a different set of polls for the end would be an obviously bullshit move. I also presume that both parties acted in good faith in this regard, when formulating the wager.

[Josh R]

We agreed to use Silver's published polling averages which include whatever polls happen to come out. They may come from the same sources or different sources. We would have too few polls if we required the same sources.

It's not bullshit to use different sources because the same source doesn't ask the same people, so you shouldn't treat the results as paired comaprisons. Moreover, Silver adjusts for poller bias such as Traflagar favoring the GOP and Morning Consult favoring the Democrats.

Silver weights more recent polls more than older polls. As such, Harris might drop by 0.5%-points in the raw numbers (I win) but 1.0%-points in the weighted (and published) numbers (I lose).

Also, as Harris is dropping in the swing state polls while maintaining her lead nationally, the probability she wins the popular vote while losing the election has gone up from 10% to 20%.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Watching the news, I see landslide coverage for Harris.

Checking the news content, I do not see much post-Biden-bump further progress by the Ds.

More progress toward a landslide, please.

An election result too equivocal to overwhelm MAGA hopes remains likely to turn into a goad to Constitutional crisis, and deliver a brute-force contest to seize sovereign power.

Make it a point to remember, the power to count votes is a sovereign prerogative, not a political one.

[Frank Drackman]

Nate Silver just said "45" has a 57% chance to become "47", of course he said that about President Hillary Rodman also. So how come I call the 2016 Erection almost dead on (only missed on New Hampshire and that district in Maine(didn't know about it, would have picked "45" to win it) he totally misses it, but he gets the Gig with ABC? He's the Jimmy the Greek of Political Bookies (the one thing Jimmy got right got him "Cancelled")

Frank

[Josh R]

1) The reason Trump has become the slight favorite is Silver’s model expects a convention bounce for Harris which did not happen. His model also expects a regression from the bounce by next week. If the doesn’t happen (i.e., the polls stay the same from the DNC to next week), Harris will once again be the slight favorite.

2) How did you do in 2008, 2012 and 2020 (Silver covered those elections as well). What’s your call for 2024?

3) Silver gave Trump a 29% chance of winning in 2016, higher than any other poll aggregator. Those who gave Clinton a 90%+ chance to win all incorrectly assumed a polling error in PA would not effect the chance of a polling error in MI or WI. Silver said it would and he was right.

4) Pretty much all of the polls-based predictors are decent at this point and align with the betting markets. Silver likely no longer has a market advantage. There are some models that rely enitrely or mostly on so-called fundamentals and ignore polls. They are likely inferior.

[Kazinski]

Whichever way you slice it, its a tight race:
RCP Poll Average Harris +1.8
Top Battlegrounds Harris +0.2
RCP Betting Odds Trump 50.5 Harris 48.2

[Moderation4ever]

Is a landslide really possible in a country as divided as this country? I doubt it. What is reassuring is that Harris has multiple routes to victory and Trump only one. That puts pressure on Trump to compete in areas he thought safe. I think Harris could have a decisive victory but not a landslide.

[Frank Drackman]

In retrospect, Cums-a-lot’s choice of a chucklehead from Minn-a-Sod-a instead of someone from a true “Battleground” State” will be recognized for the bonehead decision it was (I get that the PA Governor is an annoying Jew(as am I, and I didn’t get picked either) but Mark Kelly? a real War Hero, Astro-nut, and did you know his wife got shot in the head? and would probably help a little in Arizona, I mean they elected him.
But I hope Cums-a-lot and Sergeant Pepper-Waltz keep coming back to Georgia, they’re so annoying even Atlanta Mayor Dickens (a decent Mayor, yes, I said that, kicked all the Homeless out of Hartsfield-Zimbabwe, that the previous 10 Mayors said you couldn't do anything about) looks for excuses not to show up when they fly in

Frank

[Josh R]

If Harris loses, but would have won had she carried PA, not picking Shapiro will have been a colossal error.

If Trump loses, agreeing to debate Biden in June will have been the biggest error in Amercian presidential political history.

[santamonica811]

Can't argue with either of these. (I will note that there are a ton of political wonks who disliked the Walz selection a lot, but have fessed up and admitted that he's done really really well so far. I was definitely in the "of course you pick the popular guy from Penn" camp, but Walz is folksy, cogent, articulate, and he served my country for a fuckin' quarter of a century.)

Vance was, at best, a "Doesn't help me a bit with my base" selection, and at worst, a "We just lost 5% of women and persuadable voters" selection. If he is an example of Trump improving over his horrific picks for his administration, then Trump has learned less than nothing in the past 8+ years.

[David Nieporent]

If he is an example of Trump improving over his horrific picks for his administration, then Trump has learned less than nothing in the past 8+ years.

Completely untrue. When Trump loses and then runs again in 2028, I'll bet Vance won't denounce him as unfit for office, the way Mike Pence just did. Trump has learned not to pick people with any sort of principles at all.

[Krayt]

It’s ironic there might have been a landslide with a normal Republican as high inflation tends to crush the incumbent. But you’ve nominated such a lout, it looks like he’s gonna snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

But I thought the same in 2016.

[Martinned2]

Here is your twice weekly reminder that US inflation is not high: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/

(It's just higher than it was between the global financial crisis and Covid, when we all spent a decade trying to get inflation up.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Why would anyone want to get inflation up?

[Kazinski]

A 2% inflation rate allowed governments the ability to deflate their debt.

If you float a Trillion in 10 year bonds, then in 10 years you are paying back 780 billion in principle in constant dollars.

At 2% the interest rates don't spike to make the cost of borrowing higher.

[bernard11]

Nominal interest rates reflect expected inflation. IOW, a 5% nominal rate might indicate a 2% real rate and 3% expected inflation.

I doubt the buyers of your $10T in bonds, don't take expected inflation into account.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't understand how they did it, but in the '90s, Japanese Banks had NEGATIVE interest rates. At that point, I'd pull it out and put it under the mattress, or maybe in a safe deposit box -- and don't understand why the Japanese didn't...

[Kazinski]

They wanted to penalize holding on to cash rather than investing it.

You can put 20k under your mattress but not 20m.

[Martinned2]

What's so special about negative interest rates? It's just a low interest rate that's even lower than a zero interest rate.

[Kazinski]

Yet we did have had negative real interest rates for months at a time in the very recent past, and from 2009-2023 they averaged below 1%.

[santamonica811]

I'm also remembering seeing negative interest rates advertised, and pointing them out to my friends, asking, "What individual would be dumb enough to do this?"

[Martinned2]

Someone who understands that walking around with lots of cash has its own costs?

[bernard11]

We've had negative real rates at various times. All it takes is enough inflation.

Remember, the nominal rate - the stated rate - is just the sum of the real rate plus expected inflation. So the real rate is the nominal rate minus expected inflation. That can, and sometimes does, go negative.

[shawn_dude]

And, there was risk of deflation, which has a far worse impact on the economy than moderate inflation. (Think devaluation of assets like housing and stocks, drops in salaries for workers, contraction in some manufactory or service markets, etc.) Examples include post WWI (and influenza pandemic) and the Great Depression.

Years ago, financial analysts would often use 3% as the average expected inflation rate for a strong economy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't understand why FDR made it illegal to own gold -- in deflation, fiat currency would increase in value on its own.

[Martinned2]

Deflation is bad. I hope we don't have to rehearse again why that is. 0.5% inflation means that a large share if products and services are experiencing deflation. At 2% inflation, you'd expect far fewer things to be in deflationary territory.

[Krayt]

This is a desperation claim. People look at prices, their jaws drop. Claim it has stopped, when the same people deliberately caused it for brownie points of lavishing cash everywhere, say, “Don’t look at me!”

This is a horrible thing. Luck for you, Trump is engaged in a showstopper policy, favoring letting Putin run tanks through Europe.

Small benefits, though, that your whole argument is at least we aren’t that bad.

Anyway, active revelations of Russia and RT paying influencers to help back off Ukraine are much more interesting.

[BrotherMovesOn]

“Trump is engaged in a showstopper policy, favoring letting Putin run tanks through Europe.”

Krayt, please keep this your focus for now.
After the election one can revisit your other theses.
Thanks!

[Ilya Snowman]

You are in no position to talk about the power to count votes. What your colour team has done to undermine American election integrity, both domestically and in the eyes of the world, is unforgiveable.

Perhaps you need the UN or NATO staff to come oversee your elections since YOUR lot cannot be trusted.

Ballot harvesting. Lowered ID requirements. Last-minute judicial decisions about counting votes. Etc.

You are NO different from Maduro. You are a barbarian, Lathrop.

[hobie]

Trump: 'Leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen'

[Sarcastr0]

Seems when Russia wants to mess with US elections, they have a one-stop shop: augment right wing and post-left commenters.

And said commentators don't really do a lot of due diligence as to who is paying them.

No, this will cause no soul searching.

Also, Tucker is doing Holocaust deniers now.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe don't have a VP Candidate who has a Dacha in Chy-Na!!!!
You're in the Anger stage of Mourning (HT Kubler-Ross), let me know when you get to Depression, and I'll give you Dr. Frankie's secret Anti-Depressant Recipe.

Frank

[Michael P]

In related news, yet another senior aide to Democrats knew exactly who was not only funding them but giving them direction: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/09/03/bombshell-indictment-top-new-york-democrat-aide-to-andrew-cuomo-kathy-hochul-worked-as-agent-of-influence-for-china-communist-party/

[Sarcastr0]

Deflect harder. Breitbart finding some local small fry isn't really going to be sufficient for this one.

[Moderation4ever]

Agreed. We should not forget Yujing Zhang, the Chinese Businesswoman and spy caught wandering around Mar a Lago. Foreign agents are out there and spread around.

[Dr. Ed 2]

SHE GOT CAUGHT, didn't she? Rather quickly if I remember correctly -- although I am not certain she was officially declared a "spy" or just a person who wasn't where she was supposed to be, and wandering around where she ought not be.

Mar a Lago's security WORKED.

[Michael P]

We should also not forget Fang Fang and Eric Swalwell, or Dianne Feinstein's unnamed driver and gofer. But California Congresscritters are probably just more local small fry.

[Kazinski]

Yes, a member of the Senate Intelligence committee is by definition small fry.

[Michael P]

Two NY governors are "local small fry" in Gaslight0's book, unlike ... a US company "has posted nearly 2,000 videos that have garnered more than 16 million views on YouTube" in a year. Why, that's three whole times as many views as the year-old "The Problem Player At Every D&D Table"! Please, won't anyone think of all the dangerous videos getting 8000 views apiece that might have been influenced by an indirect funding campaign?

[Sarcastr0]

No, an aide no one has heard of.

And deflection remains your main move. Because you have not much else on this.

[Michael P]

Oh, as opposed to this two-bit company that no one has ever heard of.

Your inconsistency would be hilarious if it wasn't so tediously overplayed.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Your desperation is palpable.

[David Nieporent]

Deflect harder. Breitbart finding some local small fry isn’t really going to be sufficient for this one.

Not to mention that it's the Biden DOJ, not Republicans, who took action here.

[Kazinski]

Well I am glad someone is doing there job, doesn't seem like much of that in this administration, unless of course someone is praying near an abortion clinic.

[shawn_dude]

Younger folks on here might be forgiven for thinking the federal government normally does things loudly and aggressively as it goes about its normal business. However, for the last half-century or so this hasn't been the case until the Tea Party movement (now MAGA) starting winning elections. Normally, government does its job and avoids doing crazy things and the country gets to focus on more pressing issues.

[Kazinski]

yeah, normal things like bugging Dr. King, and Cointelpro.

Its the same as it ever was, only the targets change.

How did "Deep Throat" (FBI deputy director Mark Felt) know where all the bodies were buried to feed it to Woodward and Bernstein?

It wasn't like they were actually making their own headlines in their investigation.

[Ilya Snowman]

Biden money from Ukraine and China.

Clinton Foundation money from Russia.

Do you know HOW the dark money gets to American blue teamer PACs from out of the country? In part, I do.

[Bwaaah]

Eight years of same old same-old and you turn once again to the Russian propaganda angle, only hours after Democratic leaders decided they'll be floating that paradigm once again. Still, Kamala Harris persists as a more noble character than Jesus Christ himself.

Good thing the Russian propaganda machine isn't nearly as capable as the Democratic propaganda machine, or Kamala might look like she's playing second fiddle to a messiah.

Propagandists depend on the existence of people who are manipulable tools. It's a good thing you are immune to that kind of manipulation, Sarc, being the original thinker and thought leader that you are.

Thanks for the propaganda alert. It's especially meaningful coming from you.

[Sarcastr0]

There is a DoJ indictment. Following a long investigation.

Don’t pretend this is some hastily assembled Dem talking point.

You propagandize yourself.

[Michael P]

"Don't propagandize yourself", says the Chinese propagandist.

Remember who owns the Dem candidate for VP.

[Sarcastr0]

Chinese propagandist
What are you talking about?

[Bwaaah]

You didn't get the memo?

[Sarcastr0]

Michael called me a Chinese propagandist. I'd be interested in what he means; I was talking about a DoJ indictment of Russians.

[Joe_dallas]

He got the memo - Thats why he is denying the VP candidate's history.

30 or so visits to China, wedding on T square anniversary.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a new stupid line of attack to me, but visiting China a bunch doesn't make you a Chinese agent.

[Joe_dallas]

Who said it made Walz a chinese agent?

[bernard11]

Michael P.

Of course he's incredibly stupid, so don't take it seriously.

[Michael P]

Visiting China 30 times alone isn't what made Walz a tool of the CCP. His horrible ideology was a very large part of it.

Of course, Gaslight0 agrees with that ideology, so he argues against a straw man instead of the actual argument.

[Sarcastr0]

Michael, you're making no sense.

Are you saying being liberal makes you a Chinese agent?

Because that'd be remarkably dumb, even for you.

[Michael P]

We went over this just yesterday. You (along with Malika) were so busy stanning the CCP that you forgot how to read simple English.

[Sarcastr0]

You link to the bare thread. I see using the root propagand-.

Are you trying to redbait, but so badly no one can tell?

[Ilya Snowman]

'You propagandize yourself'.

How does this sentence reflect on you? Do you have even the slightest idea?

[Kazinski]

Well, I do remember a DOJ indictment against a slew of Russian companies for election interference in the Mueller investigation. One of the companies showed up in court to defend themselves, and the DOJ tripped over themselves dropping the charges.

I don't doubt there are Russians, Chinese, Ukrainians, EU Bureaucrats trying to meddle in and influence our elections, same as we do to them.

Its ridiculous to give it this much time and energy, its business as usual.

[Bwaaah]

Which people get to play in our free speech sandbox? Says who under what law?

Per your point, I presume every interested party is playing in it.

The only underlying principle I can see to the "Russian interference" lament is that all opposition to the Democratic Party is evil and, if practicable, should be silenced. That includes people like me, Trump supporters, Republicans, and their sympathizers. So, for example, they go after Musk in order to go after X in order to go after opposing voices (a.k.a. "disinformation"). They pretend Republicans are proxies for "the Russians," when in fact, "the Russians" are proxies for all the opposition opinions Democrats would like to see go away.

[Bwaaah]

And, just to be clear: I don’t presume to know what positions or parties “the Russians” (???) do or don’t support. In the absence of evidence to indicate otherwise, I presume that they, like all other theoretical interest groups, are not advocating my interests. It takes significant study time to find/believe otherwise, and absent continued study, even such findings/beliefs have a rather swiftly decaying half-life.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"I don’t doubt there are Russians, Chinese, Ukrainians, EU Bureaucrats trying to meddle in and influence our elections, same as we do to them."

I highly doubt that "we" are trying to "meddle" in "elections" in Russia or China. LOL

[Martinned2]

The Russian propaganda machine was good enough to get Trump elected the first time, so I'm not writing it off.

[Ilya Snowman]

It wasn't propaganda. Clinton clearly broke the law (then did so again by magnetising the computer files).

Does it excite you, sexually, to lie so blatantly?

[Bwaaah]

“The Russian propaganda machine was good enough to get Trump elected the first time, so I’m not writing it off.”

Sounds to me like yours is a case of election denialism. There’s been a lot of that going around.

[Martinned2]

Not at all, Trump definitely won the 2016 election.

[hobie]

It takes a certain breed of sucker to believe unquestioningly pastors, talk radio gold hucksters, Q, Donald Trump, chloroquine quacks and Chinese bots. Yet...here they are. Whatever makes the least sense amirite?

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh my, videos getting produced! Such interference.

Worst thing since the Russkies stole Clinton's Wisconsin map!

[Sarcastr0]

Russia is by all accounts good at fucking with elections, I guess you should take their choices up with them if you think they're a bad investment.

[Bob from Ohio]

"by all accounts "

LOL

Russia is not good at anything.

[Bwaaah]

"Russia is not good at anything."

LOL.

That's a bit of overstatement, but at least most Russians know how true that is. Gaslight0 knows otherwise, from "all accounts."

[John F. Carr]

An article in the SF Chronicle has gotten online attention.

"Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla — and they might tow it"
https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/tesla-sentry-mode-police-evidence-19731000.php

Teslas have a lot of cameras. If your Tesla was near a crime, say a car possibly driving 71 in a 70 zone in states where speeding is a crime, cops can get a warrant to tow it away and mine its storage for evidence. Usually they won't bother unless the crime is serious or they are out to get you. Still, there are some things it is better not to know. Erasing evidence is a crime. Not collecting evidence is not a crime.

In some jurisdictions police can also trash your car if you have a bad attitude about having it taken away. There is an exception in tort claims acts for "detention of goods" which has been construed to apply to unnecessary damage to a seized car. The article does not report any such incidents.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean they won't put it back together for you like they did in the "French Connection"?

[Frank Drackman]

Fucking great movie, amazing they made such a big deal out of such a small amount of Heroin (OK, 120lbs is a pretty big Score (HT IMDB) but the equivalent quantity of Fentanyl is 1.2lbs, you could put alot of that in a Lincoln Continental. Still think the opening scene at LAX in Easy Rider is better

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

In case you never saw it or want to see it again, chase scene from "The French Connection":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mgIDVwdD-M

[Dr. Ed 2]

Heroin was actually illegal back then -- users went to prison.

The problem today is that users don't anymore.

[Bwaaah]

It's the expansive Democratic view of "civil rights": a right to a shitty drug habit, a right to an early shitty death, and a right to make life shitty for all the people around you. Civil rights, taken to the point of shittiness...that's "justice" in Democratic policy.

[hobie]

That would result in the arrests of half of white Appalachia! Good idea, Ed!

[Frank Drackman]

Can you be like Hemingway?, write some amazing novels and short stories then blow your head off? How do you think your electric Dildo gets to your home, The Dildo Fairy? Probably 1/2 the Long Haul Truckers are from “Appalachia” (Could you even find “Appalachia” on a map? you’re insulting more people than you realize, maybe one day to your regret*)You’ve probably got “Adam&Steve.Com” on Speed-Dial

*It won’t be me, but sometimes peoples insult peoples that don’t take insults lightly, it's that whole Scotch-Irish ancestry thang

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

And the other half of Appalachia would probably support it, Hoble.

My sense is that Appalachia was better off 50 years ago -- when people using heroin went to prison. People even in a building where heroin was used or even stored went to prison as well.

Prison works...

[David Nieporent]

People even in a building where heroin was used or even stored went to prison as well.

He doesn't make things up, folks.

Prison works…

Did I mention he doesn't make things up?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Repealed 2018....

MA Gen L ch 94C § 35 (2016)
Section 35. Any person who is knowingly present at a place where heroin is kept or deposited in violation of the provisions of this chapter, or any person who is in the company of a person, knowing that said person is in possession of heroin in violation of the provisions of this chapter, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or both; provided, however, that the provisions of the third paragraph of section thirty-four relative to probation sealing of the records and repeated violations shall apply to him.

[Magister]

I am going to guess that "knowingly" and "knowing that" are crucial elements of this crime.

[John F. Carr]

The Second Circuit ruled against the Internet Archive in a lawsuit over scanned copies of books.

This appeal presents the following question: is it “fair use” for a nonprofit organization to scan copyright-protected print books in their entirety and distribute those digital copies online, in full, for free, subject to a one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio between its print copies and the digital copies it makes available at any given time, all without authorization from the copyright-holding publishers or authors? Applying the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act as well as binding Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, we conclude the answer is no.

https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/49adb825-9eae-4427-a64d-36b64a2a0578/1/doc/23-1260_opn.pdf

This lawsuit started during the COVID lockdowns when the Internet Archive greatly increased its ebook lending. But the essence of the case is, the Internet Archive markets itself as a free alternative to buying ebook licenses from publishers.

This was a test case involving 127 copyrights. There was a confidential financial settlement. The appeal is from a permanent injunction.

There is a separate case involving digitized music.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think -- in a time of national emergency, the court was wrong.

Say you have 5 licenses for software and you load it onto five laptops which you loan out.

When the laptop comes back, you incinerate it and load the license onto a new laptop. That would be legal.

[Michael P]

Even if that were clearly true (its truth depends on the details of the software license), people do not get a license to distribute digital copies of a book just because they bought a physical copy of the book. It’s a little surprising that the Internet Archive thought they actually had a colorable defense here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In a "National Emergency" where all kinds of civil rights were being violated with impunity?

As long as the first copy was no longer usable before they distributed the second -- IN A NATIONAL EMERGENCY -- I think this should be as legal as bans against crossing state lines.

[Michael P]

You think a lot of counterfactually weird things. That doesn't change the legal realities. Licenses don't suddenly appear or change during A NATIONAL EMERGENCY absent action by licensors and licensees.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm thinking governmental fiat.

If the government can prohibit a basic civil right -- interstate travel -- than it can prohibit enforcement of governmental created copyright rights.

[John F. Carr]

Once upon a time a store offered a generous return policy on software. This was way back when software came on tangible media inside a box. There was a small restocking fee for returns in saleable condition. The average customer did return the software, effectively having paid a few dollars to use it for a while. A judge said the store could be considered to be renting software instead of selling it. That would be a copyright violation. The store had bought a copy it could resell.

Search on "death of the first sale doctrine" for a more modern look at the question, how can the copyright holder restrict redistribution?

[John F. Carr]

The national emergency turned out not to matter to the case. The lockdown era policy of loaning out lots of digital copies got the attention of copyright holders. The injunction applies to the pre- and post-COVID policy too.

[David Nieporent]

I think — in a time of national emergency, the court was wrong.

Say you have 5 licenses for software and you load it onto five laptops which you loan out.

When the laptop comes back, you incinerate it and load the license onto a new laptop. That would be legal.

Dr. Ed, janitor-at-law, speaks.

1) The Internet Archive's actions started before the pandemic; those actions just became more extreme during the pandemic.
2) There is no "national emergency" exception to copyright. (Note that nobody was checking out books on virology in order to deal with the pandemic; these were ordinary books that people could have ordered from Amazon or checked out virtually from their local libraries.)
3) Your hypothetical has literally nothing to do with the facts of this case. Even if the Internet archive had licenses, which it did not, during the pandemic it was loading each software instance (or in this case, book) on 10,000 laptops (that's not a made up, high-sounding number; that's what their policy was).

[Michael P]

Harris is losing her lead in Minnesota -- maybe because she picked a bad running mate that the state is familiar with?
https://www.newsweek.com/minnesota-polling-kamala-harris-donald-trump-1947027

In related news, Donald Trump seems to also be making headway among ... the Walz family:
https://www.newsweek.com/tim-walz-family-support-donald-trump-2024-election-1948797

[Dr. Ed 2]

A lot of military people are not happy with Waltz.

[Moderation4ever]

A lot of military people are not happy with Trump.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like Vindman and McCain?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look, Trump didn’t visit that cemetery because of weather and the (military) pilots advice against flying helos in it. I tend to defer to pilots on calls like that…

People who don’t like Trump are saying they were there and that is what happened.

NO ONE has any memory of him saying the things he is accused of, and later that trip, he visited a different cemetery in the pouring rain — the difference being that it was a lot closer to where AF-1 was parked and some USSS rule about travel time to AF-1, he could go by car instead of helo.

[Magister]

Reportedly because the weather would make his hair look bad. General Kelly eventually confirmed Trump's disparagement of soldiers. Trump also mocked John McCain for being a POW.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, it was because if they took cars, they would be too far -- time wise -- from AF-1. I believe the protocol is to put POTUS in AF-1 and get it wheels up in any emergency.

ANY POTUS -- including Brandon...

[Magister]

It was reported that Trump's concern was his hair, hence reportedly. That his people would manufacture other excuses for what Trump wanted to do is well known, just as some of them insisted he never said that even though they were not with him every moment of that trip. But General Kelly confirmed the reporting, eventually; not the only one to stop defending Trump at any cost.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Magister, I appreciate your efforts, but you just typed 67 words in a reasonable response to Dr. Ed.

I pray you get those 200 seconds back. It's like talking to a dog.

[Magister]

I’ve spent way longer talking to dogs, and with better results. I appreciate the concern, but mocking Dr. Ed 2 is entertaining in its own way.

[Michael P]

Lots of stupid people report stupid things based on pulling claims out of their asses. That doesn’t mean any of it is true; it’s merely why they are known as the lying lefty loonie media.

[Magister]

"Doesn't mean any of it is true" does not imply "lying". The other two instances of Trump's disparagement of troops are well documented. I am not unhappy to believe that Trump was not motivated in this instance by concern over his hair, or that his disparagement was necessary for not going to that cemetery; gratuitous disparagement is all the more revealing of what Trump is.

[bernard11]

No problem. I myself prefer tango.

[Josh R]

Stop looking at only one poll. Per Nate Silver, Harris' lead in MN remains about the same (go down to "Who's ahead in the polls" and click on "MN").

[David Nieporent]

In even more related news, Michael P is gullible. That is not "the Walz family." That is a handful of second and third cousins.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does Tampon Timmy's brother count?

[Michael P]

Maybe DMN's brother is also his second cousin, so he thinks that is generally true?

[David Nieporent]

Is he in that picture?

And did you happen to notice how he tricked the GOP, claiming that he could tell stories about Walz's unfitness, only to reveal that he meant that Walz got carsick as a child?

[Michael P]

"I'm 100% opposed to all his ideology" is not "got carsick". Neither is "Not the type of character you want making decisions about your future". Is there anything you will not blatantly lie about?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/04/politics/jeff-walz-criticism-brother-policies/index.html

[David Nieporent]

Hey, stupid. Try reading the story and not just the headline. That was exactly my point. He tricked people like you by saying, "The stories I could tell. Not the type of character you want making decisions about your future," and then revealing that the only such "stories" he had were about Walz getting carsick as a kid.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's a pretty funny thing for somebody to describe as "ideology", and why does he keep reiterating that he disagrees with his brother's "policies"? I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean his policy of throwing up on you...

This is what it looks like when somebody has second thoughts about getting into the thick of politics, and starts backtracking. Probably a smart move personally.

[Michael P]

Hey liar, try reading more than one thing that Jeff Walz wrote.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's liawyer to you.

[Michael P]

A question for the legal ethics crowd here. Does it suggest perjury if a prosecutor tells a court she stopped her relationship with a lawyer she hired, and considerably later drives up to her daughter's arrest in the same car as that lawyer? Would the bar association care? Asking for a not-friend.

https://nypost.com/2024/09/04/us-news/embattled-georgia-da-fani-willis-showed-up-to-site-of-daughters-arrest-with-prosecutor-lover-long-after-pair-claimed-affair-ended/

[John F. Carr]

I remember my neighbor's ex-husband came to help her move. Sometimes breakups are amicable.

[Michael P]

Sure, and sometimes people lie about breaking up. Tyrone, GA is just outside of the (fairly large) Fulton County. For example, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) is in the southern part of the county and is still 20+ minutes away from Tyrone, according to Google Maps. What was the supposed timeline for Nathan Wade to join up with Fani Willis before they arrived together at the site of the arrest? Wade didn't provide obvious assistance analogous to helping someone move, so why was he there? The arrest was on a Saturday -- were Wade and Willis together working on some other case?

[Frank Drackman]

Hartsfield-Zimbabwe (you literally walk through a fake Jungle on the way to and from the main terminal) is mostly in Clayton County, the Shithole of all Shitholes, at least with Fulton County you have the Northern part, which is safer (i.e. Whiter) but Clayton? don't let the sun set on you there, Honkie.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Doesn't legal ethics include "or appearance thereof"?

[hobie]

So you don't like prosecutors/judges/justices that have the appearance of impropriety?

[David Nieporent]

No. What does that even mean?

[Martinned2]

Did the prosecutor make that statement under oath? (Or otherwise on penalty of perjury)

[not guilty]

I surmise that Michael P is referring to Fani Willis's sworn testimony at the hearing on the disqualification motion.

But no, the New York Post article does not suggest perjury.

[Michael P]

Nathan Wade showing up quickly, in the same car as Willis, on a Saturday, suggests the relationship is not as over as he testified it to be.

I have not read a complete transcript of Willis's testimony on the matter, but the quotes I have seen indicate that she intended to give the impression that the relationship ended. Her written filings with the court stated that it had ended.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued an opinion in a case asking when you can sue for defamatory content posted on social media. Is it three years after the content was posted or three years after you first see the defamatory post? The answer: It's complicated.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/davalos-v-bay-watch-inc-13534/download

The plaintiffs were models whose images were misappropriated to advertise an "adult entertainment nightclub". I gather strip clubs would post images of random models on their Facebook pages because the real dancers were not as hot. The plaintiffs' lawyers had a paralegal looking for such misappropriation but she did not find it until the images had been online for more than three years.

The SJC did not have enough evidence to decide whether plaintiffs waited to long. Quite likely that will be a question for the jury, reasonable care and all that. Who is the jury going to side with, a professional model or a strip club?

[not guilty]

It looks like whether the plaintiffs exercised reasonable diligence to discover the unauthorized use of their images will be a question for the jury to determine. Perhaps the trial judge can submit a special interrogatory on that point to the jury.

Footnote 4 of the opinion suggests that these women may be professional plaintiffs.

[John F. Carr]

Quoting the trial court:

In light of plaintiffs’ proclivity for litigating over the specific images in dispute and their ability to conduct simple searches, plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden of proving their lack of knowledge was objectively reasonable.

Docket entry 84 at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60022325/davalos-v-baywatch-inc/

I have been told that stock image companies diligently sue even over what seem to be minor infringement in order to maintain the value of their products. First the defendant gets an offer to settle for what seems to be an excessive royalty payment, but is much less than the attorney's fees owed if they say "so sue me". "I'm judgment proof" would be a better response.

The models in the Massachusetts case have not alleged copyright claims. I don't know if they own the copyrights.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It was recently reported that upwards pf $550B, yes BILLION, is lost to government fraud per year, yes PER YEAR.

Isn't morally evil and vile for Democrats and National Republicans (BIRT) to demand oppressive and suffocating taxes to pay for their excessive America Last spending instead of first trying to reclaim money lost to fraud?

What kind of sick monster would demand everyone else suffer more in their behalf when they are leaking $500B+ per year? Not to mention their standard waste and inefficiencies?

Washington DC and all it's residents, enablers, and bootlickers is the greatest threat to human flourishing and freedom humanity as ever faced. Greater than previous Democrat tyrannies like the Bolshevik Reign of Terror or Maos Democrat Revolution.

[Swede425]

I want Harris to campaign in Louisiana.
Can't wait to hear what her Cajun accent sounds like!

[Frank Drackman]

I’d like to see Sergeant Major-Pepper Waltz try to sell his Tampons in Boy’s Restrooms policy there (Condom’s they’d be OK with) Louisiana’s the state even Southerners stay away from (it’s just a weird place, “Parish’s” instead of Counties, they’re the state that had the portable Electric Chair, and David Duke came within a few % of being Governor (running as a Repubiclown after twice running for POTUS as a DemoKKKrat)
and it’s where Billy and Wyatt met their end in Easy Rider

Frank “Why do LSU fans smell like Corndogs?”

[Dr. Ed 2]

Duke ran as a Republican in 1992, he was on the Massachusetts primary ballot as such.

[Swede425]

Kamala Kamala Kamala Kamala Kamala Chameleon!
She can wear her camo hat and tell them about her plan to Build That Wall!
You know, once she's in charge of the border.

[Moderation4ever]

Weak. This is all you have? No wonder she is doing so well.

[Frank Drackman]

So was President Hillary Rodman.
In the D-bate I hope that smug Bee-Otch Cums-a-lot tries the “Small Hands means Small Dick” insult and “45” whips out a 14″ Black Dildo. (Bunch of Mouthpieces here, is it considered “Exposure” if you expose a Fake Organ? is it like robbing somebody with a Fake Gun?)
In Med School I put some chocolate from a Donut on my exam glove, and pretended I’d just done a Rectal Exam. I asked one of the female students, who was sort of a Stuck Up Bee-Otch (i.e. she didn’t like me)
“Does this look Heme Positive to You” She just ignored me until I stuck the finger in my mouth, and said, “Yum, no blood!” She got a disgusted expression and walked off, some people don't have a sense of humor
I think till this day she thinks I ate shit

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Movie "Caddies" -- someone put a brown candy bar in the pool...

[Frank Drackman]

Its fucking Caddyshack you incredible Ninc-in-poop (anyone who gets THAT movie reference....you're even sicker than me)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Doing well?

lol

[Swede425]

Yeah! She's doing great!
As evidenced by all the interviews she's doing and the tough questions she's been answering regarding her policies that she's shared with everybody.
Plus that primary victory! Holy Hell, look out Don!

[Moderation4ever]

If she wasn’t winning she would not be attacked like this. Fact is she is doing well on issues means attacks are personal. Note that economist and business people, unhappy with both candidates, think Harris’s economic poly is better.

[Swede425]

Attacks equals winning.
Laughs in Donald Trump.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Support Slavery -- Vote Harris

[Sarcastr0]

Is it white slavery? As liberal, I’m only allowed to support white slavery or they take away my Soros Bucks account.

[Armchair]

Nah, slavery for those plebs who can't afford to buy their way out of a sentence with political connections, but are still non-violent enough that they can easily be sent to work in the fields at sub minimum wages.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That too, but I'm talking her Jamaican roots.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why do her "Jamaican roots" mean that voting for her is supporting slavery?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Were you expecting a reasonable and well thought out answer from the author to your question?

[Martinned2]

Yes, the US should definitely stop exploiting prison labour: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/at-least-seven-states-have-prison-inmates-working-in-governors-mansions-and-capitol-buildings/

[Sarcastr0]

Some on here believe that the author of a Supreme Court opinion has special insight into what that opinion means.
That the writer of a cited opinion has an especially persuasive or even dispositive take when the opinion is cited in a later case.

This is not true.
1. Opinions are not truly written by one Justice – they are circulated with edits, and the result of a consensus among the majority.
You don’t make the edits, you lose your majority. Speculation is Alito has had issues there.

2. Any majority opinion is that of the Court as an institution, not of one Justice.

[Armchair]

1) Yes, I believe that an author of an opinion has a special insight into what that opinion means. Because they wrote the opinion, and know what they wrote. Even with later edits.

As opposed to a random internet commenter who has no knowledge of the writing process.

[Sarcastr0]

As I noted they did not write the opinion by themselves.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Accuse him of blood libel again. That will win the argument.

[David Nieporent]

No, that's completely wrong, not just for the reason Sarcastr0 identified — that one justice doesn't actually write an opinion on his/her own, but collaborates on it — but because it completely misapprehends the notion of interpretation. The author of an opinion would of course have special insight into what he was thinking when he wrote it, but that is not what the opinion "means." The opinion "means" what readers understand it to mean. This is the difference between original intention originalism — long abandoned as a notion by originalists — and original understanding originalism.

[Martinned2]

That's a better way of explaining what I was getting at in my comment immediately below, about the author of the opinion trying to change its meaning afterwards. The opinion means what it says, you can't rely on statements from the author to argue it means something else.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What does original understanding originalism do when there were demonstrably different original understandings at work in various locations, or among various ratifiers, or when the public disagreed diversely with all of the above? The only answer which makes any sense is one you will never hear from any would-be originalist lawyer—ask a historian.

Note that I am not suggesting a historian will clear up any of the present confusions. That is something you can expect a good historian to resist even trying to do, for reasons so deeply intertwined with constraints imposed by historical method that the reasons themselves become the most persuasive refutation of originalism as a tool to mine the past for guidance about present-day issues.

[Martinned2]

I'm with Armchair. It's that Justice's opinion, so they know what it means. It's right there in the name.

But what a Justice doesn't get to do is retroactively redefine what their Opinion says, by making it say things it didn't say (and couldn't have said because including those thing would have cost them the majority).

It is better still, of course, to just go back to seriatim opinions, or have two or more justices write opinions jointly, both of which are what the English Court of Appeal does.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s the Court’s opinion.

[Martinned2]

That's sort of what it says at the top, but I don't think that's a sensible way to think about it. The dictum is the Court's, the opinion that leads to it is supported by a majority of the Court, but only per curiam opinions are, as the name suggest, truly opinions of the court.

The fact that the draft opinion that is supposed to become the majority opinion is circulated for comment doesn't mean that all justices who ultimately sign up to it "own" it in the same way. The justice who held the pen owns it more, and knows it better. The others may only think that it's OK enough to make it not worth writing separately. Or indeed they may write separately, setting out reasoning that is subtly different from the majority opinion they also signed up to.

Even in courts like the ECJ, which have no concurrences or dissents, and where the text is much more heavily negotiated than in common law courts, the judge-rapporteur is still the one who knows the judgment best, and who bears a special responsibility for it.

(See this week's judgment in Illumina and Grail v. Commission, which completely upset EU merger control. It is written by the competition law specialist on the court, Nils Wahl. It is first and foremost his opinion, more than that of the other 12 judges.)

[John F. Carr]

That EU decision may be the first time I have seen "teleological" used in a court decision.

In modern America teleology is for philosophers and scientists getting philosophical.

[Martinned2]

Too bad the Court did the teleological analysis all wrong, leaving Luxembourg (which doesn't have its own merger control regime) without any way to block mergers.

For your and my amusement I asked Bailii, and I got 375 hits for CJEU cases that use the word "teleological": https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/lucy_search_1.cgi?mask_path=eu%2Fcases%2FEUECJ&query=%28teleological%29&show=10&method=boolean&highlight=1&sort=date

[Voize]

They know what they intended to say, but that may differ from what they did say.

[Mr. Bumble]

...also on today's menu:
Hunter Biden tax trial slated to begin.
There haven't been any painting sales reported lately so who is paying for his defense?

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't his Father used to be President?

[Sarcastr0]

Incredible the right is so spiteful they still care.

[Bob from Ohio]

"spiteful"

They are still arresting January 6 protestors, almost 4 years later. Take the beam from your own eye.

[Sarcastr0]

With Hunter it’s about who he is. I don't see a big crusade about tax law elsewise.

With J6 people, it’s about what they did.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ok, Javert.

[Sarcastr0]

I explained the distinction. You came back with empty name calling.

All this to deflect from the right's continued obsession with Hunter Biden.

[Frank Drackman]

It was your side and the Federal Gestapo of Investigation that said Hunter’s Laptop was Roosh-on Meddling, even Putin was like “Ve Haf other Vays of Medd-ling!”
And I like Hunter, like Doc Holliday (Georgia Native BTW) said of Johnny Ringo, something about him
“….reminds me of…me!”
Not the drugs, the wine, the beer, the whiskey (well maybe a little bit) the hookers, the dead beat dad,
He’s got pretty good abs for a man of his age (one of the good things about Cocaine)
Hunter just seems like someone you could have a Beer (or, what do the kids call it? a “line”?) with at Scores and talk about the Eagles or the Phillies, I’d much rather bar hop with him than those Poofs Lindsay Buckingham-Nicks or Pence.

Frank

[bernard11]

Gestapo.

I once read a spy novel, by Len Deighton or maybe John LeCarre, which took place sometime well after WWII. The protagonist was in a bar in France, and heard some youngsters complaining about police using "Gestapo tactics." He goes on to say something like,

"The bartender, and a few of the older customers, who likely knew a bit about the Gestapo, looked at each other, and chuckled."

[Bob from Ohio]

"obsession"

Its not. But Frank [in his jocular way] explains why the continued mild interest, the full court deceitful press to defuse the laptop in advance of the last election.

[Magister]

You know, we can also expect robust barricades and plenty of law enforcement around the Capitol on January 6th, 2025; like George W. Bush said, "shame on, shame on ... you can't get fooled again".

Similarly, the 2016 election experience of Russian interference led to a lot of media caution generally, and especially with a truly suspicious looking story: a laptop dropped off in an unexpected place, shared with Rudy Giuliani and other Trump operatives, and then exclusively shared with pro-Trump media. Republicans in Congress found 2016 Russian election interference; Republicans in Congress couldn't find any Joe Biden wrongdoing, from the laptop or otherwise, which was the only reason it was relevant to the 2020 election.

[Bob from Ohio]

"2016 election experience of Russian interference"

Some facebook ads. Clinton raised 1.2 billion but you think a few million dollars swayed the election.

Its just an excuse for Clinton's historically bad performance in losing the "bluewall" to Donald Freaking Trump.

[Magister]

Nate Silver and others opined that it was hard to tell if Russian interference decided the election, and but still others think it did have a decisive effect, but at least you're admitting that there was Russian interference, in an election that was extremely close. You don't admit to the Russian hacking to get stolen emails as another form of interference, but tomorrow is another day.

[shawn_dude]

Speaking of paintings and fraud...

[Moderation4ever]

Who cares? The man is living in your head rent free.

[Moderation4ever]

Reason recently had an article discussing the governments purchase and use of commercially collected data to circumvent constitutional privacy issues. The article below addresses a different but related issue on the government use of commercial vendors to store government data. The article in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, caught my attention.

Government agencies like smaller municipalities are using commercial vendors to store data. This is understandable cost saving measure and but is not without down sides. Government records which the public has a right to see are now in the hands of commercial vendors who can charge high fees for access to those records. The article talks about a local small newspaper requesting information from a police department only to be told the vendor fee to search the records would be $4.4K. Costs to access records have typically allowed a charge for the actual cost to retrieve and copy the records. With outside vendors doing the search there is the profit cost for the vendors as an add-on to the search. It seems reasonable for government to outsource data storage, but data must be reasonably accessible to the public. That means that search cost must be no more than actual costs.

"Using outside vendors to store records has risks"
https://madison.com/eedition/page-a13/page_87e8c3b7-0bb4-5d45-9514-bac67f1f5d3b.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

I actually agree with you on this -- and the answer is legislation.

[John F. Carr]

Offhand I don't know if police in my state could get away with that. There is a risk they would have to eat the cost. Police used to bill several hours of time for walking over to a filing cabinet and pulling out a paper. A public records reform law cut back on such abuses.

[shawn_dude]

From an accounting perspective, having a contracted vendor do this and include a contracted fee structure for these kinds of searches makes it a lot easier for governments to justify that cost. It's no longer a subjective cost since it's offered as a service by the vendor with a pre-approved tariff. If records request laws don't include a cap on fees, these kinds of things will be used to circumvent them by raising the cost of open records laws.

[Martinned2]

Since people were worried about French democracy the other day, you're probably excited to learn that Macron has just appointed Michel Barnier as prime minister, the former E Brexit negotiator. He is a member of the (conservative) Republicans, not of Macron's party.

https://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/le-lr-michel-barnier-nomme-premier-ministre-20240905

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in English:
https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-french-reshuffle-gabriel-attal-prime-minister/
Also gets bonus points for being France's first openly gay PM.

[Martinned2]

Attal was the previous PM (and gay). The article you linked there is from January.

[Mr. Bumble]

My bad, didn't check date and this was first hit.

[Martinned2]

Here is an English-language article about Barnier's appointment: https://news.sky.com/story/michel-barnier-brexit-negotiator-appointed-french-prime-minister-13210041

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks.
Any thoughts on the Netherlands fining Clearview AI?

[Martinned2]

It shows the problem with the GDPR: it relies on enforcement at the Member State level, which is weak and often slow. Clearview AI was founded in 2017, and has been pretty well known since 2019, but so far there has only been enforcement action in the UK and four EU Member States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_AI#European_Union_and_UK

[Michael Ejercito]

Remember Brian Terry?

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/seventh-defendant-sentenced-murder-us-border-patrol-agent-brian-terry

If the Santa Cruz County Attorney were to charge Barack Obama for the murder of Brian Terry, what arguments would be available for the prosecution?

What are the likely defense arguments, including arguments based on Trump v. United States, 23-939 (July 1st, 2024)

[hobie]

'Official Acts', Michael. Remember? Harlan Thomas is the gift that keeps on giving

[Michael Ejercito]

Correct.

It is not a core act, to be sure.

But unless you have solid evidence that Obama was actually plotting the murder of Brian Terry, no prosecution would survive Trump.

An argument for guilt based on recklessness will not and must not cut it.

[Armchair]

In other news, America's allies have caught on to Biden half-assing the war in Ukraine.

"France’s President Emmanuel Macron pointed out the absurdity of the U.S. position: “We are in fact telling them that we are delivering weapons to you, but you cannot defend yourself.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4859580-biden-ukraine-weapons-support/

That's been the Biden-Harris-Obama position. Deliver the bare minimum in terms of arms. Put odd restrictions on them. Take out advanced features. Limit aid to non-lethal aid, until its almost too late.

[Martinned2]

That's been Macron's criticism for some time. But it's still better than what Trump would do for Ukraine.

[Armchair]

When asking "What Trump would do", it's useful to see what Trump HAS done.

And he has shipped lethal military aid to Ukraine, when Biden and Obama weren't. See below.

[Martinned2]

Can we also occasionally look at what Trump says he *will* do, or is that just for Harris?

https://lexfridman.com/donald-trump-transcript/#chapter4_war_in_ukraine

[Armchair]

You think making a deal that both parties would accept would be bad for Ukraine?

[Martinned2]

It would be if Trump does that by threatening to cut off aid to Ukraine if they don't sign on the dotted line, which is what I gather he intends to do.

[Don Nico]

Kind of like Biden's developing stance on Israel.

[Martinned2]

Yes. Violating the laws of war should have consequences. If Ukraine did what Israel does, they shouldn't get any western weapons either. But instead only Russia violates the laws of war in a comparable manner to Israel, which is why it is important to support the side that plays by the rules.

[Don Nico]

Since when does Hamas play by the rules? Do you mean such as murdering 6 hostages only a week ago.
Israel does play by the rules except as seen by supporters of Iranian backed terror groups.

[Martinned2]

It doesn't. In the Israel-Hamas war, both sides violate pretty much all the rules, and neither side should be supported by the West.

I'm sorry if you needed me to be clear about that. I figured the Hamas side of this point was already blindingly obvious because of the fact that Hamas is on the EU terror list. It even has its own separate sanctions decision: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/fight-against-terrorism/sanctions-against-terrorism/#hamas

[jb]

I definitely agree the US shouldn't give any weapons to Hamas!

[Don Nico]

Martin,
We can agree to disagree.

[bernard11]

Martinned2,

I don't understand.

Hamas, not Israel, launched a war of aggression. Is that not itself a crime?

As part of that, members of Hamas committed crimes - murder, rape, kidnapping - on Israeli soil.

Hamas seems to have murdered some of the kidnap victims.

Why does Israel not have the right to the immediate return of the kidnapped Israelis?

Why does Israel not have the right to capture those who ordered, organized, planned, and carried out the attack? They are, after all, violent criminals. Does Hamas enjoy some sort of weird immunity for violent crime against Israelis?

[Armchair]

It's important to understand here that much of the key lethal aid that helped Ukraine resist the initial invasion was approved by the Trump Administration...and refused to be shipped by the Obama administration.

"In 2014, during Ukraine's battle to regain control of the Crimean Peninsula seized by Russia, then-Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko pleaded with Washington for more lethal military assistance, including Javelin anti-tank missiles.

However, despite bipartisan support from U.S. lawmakers to send lethal aid, the Obama administration would only commit to non-lethal support, which included equipment such as body armour, night goggles and helmets."

Trump had a temporary holdup, but ultimately delivered the critical lethal military aid, including the anti-tank missiles.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/obama-trump-biden-ukraine-military-aid-1.6371378

[Armchair]

But When biden took charge...Aid was once again halted to Ukraine, before Russia invaded.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/18/white-house-ukraine-military-lethal-weapons-495169

[Martinned2]

So what you're telling me is that America, under Trump, provided assistance when Ukraine didn't need it, while Obama did very little when Ukraine did need it? How is that helpful for predicting what either Trump or Harris will do now that Ukraine does need help?

[Michael P]

Ukraine needed military aid before Trump, after Trump and during Trump's presidency. The only relevant difference was that Trump's aid was effective.

[Martinned2]

Clearly...

[Joe_dallas]

Putin waiting until Biden became president before invading Ukraine.

Yet democrats are still pushing the russian hoax 1 and have not started russian hoax 2

[David Nieporent]

There was no "Russian hoax." It was conclusively demonstrated that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in an attempt to elect Donald Trump, that Donald Trump was aware of this (well, I'm not sure he's aware of anything, but the people around him were), and welcomed it.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 4 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
There was no “Russian hoax.”

Keep telling yourself that - believing propaganda is your forte

[Krayt]

When the Republicans did Trump's bidding and denied more aid, Russian state media TV famously said, "Thanks, gramps!" to Mitch.

They didn't do it because doing what Trump wants involves great funding and arming of Ukraine.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Trump had a temporary holdup"

That's some white-washing bullshit right there. No surprise given your lengthy track record of lies and obfuscation.

[David Nieporent]

Trump had a temporary holdup

That is certainly a terrible euphemism for Trump trying to extort the Ukrainian government.

[shawn_dude]

What is extortion but just another word for a hold-up?

[hobie]

Back when Ronald Reagan's corpse was still president, any group that could bloody the nose of the Soviet Empire - much less engage it in all-out war and actually start winning - Reagan would have sent them anything they asked for. Now you insubordinate hayseeds have flipped the whole script and Reagan is probably just another RINO smh

[Martinned2]

The Reagan biopic certainly didn't do very well at the box office.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl4133781505/?ref_=bo_hm_rd

LOSER!!

[hobie]

'I like presidents that aren't dead'

[Mr. Bumble]

Does "living dead" count?

[Jmaie]

That was worth a chuckle

I would however distinguish between cold-war US-Soviet relations and the threat by Russia to the US today. One is very much not like the other.

[David Nieporent]

On last week's Open Thread some thought it was really significant that two non-Democrats, Tulsi Gabbard and RFKJ, were supporting Trump.

This week saw two actual Republicans go the other way; we saw Mike Pence say that Trump was unfit, and Liz Cheney go so far as to endorse Harris. (Technically she only said she was voting for Harris, not endorsing her, but that seems like a distinction without a difference.)

[Armchair]

So, in other words, neither Republican is actually endorsing Harris.

Huh.

(And yes, there's a difference between voting and endorsing. Sometimes you hold your nose, but don't have to like it).

[Sarcastr0]

Why a well tailored goalpost you have chosen.

[Don Nico]

You and you phantom goal posts...stop beating that dead horse

[Sarcastr0]

When conservatives can stick to a thesis, and quit making up arbitrary outcome-oriented standards, I'll get right on that.

[Bwaaah]

All his horses are dead. What else is he to beat?

[David Nieporent]

There is a difference between voting and endorsing; there is no difference between announcing one is going to vote and endorsing.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Publicly stating for whom you will vote is endorsing them, your pedantry notwithstanding.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, non-Democrats after the party threw them under the bus.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"I don’t believe that we have the luxury of writing in candidates’ names, particularly in swing states,” she said. “As a conservative, as someone who believes in and cares about the Constitution, I have thought deeply about this. Because of the danger that Donald Trump poses, not only am I not voting for Donald Trump, but I will be voting for Kamala Harris.”

https://apnews.com/article/harris-cheny-duke-university-liz-dick-55852b4dffc447413616a01b6a38c920

Her fellow Republican on the committee to investigate 1/6 spoke at the Democratic Convention.

FWIW, multiple articles discussing the statement called it an "endorsement" and I think it implies just that using a fair application of the word.

[Bob from Ohio]

"endorse Harris"

Let's count the votes that will influence.

One [hers]

Well, that's the total. Harris is a shoo in!

[David Nieporent]

Let’s count the votes that will influence.

One [hers]

That's three more than RFKJ and Tulsi Gabbard, combined, will.

[Bob from Ohio]

Math not your strong point.

Polls [you love them] says a majority of RFK's small support will go to Trump, so that's a few thousand at least.

[Magister]

Mostly votes that would have been for Trump if Kennedy hadn't run, on an anti-vaccine conspiracy theory platform. And still siphoning off votes from Trump in the swing states where Kennedy has not been able to remove himself from the ballot.

[MoreCurious]

Character. It used to be the most important factor in judging a candidate for office. But to millions of Trump supporters it doesn't seem to matter anymore. I grew up in the 50s and 60s and I learned from my parents and their friends, my teachers, and our nuns and priests that high moral and ethical standards are mandatory qualifications for being considered for elected office. A candidate who didn't know the difference between good and evil, truth and lies, kindness and meanness, decency and vulgarity, and right and wrong had no chance of winning.

What's changed? What has happened to us? Why can't the Republicans find someone to lead them who is more suitable than a man who is a bully, a convicted felon, and a proven sexual assaulter who disrespects the military and its veterans? Are there no moral and ethical men and women who can better promote and implement the goals of conservatives and the Republican party?

[Don Nico]

There was Liz Cheney.. and even Mitt Romney

[MoreCurious]

I'm going to assume you're not being facetious and agree with you. The Republicans seem to have driven away competent, decent people with strong instincts for morality and ethics. Whatever happened to the Eisenhowers and Reagans and Hugh Scotts who used to guide the party?

[Martinned2]

I'm not sure if Reagan would be my go-to example for morality and ethics, but he was definitely good at faking morality and ethics, which is probably what the Republicans needed after Nixon. (Who was arguably better than Reagan at actually *doing* ethical government.)

[Don Nico]

I was not being facetious.

[Michael Ejercito]

Whom did Trump sexually assault?

[MoreCurious]

Pretty feeble attempt at diversion. Rather than answer my questions you pretend that you never heard of E. Jean Carroll. That shows that you don’t have the guts or the integrity to face reality.

[David Nieporent]

Rather than answer my questions you pretend that you never heard of E. Jean Carroll.

Or any of the other women who have accused Trump. Or Trump's recorded admission that he did so.

[Michael Ejercito]

Ah, E. Jean Carroll.

Jacob Sullum wrote about her.

https://reason.com/2023/05/10/8-reasons-why-e-jean-carroll-won-her-sexual-abuse-and-defamation-lawsuit-against-trump/

Four years ago, when former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll first publicly claimed that Donald Trump had raped her in a department store dressing room, she was not sure of the exact date or even the year when that happened.

How very convenient she did not remember the date. Almost as if it made it impossible to determine if Trump had an alibi...

[MoreCurious]

Great comment, Michael! Too bad you didn't come up with this brilliant defense last year. In case you missed the news, let me be the first to inform you that in May 2023 a jury of six men and three women found Trump liable for sexual abuse, battery and defamation. If only someone had thought to call you as an expert witness.

[Michael Ejercito]

They were wrong to do so.

[David Nieporent]

The credibility determinations by people who didn't actually hear the evidence certainly have a lot of force.

[David Nieporent]

You know, one time when I was a kid, my dad forgot what day it was and failed to pick me up from soccer practice on his way home from work like he was supposed to. This was long before the cell phone era, and long before the no-kid-can-be-left-alone-for-a-minute-because-he-will-get-kidnapped era, so I was standing alone at the field for like 45 minutes before he figured it out and came to get me.

I know where this happened, but I couldn't — even if you gave me an unlimited amount of time and research budget — tell you "the exact date or even the year when that happened." Is that a "convenient" way for me to prevent my dad from having an alibi? Does that prove that the event never happened?

[Mr. Bumble]

Equating your father being late to pick you up with being raped is quite a stretch.

[Brett Bellmore]

And this incident when you were a child is comparable to being raped as an adult? Sure, I’ve had some pretty traumatic things happen to me, too, as an adult, and I couldn’t tell you off hand when exactly they happened, but I’d have no problem going back and documenting it, because they were important enough to me to leave records.

Look, let me explain this to you: If you are going to accuse somebody of a crime, you owe it to them to specify enough of the details that a defense is possible. If you don’t specify at least when and where, you deny them the ability to prove that they were somewhere else at the time. Leaving the suspicion that avoiding the possibility of an alibi is exactly WHY you’re being so vague.

None of this, “Bob raped me decades ago, but I can’t remember exactly where, or pin down what year it happened in.” crap. That sort of thing rightfully gets dismissed.

So, here’s my advice: If somebody assaults you, report it to the police immediately, don’t wait a decade or two. Because you normally only get away with that sort of delay and lack of detail if you’re useful in doing a political hit job. Ordinarily it will be fatal to your case, and rightfully so.

[Mr. Bumble]

“So, here’s my advice: If somebody assaults you, report it to the police immediately, don’t wait a decade or two."
…or until they are nominated to the Supreme Court or decide to run for president.

[Martinned2]

Yes, you're definitely doing a great job of making a police report for rape seem like an appealing prospect.

[Mr. Bumble]

What is your suggested alternative?

[David Nieporent]

If you are going to accuse somebody of a crime, you owe it to them to specify enough of the details that a defense is possible.

You do not, in fact, "owe" them any such thing.

If you don’t specify at least when and where,

I like how you resort to cliches immediately, so don't even pay attention the facts. She did in fact specify where.

Leaving the suspicion that avoiding the possibility of an alibi is exactly WHY you’re being so vague.

And the person who is accused is free to point that out and contend that this is a reason not to believe the accuser.

None of this, “Bob raped me decades ago, but I can’t remember exactly where, or pin down what year it happened in.” crap. That sort of thing rightfully gets dismissed.

No; your complaint is that it doesn't get dismissed. If it did, then the accused wouldn't be aggrieved.

[Moderation4ever]

Multiple woman have made the claim. Jean Carroll’s case was adjudicated and a jury concluded that Trump had sexually abused Ms. Carrol. That help your memory?

[Michael Ejercito]

JesseAz wrote about this case.

https://reason.com/2023/05/10/8-reasons-why-e-jean-carroll-won-her-sexual-abuse-and-defamation-lawsuit-against-trump/?comments=true#comment-10056599

Yes. And the store had attendants and locked dressing rooms as she testified to all the time. Except this one time in their history.

What an inconvenient fact.

I also participated in the discussion thread at the time.

[MoreCurious]

Great comment, Michael! Too bad you didn't come up with this brilliant defense last year. In case you missed the news, let me be the first to inform you that in May 2023 a jury of six men and three women found Trump liable for sexual abuse, battery and defamation. If only someone had thought to call you as an expert witness.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, once it was realized you could get away with accusing somebody of unverifiable crimes in the distant past, and weren't risking a defamation suit or being charged with filing a false police report, women volunteered to be part of the pile on. We've seen that happen repeatedly, in political hit job cases. It's not impressive until they bring actual evidence something really happened.

[Sarcastr0]

We've seen you DECIDE that's what happened repeatedly.

Because you curate your reality such that Trump is uncouth, but innocent of all.

While liberals are all guilty, even if they didn't do anything. Plotting their secret plots.

This is why you have a reputation for being sincere and engaged, but delusional.

[Zarniwoop]

Whom did Trump sexually assault?

Sealion sealion sealion sealion

[OtisAH]

Pathetic.

[Bob from Ohio]

"used to be the most important factor in judging a candidate for office."

When was that?

[MoreCurious]

Certainly in the 50s and 60s when I was growing up. Don't you remember back that far. And how far back do you think we need to go to find someone as bad as Trump?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Employees of the Russia-backed media network RT funded and directed a scheme that sent millions of dollars to prominent right-wing commentators through a media company that appears to match the description of Tenet Media, a leading platform for pro-Trump voices, according to an NBC News review of charging documents, business records and social media profiles."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/russian-money-was-funneled-right-wing-creators-trump-media-outlet-pros-rcna169611

This whole scheme is unsurprising to me especially after reading about Russia's propaganda efforts in 2016 (see, e.g., the Mueller Report). I see Turning Point USA pop up.

Ginni Thomas has been connected to that group. Okay. I don't want to trigger Josh Blackman.

[Michael Ejercito]

So what?

You hate freedom of speech?

[Magister]

Not fond of political speech paid for by foreigners.

[David Nieporent]

Foreigners are allowed to do that — but it needs to be disclosed.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm just having a laugh at how little financing they're freaking out over. It's really spitting into a hurricane relative to political spending in this country.

[David Nieporent]

This one alone was $10 million.

[Sarcastr0]

That's quite the scope to choose.

What I notice is what kind of message Russia thought would be useful to amplify.

The poor due diligence these folks used as to who was paying them gobs of $ and presume that was their plan all along. Haha no, only if their plan was to embarrass themselves. The incentive is to do good due diligence to avoid this, if you have good judgement. Tim Pool and Benny Johnson etc. need not apply for admission to that cohort!

Whole thing is mostly funny, and gratifying because it burnishes my priors about these types.

[Magister]

2016 was decided in the Blue Wall states by about 80,000 votes, out of over 130 million votes. 2020 was decided by about the same number of votes over four states with 43 electoral college votes, with over 155 million votes cast. $10 million out of the $14.4 billion spent in 2020 seems to be proportional to the fraction of deciding votes (although yes, all that spending was to fight over relatively few votes). The big question would be how much of this iceberg is not visible.

[bernard11]

$10M is pocket change to Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's pocket change to Presidential campaigns. I'm not running for President.

[Sarcastr0]

Miles away from the right metric to use, since Russia's goal is no to run a Presidential campaign.

[Magister]

Legal if disclosed? Oh, like campaign hush money payments to porn stars. Legal but much less useful.

After careful consideration, legality does not increase my fondness. Nor is my suspicion, that the activity paid for is illegally coordinated with campaigns, decreased.

[Michael Ejercito]

Is all speech political speech?

[Frank Drackman]

Still no sign of the Revolting Reverend? Must be holed up with Judge Crater.
Haven't heard much from Nancy Mace either, who if "45" had replaced VP Sixpence None the Richer with in 2020, would have totally destroyed Cums-a-lot in the VP Debate, and would have been a great choice for this year also, would love to see her D-bate Sergeant Pepper-Waltz and hand him a bloody Tampon...

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Remember Nige-bot? Anybody? Anybody?

[Sarcastr0]

He's still living in your head.

Good lord, how long has it been at this point? You pine for him like Trump does for Biden.

[OtisAH]

Cue piece of shit weeping for Kirkland…

Oh, nvm. That’s what kicked this all off.

[Bwaaah]

He was foolish like you, but more honest and earnest. I'd like to think he found a better use of his time than commenting here. Assuming he had legs, that should have been easy enough to do. And even without legs, his fingers could take him to better places than this.

If you disappeared, it'd be a triple play. That'd be less gunk in the interwebs. I'd still enjoy Frank Drackman, even with three less sourpusses to prove his worthiness. Fear not if you go; Hobie will continue to carry that torch.

I'm just a little lost not knowing how many times VC commenters farted this week. And if I don't think about the Stones, I have no reason to recall Mick strutting his boney ass at the world. Not to knock what goodness/greatness there is in the Stones, but to obsess over one artist in all of music history and the best you can come up with is the Rolling Stones? Looks more like a Spot-the-Clinger expert than an aficionado of music.

[Sarcastr0]

I guess I'm living in your head.

I don't think I like it there.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe EV should start a memorial wall for the dearly departed.

[Bwaaah]

It is a challenge to distinguish the departed from the merely silent. And, to distinguish the dearly departed from the merely departed.

I do say that I hope, for the Reverend's sake, that he returns to VC only because I think he genuinely enjoys his play here. And if he's dead, his success in his VC life will have been like that of Yasser Arafat in the so-called land of Palestine...a genuine loser as long as "clingers" like me (and worse) keep having our way.

When I think of everything I've learned from the Rev, I pretty much think, "I'm a clinger." It ripened over time to become a badge of honor, kind of like "deplorables."

[Dan Schiavetta]

He is more thoughtful before he became “Rev.”, something than re-emerged occasionally (e.g., his comment on the 20th anniversary of 9/11). However sarcastr0 is pretty much the same (and that’s a good thing) as the “Sarcastro” from the Volokh.com days (the avatar was Fidel making a funny face).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There was an old retired lawyer who went by the name "Shag" who posted on various blogs who at times was a tad over the top. He is now dearly departed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Tulsi Gabbard as Sec of Defense?

She's a LTC and combat vet (medical corps).

[Martinned2]

I thought the Trump rule was that you only ever appoint people to run organisations they hate and want to dismantle? Betsy DeVos, Scott Pruitt, Andrew Wheeler, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that depends on whether the organizations in question are necessary, or need to be dismantled.

[Martinned2]

If the president wants an organisation dismantled, he knows where he can send the draft bill to do that.

[John F. Carr]

Dr. Ed 2 for Secretary of Education?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No. I'd be *too* incendiary.

The first time I called the NEA the "Never Educate Anyone", it'd get interesting...

[hobie]

You forgot Rick Perry and his Department of Energy

[Martinned2]

Another fine example. Oops...

[Dr. Ed 2]

What Perry didn't know is what a lot of people don't know -- most of what the DoE does involves nukes -- and they really can't advertise that.

[David Nieporent]

They really can.

[Sarcastr0]

It's on the first page of their budget brief every year.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Tulsi Gabbard as Sec of Defense?"

No. I like her but she's not a good fit.

Secretary of the Army. That's not a policy post.

[Martinned2]

If it's not a policy post, why is it held by a political appointee?

[Bob from Ohio]

Because it is.

[David Nieporent]

Normally someone with her profile would be more likely for Veteran's Affairs, I would think.

[Bob from Ohio]

That would be ok too.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, particularly with her medical background, she'd be great for that.

[OtisAH]

Testes, testes, 1, 2… 3?!

[shawn_dude]

Time Index 4:23

[Martinned2]

I guess the US isn't the only place with draconian criminal sentencing:

The man who had been chief engineer at South Africa’s state-owned passenger rail company has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for faking his qualifications.

Once hailed for his successful career, Daniel Mthimkhulu was head of engineering at the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) for five years - earning an annual salary of about 2.8m rand ($156,000; £119,000).

On his CV, the 49-year-old claimed to have had several mechanical engineering qualifications, including a degree from South Africa’s respected Witwatersrand University as well as a doctorate from a German university.

However, the court in Johannesburg heard that he had only completed his high-school education.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8er2990ydpo.amp

[Ilya Snowman]

15 years in the company. So, who'd he piss off/betray sufficiently such that it suddenly mattered to them that he wasn't qualified?

'State capture' is a wonderful term, though.

[Estragon]

If Martha-Ann Alito spit in Josh’s mouth like she spit at her neighbors, do you think he’d swallow it?

[Sarcastr0]

I know it'd result in a 5 part longform posting series.

[Estragon]

Part 1: I liked it
Part 2: I really liked it
Part 3: why won’t CNN interview me about how much I liked it?
Part 4: KBJ got a book deal
Part 5: did I mention I really liked it?

[Martinned2]

Off the top of my head that's the fastest reaction I've ever seen out of the CMA. Less than a week to start an investigation into Ticketmaster's sale of Oasis tickets. Even during Covid it took them longer to start looking into price gouging.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-launches-investigation-into-ticketmaster-over-oasis-concert-sales

[Ska]

Price gouging as a concept is already tenuous. Price gouging on luxury goods is nonsense.

Someone's charging more than I want, or would ever pay, to see a concert! Quick, launch an investigation!

[Martinned2]

This is a consumer enforcement case. The relevant question is whether consumers were somehow tricked or misled. It's not a price gouging case like the cases the CMA ran about groceries and PPE during Covid.

[Ska]

Okay, I hear you. The parallel to me would be like placing a market order for a stock and the price is somehow manipulated before being filled. Maybe Ticketmaster (who generally does suck) could institute limit orders on their offerings.

If Ticketmaster is somehow falsifying its price changes or intentionally delaying time to fill to increase price then yeah, shady activity.

[Martinned2]

The whole situation kind of bored me, so I didn't follow it closely, but I think the allegation is basically that the tickets were offered for sale at, say, $150, people joined a queue on that basis, waited for hours, and then ended up charged $300 per ticket. Under EU (and UK) consumer law, that sort of trickery with prices is illegal even if the consumer ultimately has a free choice to buy or not.

[David Nieporent]

Under EU (and UK) consumer law, that sort of trickery with prices is illegal even if the consumer ultimately has a free choice to buy or not.

Yeah, that’d be an illegal bait-and-switch under consumer protection laws here, too.

(Of course, they can try other things like tacking on massive fees on top of the ticket price.)

[Martinned2]

Drip pricing is illegal here too, under a similar logic.

[Bob from Ohio]

"groceries and PPE"

This is tickets to a dinosaur rock concert.

[Martinned2]

Hence my surprise at the swiftness of the CMA's reaction.

Read carefully, I'm not actually disagreeing with you.

[Bob from Ohio]

I saw on twitter a female UK minister complaining about all the time she spent waiting. That may explain the speed.

[Martinned2]

A *female* UK minister? Wow!

But seriously, Lisa Nandy spoke about this situation, because she's the Secretary of State for Culture, Media, and Sport, so this sort of is her responsibility. But the CMA does not fall within her portfolio, so that wouldn't as such impress the CMA.

(I don't think she was trying to buy tickets, though the female Lord President of the Privy Council, Lucy Powell, and the male Scottish Health Minister Neil Gray were.)

[Martinned2]

What happened is that the male Business Secretary, who is responsible for the CMA, wrote them a letter asking them to look into this situation, and they did: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66d98adc561701fa1c214e62/Letter_to_government_from_CMA_Chair_and_CEO.pdf

(It's a no brainer decision for a competition authority like the CMA. It doesn't take a lot of manpower, and it's a nice press release.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"A *female* UK minister? Wow!"

Chill out. I couldn't remember her name. So I described her.

[OtisAH]

^^^ Too dumb to Google. ^^^

[Bob from Ohio]

Smart enough to have Martinned2 do it for me.

[Martinned2]

🙂

[ReaderY]

There are two extensions of enumerated Congressional powers that I think should be outright eliminated, as the two of them together efffectively give Congress a police power except in unusual cases that can from time to time be showcased as evidence Congress’ power is absolute . I would suggest eliminating the following:

1. Prohibiting possession or use of something that previously travelled in interstate commerce. I think saying this has anything to do with interstste commerce is absurd. Once goods have reached consumers, they have left the stream of interstate commerce. Congress shouldn’t have the power to regulate every detail of marital sex if the spouses merely use a contraceptive that previously passed in interstate commerce.

2. Overriding state law based on the Spending Clause. The Spending clause simply empowers Congress to spend money and does not carry with it any regulatory power. Only when Congress posesses regulatory power should it have the power to override state laws.

One could argue that any reasonably legitimate interpretation of the Commerce and Spending Clauses would be narrower still. But I think these two extensions are particular absurdities that illustrate just how flimsy the Court has rendered Constitutional limitstions on Congress’ powers.

[Bored Lawyer]

I am generally sympathetic to your argument, although I think the chances of this happening are slim.

Can you clarify # 2? My impression is that it is common when Congress appropriates money to the states that it sets conditions. For example, highway money is appropriated to states, but is conditioned on certain things, like speed limits. In your view, is that practice Constitutional?

In my view, yes. The Spending Clause certainly means that Congress can appropriate spending for specified purposes. A state can't take funds appropriated to maintain highways to build a swimming pool at the governor's mansion. So why can't Congress condition how the funds are used, e.g., that the highways are posted with a safe speed?

[Longtobefree]

" A state can’t take funds appropriated to maintain highways to build a swimming pool at the governor’s mansion."

Are you sure?
(asking for an accountant friend)

[ReaderY]

An example is a recent case where a hospital argued that the federal government’s contract with it not only authorized it to ignore state abortion law on Supremacy grounds.

There were some cases in the 1970s and 1980s where federal courts struck down state constitutional amendments prohibiting spending public money on abortions. While states can nominally refuse the federal government’s offer, the federal government determines who represents the state and who is entitled to give the state’s consent. If the federally designated official accepts the offer on the state’s behalf, then the state is just out of luck. The state has no right to have its own opinion on authority to accept on its behalf and if it has laws saying otherwise, they get struck down. Because supremacy.

This lime of case law makes state formal acceptance of federal spending laws a bit like the form that entering Nazi concentration camp prisoners had to fill out requesting the government to volunarily detain them for their own protection. At least under the Nazis, concentration camp prisoners had to fill out the protection request form themselves and were given autonomy to choose to refuse to fill out the form and get shot instead.

[Krayt]

So states don’t get signing statements on money-with-strings? Gee whiz!

[ReaderY]

I think Sebelius indicates the Court is moving towards giving states an actual chiice in the matter.

I personally think that if a state law is inconsistent with a spending clause provision, Congress has no power to override the law. Congress can spend its money or not spend its money, as it chooses. If it doesn’t find what the state offers consistent with what it wants to buy, it can walk away like any other consumer. But it has to accept the state’s laws as they are in making that decision. It can’t force a state to sell something the state doesn’t want to sell.

I think this means that in general there shouldn’t usually be standing for individual citizen lawsuits,regardless of 11th Amendment waiver. If the state doesn’t meet Congress’ conditions, it has to give back Congress’ money, either in whole or in part. But while giving back the money would remedy Congress’ injury, giving the United States clear standing, it would rarely remedy an individual citizen’s. What would a citizen gain, how would any citizen grievance be addressed, if the state loses funding for the program the citizen wants benefits from? I think that Congress can involve individual citizens, however, by setting up qui tam type actions that give citizen-plaintiffs a share of any clawback to help it ensure conditions are complied with.

[John F. Carr]

The Ninth Circuit ruled that Congress had the power to set highway speed limits under the Commerce Clause. If Congress has the power to act directly putting an equivalent restriction on federal funds is not unconstitutionally coercive. I would have decided that case and South Dakota v. Dole the other way.

Nevada v. Skinner, 884 F.2d 445 (9th Cir. 1989)

[Krayt]

Directly? Ok, then. Also another example of using the commerce clause to hamper commerce, rather than free it.

[Martinned2]

I'm not sure that I would go so far as to say that the interstate commerce clause can only be used to free commerce. "Regulate" clearly includes at least some things that create obstacles.

[Martinned2]

Agreed. (And we might add things like using the mail as a nexus for making things Federal crimes.)

[hobie]

Whenever I make a declaration, something immediately proves me wrong. So I wish to say:

Rest well Reverend.

[ThePublius]

Do you know something we don't?

[hobie]

I do not. Just hoping to jinx my grim thoughts

[Krayt]

I lost a wireless mouse for my laptop. I decided to find it by buying a new one.

This worked.

[hobie]

Yep

[bernard11]

It always does, so just make sure to buy a cheap one.

[apedad]

Groin Shot - QI Denied (9th Circuit Court of Appeals)

In the summer of 2020, millions took to the streets to protest the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer. Plaintiff Derrick Sanderlin attended one such protest in San Jose, California. While in attendance, Sanderlin was struck in the groin by a 40mm foam baton round, fired directly at him by Officer Michael Panighetti.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Sanderlin, as we must at this stage of the proceedings, genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether Sanderlin’s First and Fourth Amendment clearly established rights were violated. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

https://webservices.courthousenews.com/sites/Data/AppellateOpinionUploads/2024-04-9--15-00-50-23-15487.pdf

While I definitely think that QI is invoked too often (and luckily the courts have been finally turning against blindly accepting QI), I could see in this SPECIFIC case, QI could at least be considered.

It was a quick decision by the officer in a volatile situation - the factors that QI is suppose to address.

The cop might still be found not to be liable.

[David Nieporent]

The cop might still be found not to be liable.

This is what makes the whole QI regime so outrageous. Denial of QI is not "Okay, you acted unreasonably so you're liable." It's "Okay, a jury gets to decide whether you acted reasonably."

(To be clear, what I'm calling outrageous is the flip side of that: granting QI means that a jury doesn't even get a chance to decide that.)

[NOVA Lawyer]

Exactly. Get rid of QI.

[Krayt]

Firing a foam baton (isn't there a case in a nearby thread where someone got hit in the head by a "nerf" ball?) would seem to be a department training thing, rather than a rogue cop.

I usually get puzzled by these QI things. Do they need to be able to sue the officer so they can sue through him to the city? I can't see an officer having any kind of deep pockets, unless the police union has insurance to cover members.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“Firing a foam baton (isn’t there a case in a nearby thread where someone got hit in the head by a “nerf” ball?) would seem to be a department training thing, rather than a rogue cop.”

Irrelevant. Then it should be easy to win on summary judgment (no injury/damages) or before a jury.

“Do they need to be able to sue the officer so they can sue through him to the city? I can’t see an officer having any kind of deep pockets, unless the police union has insurance to cover members.”

I would assume maybe/sometimes and yes. Also, police departments tend to indemnify their officers for claims, so a judgment against the officer will likely be paid by the PD. (Which, even if the officer gets away, creates appropriate incentives to hire responsible officers and train them appropriately.)

[ReaderY]

Police departments indemnify their officers. Nobody would work for a police department that didn’t.

[Martinned2]

The Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law is now open for signatures. It's already been signed by the US, EU, Israel, UK, San Marino, Moldova, Norway, Iceland, Georgia, and Andorra. It will enter into force when five signatories, including three member states of the Council of Europe have ratified it. I'm sure the US will ratify any day now...

The treaty is here: https://rm.coe.int/1680afae3c

[Brett Bellmore]

Seems awfully vague, and I expect it has essentially no chance of being ratified by the US Senate.

[Krayt]

I went to open the pdf, and my phone asked me if I wanted to open it the normal way, or using "AI Assistant". Riggggghhhht. Like I'm gonna fall for AI reporting on legislation about itself. I saw West World!

[Sarcastr0]

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/what-trump-said-vulgar-truth-social-posts.html

It was always blindingly obvious, but it's getting harder to ignore what Trump is.

[hobie]

I like the video commercial where Trump's hawking his digital trading cards. He said that if you buy 75 or more cards at $99 each, you will get an invite to a Collectors Dinner at Mar a Lago. Any of the hayseeds here have Trump trading cards?

[Estragon]

You didn’t read the fine print. The dinner/cocktail party can be cancelled at any time for any reason, and you have to accept another NFT as an alternative. Sad!

[hobie]

That's hilarious. Don the Con strikes again (and again). But who's gonna break this tidbit to Dr. Ed?

[Sarcastr0]

The hordes of nonwhites he's fearmongering about really shows what Trump thinks the GOP is all about.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump hasn't actually gotten any money from me since about September 2016. I figured that if I gave him any after that point, he wouldn't spending it to be elected.

Didn't figure he needed any money from me in 2020.

[Estragon]

And yet just think of all the in-kind contributions you have made over the last four years, coming here every day to carry his water. Really makes one think… or— should

[Bwaaah]

Brett carries his own water. Makes your look a little sludgy. Hurts, don't it?

[Sarcastr0]

He's posting images of blacks, Latinos, and Muslims and telling people this is the future Kamalah wants.

It's like Woodrow Wilson levels of racist.

No wonder you don't wanna talk about it.

[OtisAH]

Problem is, Brett, whether you’ve got every Trump NFT and several pairs of gold-painted sneakers, or none at all, is something none of us can never know because we only have your word, and your word is worthless.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, you're entirely free to believe that I routinely buy NFTs, and have knitted a comforter for my bed out of MAGA hats, if it gives you a thrill. The truth is rather more mundane: I've been involved in politics since the 70's, and am burned out enough about it that I scarcely ever get caught up in it emotionally anymore.

I do have a Basket of Deplorables t-shirt, though, because Hillary just pissed me off that much.

[Moderation4ever]

Smart move on your part.

There are children out there who will one day have to clear out their parent's houses and find them filled with Trump Trinkets. As they toss all the crap in the garbage, they will realize how much money their parents foolishly gave away to a billionaire.

[apedad]

Massachusetts Man Sentenced for Hate Crime Against Asian American Man

A Massachusetts man was sentenced today to 18 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release for a federal hate crime.

On April 3, John Sullivan (78, Quincy, MA), pleaded guilty to willfully causing bodily injury to a victim, identified in court papers only by his initials, G.N., through the use of a dangerous weapon (a vehicle), because of G.N.’s actual and perceived race and national origin.

According to documents filed in connection with this case, (in December 2022), Sullivan encountered G.N., who is Vietnamese, and other individuals he was with, who are also Asian American, outside a post office. Sullivan had never met the victim or the group before. In front of the group’s three children under the age of twelve, Sullivan yelled for them to “go back to China,” threatened to kill them — pointing in turn members of the group, including two of the children, and separately telling them, “I’m going to kill you” — and twice drove his car into G.N., causing G.N. to land on the hood of the moving car and remain there while the car moved approximately 200 feet while keeping pace with traffic. Eventually Sullivan stopped the car, causing G.N. to fall into a construction ditch and suffer bodily injury and pain.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/massachusetts-man-sentenced-hate-crime-against-asian-american-man

Bad hair day? What was happening in Boston in Dec. 2022, that would stress this guy out? Patriots losing?

[David Nieporent]

So I guess Dr. Ed won't be posting here for the next 18 months.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Needledick may believe in ABDW/MV, but I don't.

On a more serious note -- if he's 78, he could be a Vietnam Vet -- PTSD???

[David Nieporent]

may believe in ABDW/MV, but I don’t.

Literally half of your comments here are advocating for exactly that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not ABDW if the government does it.

If you really are a lawyer, you should know that...

[Zarniwoop]

Allan Litchman - allegedly good at predicting the outcome of presidential elections with his "keys" = has called the race:

WASHINGTON - Allan Lichtman, the historian who correctly predicted the outcome of nine out of the ten most recent presidential elections, has made his guess on who will reclaim the White House this year.

Spoiler alert: it’s Vice President Kamala Harris.

I'm generally sort of skeptical of the predictive value of this method (correlation =/= causation, and all that) but it's still fun.

Here's a relatively anodyne news source, but you can find reporting all over the intarwebz on your site of choice:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/05/historian-allan-lichtman-2024-election-prediction/75082875007/

[Roger S]

He somehow thinks that Harris has more charisma than Trump.

[NOVA Lawyer]

That's not what he said. He said neither was particularly charismatic. There are two charisma keys, one for each.

[Mr. Hook]

I asked this in the last open thread, but I'll try once more.

Okay, “Dr” Ed, let’s pretend you actually are an educator. You’ve doubtless had many students who claim to be much more intelligent than they really are. They make assertions of fact that are anything but. They are impervious to being corrected by those with expertise through both training and experience. How have you handled students who resist or ignore those with superior understanding?

[hobie]

Good question. I'm gonna wager he falls for it

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two words: You Lose.

[Magister]

As fond of whoppers as Dr. Ed 2, he should have remembered that "The only winning move is not to play."

(I am pleased with the greater frequency of movie references in recent threads.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

IMHO, the better line is "I'd piss on the spark plug if it'd do any good."

Gen Z looks at the technology in that movie as if we were still using tin cans and string -- which we essentially were...

[Magister]

"Oh, I was hoping for something a little better than that from you, sir. A man of your education." The point is not better lines but relevant ones.

[Magister]

I taught for a decade and I can't recall any students making claims about their own intelligence. (Maybe indirectly, in terms of overconfidence.) But the Dunning-Kruger effect means that Dr. Ed 2 would not be able to distinguish such students from "those with superior understanding" anyway.

[Mr. Hook]

One of my favourite stories isn't one of mine but of a colleague. He's a US foreign policy historian and in a seminar discussion about the Middle East, one young man, bloated with self-confidence, said that bringing peace would be "easy." I can't recall what his specific solution was but it amounted to the American government gathering all the relevant parties—state and non-state actors from all across the region—and saying, "Look, this is what you're going to do." And they'd all just go along with it, apparently ignoring their own interests, because the US is so strong and persuasive. Just do what we say. No amount of critique from either his classmates or my colleague could dissuade him of the brilliance of his insight because, you know, the solution was easy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't that essentially what Eisenhower did over there in the 1950s?

[Magister]

Overthrowing the government of Iran in 1953 seems like something rather different. In the Suez Canal, Eisenhower mostly used influence against the British. The later Eisenhower doctrine did seek to gain greater influence in the region, but did not tell anyone there what to do.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The CIA didn't issue press releases.

Just sayin....

[Mr. Hook]

When given an opportunity to demonstrate your confident ignorance, you neither hesitate nor disappoint. Bravo. Yet, when offered a chance to talk about your supposed expertise—you claim to teach aspiring teachers, right?—you have nothing to say about technique or experience.

Don't forget to change the water in your mop bucket regularly.

[Krayt]

I think it was a play on Mr. Ed, not the degree. Would make more sense.

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2 has claimed to have a terminal degree, but not given any details about it; if it were completely made up, I'd expect more invented detail. It's pretty clearly not law, medical, dental or anything that has some specific area of expertise. He'd probably be less evasive about a PhD, and have more accurate knowledge about something, but maybe EdD or a PhD in something vague. The EdD seems most likely; it may be the source for "Ed", rather than a name.

[Bored Lawyer]

And in Exhibit 1720 of the "Yeah, they're Jew haters":

MIT anti-Israel activists spread map of Jewish orgs they want to ‘dismantle,’ provoking condemnation from MIT
The group said its ‘goal in pursuing this collective mapping was 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.’
MIT President Sally Kornbluth condemned the anti-Semitism of the project.

https://www.campusreform.org/article/mit-anti-israel-activists-spread-map-jewish-orgs-want-dismantle-provoking-condemnation-mit-/26258

[apedad]

Yup, people hate Jews and apparently Asians (see my comment above), and blacks, Muslims, White American Males (those DEI bastards!), etc.

[Bored Lawyer]

No, that's too facile. This is not some bigoted statement about a disfavored group. This is an organized targeting of Jewish organizations to dismantle them. By groups who use the excuse "we are just against Zionism, we don't hate Jews."

And yes, there is bigotry on all ends of the political spectrum, and against many different groups. Except some is acceptable and some is not.

[apedad]

Some bigotry is acceptable and some is not.

I'm guessing YOUR bigotry is acceptable?

[Bored Lawyer]

I meant to say, accepted, not acceptable.

[hobie]

Are you sure that wasn't a Freudian slip?

[David Nieporent]

Just for clarification, while these people are antisemites and the Mapping Project is an antisemitic enterprise, the Mapping Project predates the Gaza war by several years. These people are merely promoting an existing thing.

(That's not a defense of them! I just wanted readers who just heard about this to realize that the antisemitism is not new.)

[hobie]

My favorite protest chant has always been: "Jews will not replace us'"

[bernard11]

And in # 1721 we have Trump adviser and friend hosting and praising Holocaust denialist Darryl Cooper.

Carlson is a bit higher in the GOP food chain than those "mappers" are among the Democrats, assuming they even are Democrats.

I also see nothing in B.L.'s linked article that describes them as MIT students.

[Sarcastr0]

BL does not like it when people point out his asymmetry of concern.

[loki13]

Thoughts for today-

1. I really hate the way that the partisan nonsense has made any legal discussions, on the actual legal threads, impossible. For the people who have been here a long time (and you know who you are) you can remember that there used to be real legal discussions, with practitioners, law students, clerks, and professors chiming in. There are still very, very occasional discussions of the actual law, but it gets drowned out. I see a lot of the knowledgeable commenters from the past are no longer here, and I can understand why.

2. FOOTBALL! I have my “big money” annual fantasy draft this afternoon/evening- we always have it the day of the opening game, so we can enjoy festivities, draft, and watch the first game together. I am so excited, but …. Breece Hall as the first pick? Two J-E-T-S- JETS JETS JETS in the top ten? Interesting times.

PS- reminder, if you want redzone without Sunday Ticket, look into NFL+ and thank me later.

3. Aside to FSU fans… last week it was HA HA! Now? Schadenfreude is my favorite freude.

4. Reminder to everyone, especially if you’re in the northern climes, to go out and enjoy the outdoors before it gets cold.

5. Finally, today’s topic for people to argue about, if they want to-
If you have to grab fast food, where do you want to go?
Mickey Dees? Jack in the Box? Bojangles? Wendy’s? Zaxby’s? Hardee’s/Carl’s? Arby’s? One of the sub places (Firehouse, JJ’s, Jersey Mike’s, Jared’s)? Taco Hell? KFC? Popeyes? Culver’s? Whataburger? In-N-Out? Shake Shack? Some other place because I am tired of listing them?

[jb]

Re: (1) Yeah, I noticed the other day on the post about the defamation decision (in which a wife had falsely accused her husband of rape) the immediate response was for people to turn it into a discussion about how unfairly Trump had been treated. Sigh.

[Mr. Bumble]

If you're referring to the E. Jean Carroll fraud I don't think unfairly begins to describe what happened.

[jb]

I'm referring to the fact that apparently it's not possible to have any legal discussion without invoking Trump or Biden or Harris even though the topic has nothing to do with any of them.

[loki13]

Bingo.

It's two things I've noticed.

First, as you observe, people drag Trump/Harris/Biden into almost every thread even though the actual legal issue has nothing to do with them.

Second, even on those rare occasions when it's not that specifically, people still just argue partisan points instead of discussing the actual legal issue.

Law is interesting! I mean, to some of us. It would be nice to have the occasional discussion about it.

[Mr. Bumble]

"People" including those who claim to be lawyers.

[loki13]

Two things.

1. If you are a lawyer, it is abundantly clear whether someone else is a lawyer* based on what they write when they are discussing a legal issue. So I am not sure why you are writing "claim." It's obvious.

2. Yes, lawyers* are human, contrary to popular belief. Which means that they will get involved in stupid partisan arguments just like anyone else. And when it comes to stupid partisan arguments, their opinions are no more valid than yours, or mine. But more valid that Dr. Ed's, because of course.

3. That's not what I am saying- what I am saying is that many of us can remember when there were legal discussion on this blog. There were times in the "long ago" when I learned things about areas of the law from other legal professionals, and that is awesome. Now, we don't have those conversations because it's always derailed by partisan issues.

Personally, I prefer my politics so boring I can ignore them, but I am in the distinct minority now. Especially here.

*Or, at a minimum, a reasonably capable law student, clerk, or professor.

[Mr. Bumble]

"*Or, at a minimum, a reasonably capable law student, clerk, or professor." (or para-legal?)
That's why I said "claimed". Also, given all of the different areas of practice no one can be expected to be knowledgeable in every matter (well except for Notimportant and ng).
Given that this is an open thread I don't see why you would expect this to deal primarily with only legal discussions. As for legal discussions I see very few comments on most of the other posts.

[loki13]

I did specify in the original comment "on the legal threads."

On the open threads, or the threads that are actually about Trump/Harris/Biden etc., I have no quarrel with people banging their heads on the wall.

As I noted, I think that the overall level of discourse (and the way it has spread to the legal threads) has driven a lot of the legal people away. Signal, noise - sure you know about it. 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

Point taken but maybe it's because even the "legal" threads touch upon topics that affect many people.
Maybe a case of too many laws and too many lawsuits?

[loki13]

I don’t think so. This is a legal blog where law professors post stuff.

The issue, I think, is that a lot of people will see a posting about a particular case. And instead of being interested in … the legal issues in the case, they just want to pontificate about their opinions about some societal issue.

So let’s say that EV posts an interesting decision related to defamation and state law regarding a trans individual. No one is going to wade into that to discuss the actual decision, because everyone just wants to Forumsplain their own thoughts about trans individuals. Which has nothing to do with the actual case.

Or to use the more recent example of the case from N.D. Tex. on the X/Media Matters law suit. I had genuine questions that I wanted to discuss about the personal jurisdiction issue – because it seemed wrong to me, but I also wasn’t familiar enough with 5th Cir. (and Texas) law to make a definitive statement. However, almost the entire thread was people yelling at each other about what they already knew to be true about the evils of X or Media Matters.

*shrug*

[santamonica811]

Bumble has, by now, been around for a good amount of time. But he's not one of us old-timers. Yeah, the VC (at its various online locations) used to be qualitatively different. And better. And more fun. And kinder.

But, oh well. I still look forward to the occasional Orin post about some interesting 4th Amendment issue. Or a Eugene post about some wrinkle of First Amendment law. And, in the Open Threads, I've gotten literally dozens of good suggestions on books to read, maybe a dozen good suggestions on TV shows to binge. Sadly, I'm one of the few vegetarians, apparently. So, the recipe suggestions almost always fly over my culinary head.

[Ridgeway]

@SM811

I am not and never have been a vegetarian, but my wife made an extraordinarily good veggie gratin a couple of nights ago: onion, delicata squash and tomato cooked down to remove most of the liquid and then baked in a cheese sauce. The delicata squash made it substantial enough to work as a main course, and the sweetness of the squash and onions worked really well with the tanginess of the tomato. It was much more than the sum of its parts, plus it had cheese sauce.

[not guilty]

"Law is interesting! I mean, to some of us. It would be nice to have the occasional discussion about it."

Law and politics are often interrelated. I don't mind those commenters who discuss law from a partisan perspective, as I often do myself.

However, I do look askance at randos, who have never tried to persuade a judge or jury in their lives, pontificating about how the law does or does not apply and then running away like scalded dogs when asked about their legal training, if any.

As Mark Twain (may have) said, “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.”

[Mr. Bumble]

Did you leave out Chick-fil-a on purpose?

[loki13]

I did not! There are so many places I did not list (Chick-fil-a, Five Guys, Church’s….) because I was just typing, and I got tired of listing them.

I mean, looking back at the list, I saw that I didn’t include … BURGER KING?

You do understand that not everything is some jab or insult, right?

...okay, I did call Subway "Jared's". I am not totally innocent. But still.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, do you have a favorite. Not a fan of "fast food" and would rather hit a local pizzeria or diner.

[loki13]

See below.

They aren't national, but if I see a Culver's or an In-N-Out or a Shake Shack (except airports) I will stop there if I need something quick.

Five Guys is the place I go to that's close to me if I want something. Which I somehow forgot to put on the list. Because of course I did.

[Ska]

Five Guys is good but pricy for what it is. Whataburger isn't near me (I've only had it in Dallas) - definitely tasty; seemed like a better value. In-N-Out is a bit overrated, but still good for it's price point and consistent across locations; good but I don't get the fawning over it.

[Brett Bellmore]

We recently had Whataburger AND Habit Burger open up locally. They're both better than McD's or BK, but my local favorite is actually Hip Burger. Especially since they ditched the shoestring fries.

It's just a really good burger. Pity it's not a national chain.

[hobie]

Chipotle or Whataburger for me

[loki13]

Two questions-

1. Is Chipotle fast foot, or fast casual?

2. What is fast casual?

[hobie]

Well, would you consider Subway fast food? That's all Chipotle is except you're building a burrito down the line.

I would consider examples of fast casual to be Panda Express and Panera Bread....and some of the deli places

[Sarcastr0]

Loki, it's an election year, post-convention.
Silly season.

NFL-wise, I will be following it this year via The Ringer podcast; I'll see what team has the best story and latch onto them, I expect.

Weather has gotten nice, for sure.

Fast-food? Whatever is nearest; fast food means I'm in a hurry, so convenience and a certain expected level of quality.
From your list, I've not been to Bojangles, Zaxby's, Firehouse, Jared's, Culver's, Whataburger.

[loki13]

I won't say it's the best, but because I don't have it around me ...

when I see a Culver's and I need fast food, that's where I stop. Same with In-n-Out (not a part of the cult, but I enjoy it) and Shake Shack (except the airport locations- love the Smoke Shack burger).

Bojangles is regional; some people say it's the best thing ever. I think it's good, but don't understand the hype.

[Jerry B.]

Fast food? Usually call ahead at a local place. 5 Guys is pretty reliable.

[ducksalad]

4. Around here no one goes outside for enjoyment in summer. Maybe for work, or exercise, or to tell kids to get off the lawn, but not because it's nice out. Traditional first day to take a pleasant outdoor stroll is Halloween, last day is Easter.

[loki13]

"Around here no one goes outside for enjoyment in summer."

NOT EVEN TO GET MANGOES???

You're making my heart sad, ducksalad.

[ducksalad]

I've tried three times (two grafted nursery trees, one from seed) and all three failed. Two died in hot summers, one died in a freeze.

[hobie]

We have to devolve the comments section because nowadays we have one professor who only talks about pseudonymity, another about foot voting, and the other about himself

[loki13]

In fairness, foot-voting guy also talks about immigration!

Which is foot voting.... but the type of foot voting that seems to anger the blood of a lot of the people here.

I really wish Baude and Kerr would comment more. Although, I usually don't have a lot to say on most of Kerr's legal posts because they are about criminal law and procedure, and that is something that is not in my bailiwick. So I'm usually left with, "Uh, sounds right! Mens rea?"

[hobie]

I wish Kerr would post more too, because criminal law IS my bailiwick. But, yeah, 'mens rea' will get a layman through the door about 70% of the time lol

[ducksalad]

Kerr is a Fourth Amendment specialist who shows an unfortunate lack of outrage about all the exceptions that have been created. As if the legal questions are some kind of interesting but purely intellectual game, rather than our rights at stake.

[Sarcastr0]

Hobie - the daily auto-threads are a good place to ask fun questions if you want to change the vibe.

[hobie]

Daily auto-threads?

[Sarcastr0]

"Today in Supreme Court History"

I've not had the time or energy, but I've thought they could be a good refuge from the general toxicity of the open threads to talk about more rarified stuff.

What you're reading, or if you like alternate histories, or a specific Supreme Court case that's interesting to you.

And then ignore the bomb throwers best you can and chat about that thing.

As though we were a place for intellectuals to talk.

[shawn_dude]

1. I've been here since the same-sex marriage discussions... what was that... 2013-ish? I came to learn the real legal landscape on that topic (from all sides) and ended up staying for the high quality content. Then VC left the WaPo and that all circled the drain. Reason is basically 4chan-lite... 2chan? So attaching the VC to Reason was basically like mixing caviar into dogfood.

4. Things only now start to get nice out here. Summer (or "Summer" as I call it) tends to be in the low 60s and windy on the best day. Our summers are so terrible that there's even a famous (and false) Mark Twain quote about it. Fall warms up and I get three or four weeks of sunny weather. Then it all goes to shit again after Halloween.

5. "Want" being the operative word here. I'd say the local Vietnamese noodle house for a bowl of bun. Fast food exists here, sure, but it's limited and hard to find. Local mom-n-pops are more prevalent and far, far better. And with Grubhub, even more convenient. But if I'm driving South on the 101 and I'm starving, and I need a quick bite near the freeway, I'll look for an A&W or a Del Taco first.

[Martinned2]

2. FOOTBALL!

Yes, Alex Morgan is retiring. She won the Champions League in 2017.

[Kazinski]

I just find I have no interest in fast food anymore. However If I am on the road, then in the morngs, I will go to McDonald's and grab a breakfast sandwich if I'm with my wife, if Im buy myself I only eat one meal and its dinner.

When I am looking for something at dinner I look for local mexican restaurant or a taco truck. I'd much rather have a good Carne Asada or Carnitas Burrito than anything on a fast food menu, and because I'm usually in the Southwest or West coast its not hard to find one.

And if its late night, Ill go to in and out.

[apedad]

Gender care for Idaho prisoners

BOISE, Idaho — A federal court in Idaho protected the rights of two trans inmates who sought an injunction against a state law against using public funds on gender-affirming medical procedures. They win an injunction narrowly tailored to their situation: they, and other gender-dysphoric people who are incarcerated and prescribed hormone therapy, may receive their hormone treatments.

The Court HEREBY ORDERS:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Provisional Class Certification, and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 2) is hereby GRANTED.
a. The Court certifies the proposed class of all incarcerated persons in the custody of IDOC who are, or will be diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria, and
are receiving, or would receive hormone therapy proscribed under Idaho Code § 18-8901.
b. The Court enjoins enforcement of Idaho Code § 18-8901’s prohibition on the use of state funds for purposes of providing hormone therapy as against the class while this lawsuit is pending.
c. The Court appoints counsel for the named Plaintiffs as counsel for the class.
2. The bond requirement imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is WAIVED.

https://webservices.courthousenews.com/sites/Data/AppellateOpinionUploads/2024-04-9--15-06-06-306.pdf

There's a good discussion about which standard of care to use on pgs 7 - 9; World Professional Association for Transgender Health standards or the state's standards as enacted by law.

[Joe_dallas]

WPATH is very much an activists organization – skepticism is warranted

[apedad]

Someone (in authority) disagrees with you.

"Indeed, both the Ninth Circuit and (the US District Court for the District of Idaho) have relied on the WPATH standards in the past. See Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., 935 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2019); Poe v. Labrador, 2023 WL 8935065, at *4 (D. Idaho Dec. 26, 2023)."

[Joe_dallas]

the 9th agreeing with WPATH doesnt change the fact that WPATH is very much an activists organization with dubious studies supporting their agenda.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

A partisan pathological liar trying to tell other people that an organization shouldn't be trusted?

LOL.

[Joe_dallas]

WPATH is the pathological lying organization - Try to be an adult

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It seems that your reading comprehension is as reliable as your 'facts.'

You're the pathological liar, proven repeatedly over the last several months. Your word is utterly meaningless, and that's the entirety of your argument. It is therefore safe to assume that, as usual, you're full of shit.

Go fuck yourself. 🙂

[Kazinski]

Jason throwing his bottle again.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Is that your best attempt at being relevant? Having trouble discerning basic causality here?

LOL.

[Sarcastr0]

You tried to ad hominem WPATH, and it turns out you picked a fight with this court, and the 9C and Idaho District Court.

You haven't covered yourself in glory on this one.

[Longtobefree]

I hope the Idaho legislature funds this via a transfer from the judiciary branch budget.

[Kazinski]

Hardly fair to ding the state judiciary for what the federal courts are doing to them.

[not guilty]

Hunter Biden has reportedly entered a plea, a half hour before jury selection in his trial on tax charges was scheduled to begin. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/05/us/politics/hunter-biden-tax-trial.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20240905&instance_id=133516&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=176978&te=1&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f No word yet on whether the judge will accept the plea.

[Roger S]

His best bet is to hope that President Trump will pardon him.

[Jmaie]

Attorney Samuel Dewey (whomever that is) was quoted as suggesting the plea deal is to prevent airing of Biden family dirty laundry, and that Hunter would not have to report to prison until after the election, at which point President Biden could issue a pardon without harming Harris' election prospects.

I am not endorsing this claim, far from it. I only mention it in context of a poll - who here thinks Joe Biden would renege on his promise not to issue a pardon?

[Ska]

If I was in his shoes... I'd renege. Old, no future in politics... why would I let my kid, knucklehead that he is, do time? My supporters will defend me if I do, and my critics will slag me regardless of what I do. So what do I stand to lose?

[Bob from Ohio]

Agreed.

If I have unlimited, unreviewable discretion to save my child from prison, I absolutely would in a heartbeat.

[Longtobefree]

Joe? Renege on a promise?
I am a moderate that will unite the country Joe?
I will have the most transparent administration ever Joe?
That Joe?

Say it ain't so.

[Jmaie]

Three responses so far, none on topic. What do we think *Joe Biden* would do..

[ducksalad]

I’ll take a guess.

He’ll do it if, and only if, it gets to an imminent report-to-prison date with no more possible motions or procedures that could delay it.

In the meantime, he (or more accurately, his family and handlers) hope for an alternative outcome not requiring a Joe-Biden-issued pardon:

(a) probation rather than prison, with mild conditions Hunter is willing to accept,
(b) some legal miracle like newly uncovered prosecutorial misconduct that gets the whole case tossed,
(c) some legal “miracle” like “newly uncovered” prosecutorial misconduct that gets the whole case tossed, or
(d) combination of a Harris victory and a prison start date after the inauguration. She could then pardon Hunter, along with some prominent Republicans to give it the appearance of being non-partisan, with some speech about healing and moving on. You know, the joy stuff.

But if none of that works out, yeah, he’ll do it. And as others have said, why not?

[Kazinski]

Well what is on topic?

Hunter is guilty?

We already knew that.

[Zarniwoop]

I think it’s entirely plausible Pres Biden will not renege on not pardoning Hunter.

Commuting the sentence(s) is not a pardon….

[Kazinski]

He did say he wouldn't comute the sentence either, but I think just one time on a follow up question.

[hobie]

Joe will be able to keep his promise and not pardon Hunter, because president Harris will absolutely do it. See? Everything neat and tidy

[Mr. Bumble]

Hunter pleading guilty to some charges in an apparent attempt to keep a jury from deciding his fate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13816965/Hunter-Biden-arrives-tax-evasion-trial-begins-LA-wife-melissa-cohen.html

[David Nieporent]

What on earth are you talking about? A defendant pleading guilty (or in this case, an Alford plea) is not an "attempt to keep a jury from deciding" a defendant's fate. A plea bargain could be described that way, but from the article there's no plea bargain.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Lowell cited legal cases and precedents suggesting that by pleading guilty, the judge would have to decide on the facts of the case rather than a jury, and the judge could only use material that has already been filed in the case."
"Hunter's lawyers did not clarify whether he was pleading guilty to all nine charges including three felonies, or just some of them.'

[not guilty]

I don't know what authorities Lowell would be referring to. If the trial judge accepts the plea, the ordinary course of things would be to schedule a subsequent sentencing hearing at which both sides have the opportunity to present evidence. A presentence report would be prepared in the meantime, including much material that has not already been filed in the case.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey, you're the lawyer. If you don't know I certainly don't and only posted what was being reported in the article linked to above.
As I have said on multiple occasions:
...to be continued.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hate the source, but:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13818537/Hunter-Biden-pleads-GUILTY-NINE-charges-tax-evasion-trial.html

[Bob from Ohio]

Doesn't matter, he's getting pardoned after Nov. 5

[OtisAH]

See? Bob is an idiot. And he only says the stupidest thing a person can say. But even a shithead like Bob knows what’s coming this election. You all know. Sputter and spit and rage and wail all you like, it will change nothing.

[Joe_dallas]

OtisAH 8 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
See? Bob is an idiot.

The only thing that is stupid is denying the logical speculation that hunter is likely going to be pardoned.

[OtisAH]

No, what’s stupid is Bob. And you. Several others. Michael P springs to mind. That loser who has a new name every six weeks or so. There are more. You know them.

[Joe_dallas]

Bob from ohio made a very reasonable comment - your response was the typical immature prick comment.
Are you competing with jason or sacastro for the most frequent immature comment award?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're a pathological liar who's been outed numerous times in the last few months alone. You come here with your lies for the sole purpose of spreading disinformation, bigotry and hate.

Tell me Joe: Is lying 'mature?'

Oh, and go fuck yourself. 🙂

[Joe_dallas]

You won the biggest prick award - congratulations on showing your maturity.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If you wish to be treated like a decent human being, you could take some lessons and try to actually be one, instead of the shit-stain, lying fuckwad you've repeatedly proven yourself to be.

You have no standing to complain about maturity whatsoever. Piles of shit don't have legs.

[Joe_dallas]

Jason - you already won the biggest prick award - be an adult.

[hobie]

After hurting a bunch of feelings and engaging in hatred, Joe is now an aggrieved innocent. Shame on you Cavanaugh

[Joe_dallas]

Jason Cavanaugh 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
You’re a pathological liar who’s been outed numerous times

Jason's is busy calling everyone he doesnt like a pathological liar

yet he is voting for the ticket which includes a serial liar.
https://freebeacon.com/elections/he-did-not-complete-the-degree-program-tim-walz-repeatedly-claimed-he-was-nearly-finished-with-phd-years-after-he-disappeared-from-university/

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Jason’s is busy calling everyone he doesnt like a pathological liar"

Nope. You don't get to try and spread that shame around to everyone else.

When did I say for whom I would vote, and what would you like to say about the veracity of your messiah?

More lies from fuckhead Joe. Fitting.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe, how many people have you called dishonest on the VC? What in the world made you think it was a good idea to complain about this thing you notably do a whole lot?

[Joe_dallas]

You quite frequently because you demonstrate dishonesty with most every comment.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, you're already kinda showing what you're made of. But it's a pretty broad swath of people in addition to me.

You do it to just about anyone who pushes back on your ‘common sense’ nonsense. You did it to randal above. You do it to DMN all the time.

At some point, you need to ask yourself why things that happen to agro assholes keep happening to you.

“busy calling everyone he doesn’t like a pathological liar”

[Randal]

Hahaha lyin' Joe, you can't be serious. "I'm almost done with my PhD" is what everyone who never finished their PhD says. They're always thinking they might go back and finish it, once they save up enough dough or whatever.

Just like how you tell everyone you're almost done with high school.

[David Nieporent]

Has Joe never heard of an ABD?

[Longtobefree]

It is not to stop a jury deciding his fate, it is to prevent the discovery process that would be shall we say embarrassing, to his family.

[not guilty]

The case was on today's docket for a jury trial to begin. Discovery should have been completed.

[David Nieporent]

There is no "discovery process." The case was set to go to trial.

[ducksalad]

Sincere question for the lawyers here: what would happen if a member of the prosecution team announced something along the lines of “Oopsie! My bad! I was cleaning out my desk drawer and found this 100 page file of documents that could be plausibly be spun as slightly exculpatory.”

Does the guilty plea make it all too late? Does it start the whole trial over? Or does the case get dismissed?

Just to be clear, I have zero reason to believe this prosecutor would deliberately botch the case. Just wondering if it’s even a possibility.

[not guilty]

Under that scenario, the prosecutor would be obliged to turn over the material to defense counsel. It would then be up to the defendant to decide to seek to set aside the plea or not. (If he got a mild sentence, he might not want to risk going to trial.)

In federal court a defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere: (1) before the court accepts the plea, for any reason or no reason; or (2) after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if: (A) the court rejects a plea agreement under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(5); or (B) the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal. The District Court would likely hold a hearing to determine whether the belated disclosure constitutes such a fair and just reason. The burden of persuasion is on the defendant to establish the materiality of the materials that were not disclosed. In this context, "evidence is considered material where there is a reasonable probability that but for the failure to produce such information the defendant would not have entered the plea but instead would have insisted on going to trial." United States v. Persico, 164 F.3d 796, 804-05 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).

After the court imposes sentence, the defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and the plea may be set aside only on direct appeal or collateral attack. A failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, discovered after sentencing, can support a collateral attack if the nondisclosed information is material -- that is, "if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433 (1995).

I hope this is helpful.

[ducksalad]

Yes, it is, thank you.

If I understand you correctly, in the case of failure to disclose evidence, the best result a defendant can get is a new trial (unless the prosecutor decides to drop the case).

[David Nieporent]

If I understand you correctly, in the case of failure to disclose evidence, the best result a defendant can get is a new trial (unless the prosecutor decides to drop the case).

It is theoretically possible for prosecutorial misconduct to be so egregious that a court dismisses the case with prejudice.

[Kazinski]

As recently happened with Alex Baldwin in NM state court.

And quite famously happened in the first Bundy trial in Federal Court.

[M L]

In 2016 Democrats/media made a lot of the talking point that Trump "only won by 70,000 votes" which meant that if you added up enough of the narrowest swing state margins to change the EV result, you get about that number. This was dubbed a razor thin margin and there was suggestion that the whole thing was a fluke.

This was always a little bit like saying that a 21-0 football game, for example, was "only won by 6 yards" because the losing team was repeatedly within a few yards of scoring touchdowns.

But anyway, for some reason none of them ever brought up this measure of the margin of victory in 2020. So shortly after I went and looked up the numbers and it was even much smaller! Like 40,000 if I recall correctly.

I also recall that leading up to and shortly after the 2020 election, Democrats and commenters here were acknowledging (they are so magnanimous) that the event known as COVID was an unlucky break that had put a significant dent in Trump's chances. Such that given the thin margin, he would have won but for that. I am curious if any will argue with that today or if they still would say that?

[NOVA Lawyer]

“This was dubbed a razor thin margin and there was suggestion that the whole thing was a fluke.”

It was a razor thin margin in a country of 150,000,000+ voters and with the two states involved having millions of voters.

To the extent it was considered “a fluke”, I presume those who used that term meant it was from the perspective of Clinton having handily won the nationwide popular vote. It certainly was a fluke of the electoral college system.

“none of them ever brought up this measure of the margin of victory in 2020”

I have no idea who “them” are, so I’m not sure that’s even accurate. Plus, losers try to console themselves with how close they came. Ask the Tennessee Titans about the 2000 Super Bowl and they will tell you they were so close to winning, like a yard away. Ask the Rams and they’ll just say they won.

Funny thing happened in 2020, the losers didn’t claim they lost a close one in a fluke, they claimed they didn’t lose at all.

I’ll take the Tennessee Titans’ approach over undermining democracy and immigrating to fantasyland any day and, NFL pun totally intended, twice on Sunday.

[not guilty]

The Titans lost that Super Bowl by a yard and a half -- the yard that Kevin Dyson failed to get, and the first half.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And I counter with—the Music City Miracle! 2016 was the Music City Miracle with a strong economy adding jobs but the fracking slump led to pockets of job losses in Rust Belt cities that supplied fracking equipment. So Trump won in 2016 because of low energy prices which prior to 2016 was great for America but then America became the biggest energy producer and so low energy prices could be bad for America!!!

[NOVA Lawyer]

lol. Well played, ng. Well played.

As a Torry Holt fan, I was much pleased.

[apedad]

You know who says, "Yeah we lost but only by a little?"

Losers.

[Mr. Bumble]

That would be Gore and Hillary.
Trump claims he won.
Actually, I'll take that back. They all claimed they won.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Democrats won big in 2016!! Have you been in a coma since December 2016???

[NOVA Lawyer]

Not terribly mature, but a true loser, in every sense of the word, claims never to have lost at all.

[shawn_dude]

But it would be in improvement if they just admitted they lost in 2020. They're already claiming a rigged election this year--which I can buy to an extent given the extra effort the GOP has taken to empower local MAGAts to refuse to certify election results if Big Orange has fewer votes.

[bernard11]

And I recall that Republicans made much the same argument in 2020, with no objection from you. In fact you joined the chorus.

Also, stop pretending to be the person who "discovered" the 40,000 vote margin.

[Joe_dallas]

The Harris-Walz campaign and its supporters (especially the paid cheerleaders on social media) like to share pictures of the crowds at their rallies and talk about all the grassroots and genuine excitement that exists out there for Trump's opponent. It doesn't really add up considering we're talking about the VP who just a few months ago many Dems wanted Biden to replace because they felt she was a greater drag on the ticket than Joe himself.

The reality is that "Harris-Mania" is mostly a DNC/media creation, and that campaign has been so desperate to make her rallies look well attended that they've been bussing people in.

Harris-Walz had people bussed to a recent rally in Georgia:

[loki13]

Or, and I know this might seem bizarre to you, but just try this out...

Maybe the people who were Democrats (and the people who were just "Please, God, No More Trump") were completely broken by the idea that Biden was the other choice, and there had been that undercurrent of despair for some time.

And that was reinforced at the debate.

Then, that all changed. There is such a thing as "vibes." If you haven't seen the actual vibes change in a lot of people, I would suggest actually meeting more people, and not just relying on what you want to be true.

Sure, this isn't about Harris qua Harris. And vibes can end. But it's really weird to be reaching for conspiracy theories. Go for the simple explanation- people are genuinely excited because the veil of despair has been lifted, and all their hope is projected on to the candidate.

We will see if it lasts.

[David Nieporent]

the VP who just a few months ago many Dems wanted Biden to replace because they felt she was a greater drag on the ticket than Joe himself.

This is something that Joe_Dallas simply made up.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://time.com/6589518/joe-biden-owes-the-country-new-vice-president/

Your Talmudic gaslighting won't work here any more.

[David Nieporent]

So January is "just a few months ago"? And someone named "Benn Steil" is "many Dems"? (Is he even one Dem?)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Haha yeah an article published in Time had no support from literally anyone else but the author!

That's how smart people think!

[loki13]

I try to stay somewhat on top of news, and I will say that I can't recall any muttering about removing Harris from the ticket.

At all.

That's not to say that there isn't some rando, somewhere, who might have said something.

I feel like people are saying, "Who do you believe, me or your lying eyes?"

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Democrats definitely underestimated Kamala and believed they were “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” with Biden quitting because Kamala couldn’t beat Trump and Democrats couldn’t replace Kamala. This current political climate is all about driving up negatives of the opposing candidate (think Citizens United which was the GOPe laser focused on Hillary who was considered unbeatable in the primary) and so the best thing is to be underestimated because that particular candidate’s negatives aren’t being jacked up.

[Sarcastr0]

Benn Steill sounds like a joke name to me.

Also I am stealing it for my next urban fantasy RPG character.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Steil is senior fellow and director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations

Good one, Gaslightr0.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL you haven't heard of him before today either.

Senior Fellow. A Director even!
Oh my goodness, what a rare find!

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, yeah, January, being THIS year, is only a few months ago.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey! I'm the one doing the Talmudic gaslighting on this blog

[Kazinski]

No its not, here is an LA Times article about speculation that Biden would dump Harris.

One of many:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-02-05/biden-speculation-dump-harris-from-2024-ticket

And even Senator Warren publicly saying she’d be fine with Joe replacing Kamala.
http://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2023-01-27/warren-stops-short-of-backing-harris-for-vp-in-2024

Kinda weird calling people a liar without even checking to see if its true.

[Mr. Bumble]

Notimportant is a liawyer so it comes naturally. He also spends a lot of time in a TDS bubble along with not guilty.

[David Nieporent]

So, in fact, neither one of those links even remotely says that "many Dems" wanted Biden to replace Harris "just a few months ago." (Indeed, both pieces are 18 months old, so they couldn't show anything about "just a few months ago.") In fact, the first one expressly says exactly the opposite — that there were only "scattered" calls to do so, and it elaborated that it wasn't talking about Dems at all: "a column here, a blabbering talking head there." The second one doesn't mention anyone calling for Harris to be replaced.

[Sarcastr0]

You need a more critical eye when reading palace drama stories like this.

I learned this after the 500th 'Trump is isolated' story in 2017.

They're basically clickbait for political junkies. Read them carefully for what they say and what they do not; and do your best to leave your priors at the door.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe sounds like he's prepping the ground for 2024 trutherism should the election not go as he wishes.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Republicans have jumped the shark—they believe Churchill was the villain in WW2!!! Substack and podcasts is where they peddle their snake oil!!

[TwelveInchPianist]

There's a lawsuit that claims that a school told parents that boys and girls would be housed separately on field trips, but instead required boys and girls to share beds, had a woman supervising the boys' showers, etc.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How progressive!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nobody will be surprised to learn that you're just a bigot trying to complain about transgender people because you're a piece of shit.

[Joe_dallas]

Jason Cavanaugh 5 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Nobody will be surprised to learn that you’re just a bigot trying to complain about transgender people because you’re a piece of shit.

Quit being an immature prick.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

TIP's over there deliberately misrepresenting the facts because he's a fucking bigot, and you're here to defend him because you're exactly the same.

If I remember right, you are welcome to go fuck yourself.

When will we get to see your little sock-puppet Sonja_T again?

[TwelveInchPianist]

What facts am I misrepresenting?

[Joe_dallas]

TIP - You are not misrepresenting any facts - Jason has just become a total prick. He simply incapable of providing a mature intelligent comment.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Thank you.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

One liar comforting another and absolving each other of their own lies.

How adorable!

TIP mis-gendered someone to pick a fight and doesn't have the balls to admit it.

That I treat you both like the partisan shitheads you are does not logically imply that I am incapable of forming a coherent argument for those who actually deserve one.

Neither of you deserve anything more than condescension and vitriol. I am happy to oblige on both counts until you're gone.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sounds like you think that people who disagree with you are partisan shitheads, while you are the rational one. Shocking how common that sentiment is.

What you've made clear is that you will pick a fight with anyone who doesn't use the left's preferred framing on this issue. Which makes you the partisan shithead.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

There are other ways you could've framed this case which would not have been so deliberately insulting on your part. You chose to be a piece of shit about it.

Your conclusion that it's either "the left or a fight" is false. Those who most care about the transgender stuff around here happen to be the shitheads like you, Joe, Armchair and Michael who have some kind of grievance fascination with it. Because of that, you bring it up in a deliberately derogatory fashion.

If you weren't looking for a fight, you wouldn't go out of your way to bring it up, and you wouldn't deliberately present the case like an asshole trying to start one.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"There are other ways you could’ve framed this case which would not have been so deliberately insulting on your part. "

So what? You don't get to dictate how a frame this issue. As I said, you are free to fling poo at anyone who doesn't frame transgender issues the way you want them to, but that just makes you a partisan dick.

[Bwaaah]

Jason: There are real political questions here, e.g. does self-identification negate applicability of biological classification systems?

TIP said nothing derogatory. Try to rise above the role of scorned bitch.

[Randal]

You don’t get to dictate how [I] frame this issue.

But he does get to observe that you framed it exactly the way that a partisan asshole looking for a fight would frame it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But he does get to observe that you framed it exactly the way that a partisan asshole looking for a fight would frame it."

If you think framing an issue in a way other than your party's preferred framing makes someone a partisan asshole looking for a fight, sure.

But that just makes you a partisan asshole looking for a fight.

[Randal]

You're not an asshole because you framed it in a different way than I would. You're an asshole because you framed it in a way that gave you an opportunity to do some deliberate, public, unnecessary misgendering.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I don't believe it's misgendering, I believe it's the correct way to state gender, and that the newspeak is misgendering.

You are free to disagree, but you guys seem unable to disagree without being assholes.

Because you're assholes.

[Randal]

I don’t believe it’s misgendering

Even taking that at face value, which you don’t deserve, it's not the point. Whether you consider it misgendering or not, you’re deliberately going out of your way to do it. That’s the asshole part.

Announcing one’s beliefs far and wide, knowing they cause offense and intending that effect, is exactly what makes someone an asshole.

Non-assholes seek to find inoffensive ways to express their beliefs.

[TwelveInchPianist]

1. No, you're a piece of shit.
2. Of course no one will be surprised.

Schools shouldn't require boys and girls to share beds. And if they do, they should be transparent with parents about it.

[Sarcastr0]

If you want to talk about transgender stuff, talk about transgender stuff.

Instead you took some trouble to reframe what was clear in the complaint in an indirect and unclear way so you could be an asshole with pronouns.

What a piece of shit indeed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I am talking about transgender stuff, and I linked to a lawsuit that raises an interesting issue.

If you want to be an asshole about me using traditional language instead of newspeak, that's because you're an asshole.

Fucking piece of shit.

[Joe_dallas]

TIP fwiw - far too many leftist commentators have resorted to very immature comments instead of discussing subjects as adults.

[hobie]

I love the pearl clutching. Please.. continue

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, next use the N-word to really show you're goi for that old traditional language and bucking those Orwellian PC bastards controlling our speech by some things becoming rude that once were not!

It's no real price to call people what they want to be called, even if you don't like it.
You're going out of your way to pick a fight.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You’re going out of your way to pick a fight."

Lol. You're the one calling people names. I doesn't even occur to you that you're the one picking a fight.

[Sarcastr0]

You took time and trouble to rewrite stuff to remove tact and courtesy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

1. How so?

2. I disagree that the newspeak is tactful or courteous. Disagreeing with you isn't picking a fight. But you calling me an asshole is. If you're going to pick a fight over the way I frame things, you should have the balls to admit it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

In any event, you and Jason have made it clear that you will pick a fight with anyone that doesn't use your preferred framing on this issue.

That's your prerogative. It makes you a dick, but we've known that you're a dick for a long time. But you should at least be cognizant that that's what you're doing.

[Randal]

I disagree that the newspeak is tactful or courteous.

This might get you excused from incidental usage.

But going out of your way to offend someone on purpose makes you an asshole, even if you think they're wrong to be offended.

Also, this is farily basic human interaction stuff, which makes you autistic to boot, tiny pianist.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But going out of your way to offend someone on purpose makes you an asshole...'

I'm not doing that, I'm just using what I feel is correct terminology. You guys, on the other hand, are doing that, by calling people assholes and pieces of shit.

Which makes you assholes and pieces of shit.

[Randal]

“But going out of your way to offend someone on purpose makes you an asshole…"

I’m not doing that...

Hahahaha who are you trying to kid, yourself?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Nothing has become rude, but to you Nazis. You people don't define the standards for Normals.

[Sarcastr0]

Bullshit.

You are clearly putting on a persona on here; you do not act like this out in the world. You've said you're just on here to fuck around and rile up the libs.

For all your big game talk about Nazis, outside this space you're just another guy obeying standards and reading the room and holding your tongue as needed like anyone else.

TiP? He seems to genuinely be a piece of shit. You just cosplay one online sometimes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You're the one who decided to pick fights with anyone who doesn't use your preferred framing on transgender issues, you piece of shit.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol wrong

That's the soy boy version of the "that big bully is secretly gay" fantasy trope of the homos.

"That alpha man is really a secret soy boy, just like me and my wife's boyfriend!"

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, alpha man.

Dude, you boasted you were a put on like a week ago.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Sure I did.

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/23/lets-go-brandon-t-shirts-can-be-barred-from-middle-school-on-grounds-of-vulgarity/?comments=true#comment-10698877

"I mostly comment on this board while I’m taking shit. I skim not study.
I like to keep my inputs/outputs consistent. Lower cognitive load.

Read shit, take a shit, talk shit, reply to shit. I keep the big brain stuff for more important matters. Like buttering up your mom."

Time for a new screenname I guess, alpha man.

[Frank Drackman]

Obama said "Nigger" a few times in his Best Selling Auto-Erotic-Biography, "Wet Dreams of my Father" didn't seem to hurt him any

[Michael P]

You keep falling back on the same tired projections in attempts to convert debates over substance into personal attacks and food fights, Gaslight0. "You just wanna pick a fight." "You're going out of your way to pick a fight." You claim to be an adult; act like one.

[Sarcastr0]

I made an argument. You like to just say my thesis as though I did an ipse dixit. I'm not Riva, I back my shit up.

I'm also not alone in noticing TiP's not very subtle agro moves:
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/09/05/thursday-open-thread-207/?comments=true#comment-10712956

[Bwaaah]

You didn't make an argument about the controversy presented by TIP. You did a knee-jerk attack against him for having brought up that controversy.

You are a douche.

[Sarcastr0]

You increasingly talk about the commenter, and fail to engage with the comments.

Just bringing up the controversy would be fine. If you read my comments you would see that:
"If you want to talk about transgender stuff, talk about transgender stuff.

Instead you took some trouble to reframe what was clear in the complaint in an indirect and unclear way so you could be an asshole with pronouns."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Just bringing up the controversy would be fine. " As long as I use your preferred framing. If I don't, you're going to be a dick and pick a fight.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I made an argument."

The argument you made was that people who don't frame transgender issues using your preferred language are assholes and pieces of shit.

That's not an argument, that's name-calling and picking a fight.

[Bwaaah]

^^^EXACTLY^^^

[not guilty]

I have done a deep dive into the legal issues here, but as a practical matter, perhaps the plaintiff parents should train their children not to be pecker checkers.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You think parents should tell their children that if they are uncomfortable sharing a bed with members of the opposite sex, they are pieces of shit, to use other commentors' language?

I guess that's one approach.

[not guilty]

No, of course I don't think that. Why do you ask?

But I do think that parents should teach their children that minding one's own business is a virtue. Modesty is one reason that doors and bathroom stalls have locks on them. What is in someone else's pants is generally not something to obsess over. Parents who teach their children to do so do the children a disservice.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Now do being required to share a bed with someone of the opposite sex.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Modesty is one reason that doors and bathroom stalls have locks on them."

It's also one reason we separate bathrooms by sex.

But again, on what planet is who you share a bed with, or who supervises your shower, none of your business?

[not guilty]

TwelveInchPianist, do you go into a public restroom to use the facilities for the intended purpose, or to check out the nether regions of other occupants?

Your fixation is creepy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I go into the correct one for my sex.

But why are you trying to deflect from bed sharing and shower supervision to bathrooms with locked stalls?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He's not guilty the formal legal analyst and ball and strike caller!

That's why he's avoiding the purpose of the lawsuit, that some deranged lunatic not guilty-type forced girls to share beds and showers with boys, because he's just a down the middle legal analyst!

[not guilty]

I note that you avoid my question about whether you check out the genitalia of other folks in a public restroom, TIP.

When I take a shower and someone wishes to ogle me -- I don't know why they would -- it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson. And I don't share my bed casually.

[Michael P]

To clarify, are you of the opinion that being a "pecker checker" is bad, or that it neither picks your pocket or breaks your leg?

And similarly, are you of the opinion that who you choose to share your bed is analogous to a school field trip where rooms are assigned by teachers?

[not guilty]

I am of the opinion that minding one's own business regarding other folks' genitalia is a virtue -- one which parents should foster in their children. Obsessing about what is in another person's pants -- to the point of filing a federal lawsuit -- is creepy.

My only child is in her thirties, but if I had young children, I wouldn't want any of these plaintiffs around them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I am of the opinion that minding one’s own business regarding other folks’ genitalia is a virtue — one which parents should foster in their children."

Do you feel like your parents did you a disservice by failing to teach you not to speculate about Ashleigh Merchant's tits?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You pretending you can't recognize a man in a dress without inspecting his junk is even creepier.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Whose language?

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/09/05/thursday-open-thread-207/?comments=true#comment-10712589

Speaking of not having any balls...

[TwelveInchPianist]

Your language, dumbass.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That's your quote calling someone a piece of shit. Language you claim is not yours, but someone else's?

More lies, or just more hypocrisy?

It seems that you're quiet willing to adopt some language, but you'd rather be a giant piece of shit to transgender individuals when they aren't even here instead of adopting that language.

I'd say that proves column A and B are both true. A lying, piece of shit hypocrite.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And here's your quote calling someone else a piece of shit:

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/09/05/thursday-open-thread-207/?comments=true#comment-10712475

Your language, dumbass.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Good god you're a fucking moron who can't follow a straight line.

"It seems that you’re quiet willing to adopt some language, but you’d rather be a giant piece of shit to transgender individuals when they aren’t even here instead of adopting that language."

Try again.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Still your language.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Language you adopted, you dumb fuck.

You didn't get it the first time despite a clear explanation. The second time I specifically quoted the part you were too stupid to understand the first time, since your reading comprehension has had some problems of late, and you're still too retarded to comprehend the hypocrisy.

You don't get to use someone else's language and pretend it isn't immediately your own language too. It came out of your goddamn mouth: it's yours. Own it like a man, or admit you're nothing but a eunuch bitch.

Which is it TIP? Are you retarded, or are you a eunuch?

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Language you adopted, you dumb fuck.”

Yes, as I explained when I said, “to use other commentors' language”

You really are a stupid piece of shit, aren’t you.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You were perfectly content to adopt “someone else’s” language and use it as your own to call someone a piece of shit.

You went out of your way NOT to adopt “someone else’s” language when you wanted to pick a fight over transgender issues.

"Piece of shit" = Acceptable.
Not deliberately mis-gendering someone = Objectionable.

That makes you an asshole. You are a hypocrite and a coward to pretend words that come out of your mouth aren’t yours upon utterance.

I don’t know whether to laugh at your stupidity, or pity the people who actually have to dress you in the morning, or both.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You were perfectly content to adopt “someone else’s” language and use it as your own to call someone a piece of shit."

That's because you're a piece of shit.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/09/05/thursday-open-thread-207/?comments=true#comment-10712589

That's you calling someone else a piece of shit without any qualifiers. No attempt at trying to lie about whose words they are, or who is responsible for their utterance. Just you being an asshole, all on your own, with your own big words.

You're a moronic, lying, cowardly sack of shit. I look forward to repeatedly reminding you of this fact in the future. 🙂

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So the DOJ Chief of Public Affairs is on video stating Braggs case is politically motivated bullshit.

What do you think he knows that not guilty doesnt?

[David Nieporent]

Nothing. Also, he's not the "DOJ Chief of Public Affairs."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You're not telling the truth, Moshe.

[Sarcastr0]

Xochitl Hinojosa said what?

[Michael P]

The relevant difference is not that Nicholas Biase, the chief spokesman for the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office, knows more than not guilty. It's that Biase is honest about what he knows.

[MoreCurious]

From the lack of responses to my questions this morning, it's possible to draw a couple of conclusions. First, none of the Trump supporters who appear regularly on the VC believe that any of the accusations of misconduct made against Trump are true, even the ones that he's admitted and the ones he's been found in court to have committed. Second, even if they believe the charges, they don't care, perhaps because they believe the ends justify the means. Third, they have given up on being principled conservatives or libertarians. Fourth, they and the millions of people who will vote for Trump just don't care if this dangerous, immoral, unethical, misogynistic, bigoted, vulgar, not-very-smart bully is given another chance to cause grave harm to the Constitution, our democracy, and our beloved country. One more question: how will you explain yourselves to your children and grandchildren?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If Trump wins atleast we will be alive to speak to them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

EXACTLY...

[Longtobefree]

Not sure about anyone else, but I will explain myself by showing the economic data, and international situations, and federal regulatory burden between 2016-2020 and 2020-2024.
The old educational technique of 'compare and contrast'.

[MoreCurious]

With all due respect, you're avoiding the underlying question, namely, why Trump? No one is challenging your right to decide which issues are important to you. But was there no one else in the Republican party who could have worked to achieve your hoped-for results without debasing the party?

[Frank Drackman]

The Republicans have this thing called a "Primary" where different candidates actually compete in Primary Erections all across the country, The DemoKKKrats should try that.

Frank

[NOVA Lawyer]

So you like a four year term with net job losses, relatively poor GDP growth (GDP grew as much in Biden's first two years as in Trump's four), exploded debt, exchanging loves letters with dictators, siding with other dictators over U.S. intelligence agencies, and otherwise embarrassing the U.S. on the world stage? A weird metric you have there.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out the Chy-na Virus, which shut down the economy for the last year, resulting in the net job losses, and the rest of your bullshit, and you left out the 19 murdered Soliders/Marines/Sailors at Abbey Gate, oh wait, that was on Parkinsonian Joe's watch. It doesn't bother you just a little bit that Cums-a-lot's Husband fucked his Nanny, paid for her Abortion, and jumps around like he's fucking Richard Simmons?
And I'm warning you, the Oktober Surprise is gonna be a "Christina Balls-y Ford" type accusing Sergeant Major Pepper-Waltz, but it won't be a Christina, there will be Balls involved, and as it says in the UCMJ, "Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to commit the act"

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

So now looks like the Jaw-Jaw School Shooter was "Transitioning"
could explain the "Colt", "Cody" confusion.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Expect that story to vanish quicker than a smiling Sandy Hook dad on camera.

[Mr. Bumble]

How much blood does the FBI have on its hands?

[Frank Drackman]

it's "FGI" Federal Gestapo of Investigation

[Mr. Bumble]

Federal Bureau of Incompetence?

[Dr. Ed 2]

citation?

[Mr. Bumble]

So, notwithstanding Notimportant's keen observations up thread:
On the first day of trial, during jury selection, Hunter Biden attempts to plead guilty to the six non-felony counts and quickly changes that to guilty on all nine counts.
If the Judge accepts the plea (is there a reason or justification for him not to?) then no trial and no chance of any testimony implicating the Big Guy.
No matter what the judge decides prior to leaving off ice (but after the election) the Big Guy pardons the son who didn't die in Iraq (oh wait his other son didn't die in Iraq either) and was fucking his dead brother's widow while hooking her on drugs.
Sounds about right.

[David Nieporent]

If the Judge accepts the plea (is there a reason or justification for him not to?) then no trial and no chance of any testimony implicating the Big Guy.

There is no chance of any testimony "implicating the Big Guy" — by which I assume you mean Joe Biden even though that's made up — if there's a trial. The only charges involve failure of Hunter Biden to pay taxes. Joe Biden is not responsible for Hunter Biden's tax filings.

No matter what the judge decides prior to leaving off ice (but after the election) the Big Guy pardons the son

You assume that because your hero Trump is corrupt that everyone else is.

[Mr. Bumble]

Add douche to Pompous Ass.
Can the judge reject the guilty plea?

Wanna bet that no matter how this plays out Biden will pardon Hunter before he leaves office? He's dying and has nothing to lose.

[not guilty]

The judge would need to address the defendant in open court and conduct a colloquy to ensure that the plea is offered voluntarily and knowingly, including with awareness of the rights that the defendant is waiving. The judge must determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement). Before entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea.

If the above conditions are not met, the judge can reject the plea. Where there is an agreed disposition, (there is not with Hunter Biden,) the judge can reject the agreement.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, apparently he accepted the plea and sentencing is set for December 16.

[Frank Drackman]

What's Hunter gonna do when he gets out of jail? He's gonna have some fun! (Talking Heads/Tom Tom Club reference)
Rhetorical Question, Judge didn't do Hunter any favors letting him stay out until sentencing, odds are he OD's or has an MI before December.
So why is Steve Banyon in Jail already? for some Bullshit "Contempt of Congress" who doesn't? (have Contempt of Congress)

Frank

[David Nieporent]

A judge can reject a guilty plea for several reasons:
1) If he if he finds after doing a colloquy that the plea wasn't knowing and voluntary (including the fact that a plea gives up certain rights, such as the right to a jury trial).
2) If he finds that the plea was coerced.
3) If the judge finds that there's no factual basis to support the plea.

In practice this is almost always a pro forma exercise; the judge reads a series of questions, the defendant answers them as his lawyer prepped him to, and everyone moves on. But in theory the judge can provide close scrutiny, and in a high profile case he'll make sure to do so.

[not guilty]

Judge Chutkan has entered a scheduling order in the District of Columbia prosecution of Donald Trump. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.233.0_2.pdf

It's time for Trump to belly up to the buzzsaw.

[not guilty]

The nut graf of the scheduling order provides:

The Government shall file an Opening Brief on Presidential Immunity by September 26, 2024. Defendant’s Response and Renewed Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity is due October 17, 2024. The Government’s Reply and Opposition is due October 29, 2024. After briefing, the court will determine whether further proceedings are necessary.

In a 1913 Harper’s Weekly article, entitled “What Publicity Can Do,” Louis Brandeis famously said that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” The next nine weeks should be quite interesting. As Richard Nixon said fifty years ago, "People have got to know whether or not their President's a crook." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M

[JoeFromtheBronx]

On the Hunter Biden plea deal:

A U.S. Sentencing Commission report last year said the average tax case sentence was 16 months, even though the average minimum sentence recommended by the sentencing guidelines was 28 months in prison. Nearly four in 10 defendants received no prison time at all, the court said.

The fact that Hunter Biden has paid his taxes in full could help soften the sentence, though the judge will also consider his felony conviction in Delaware.

As a matter of public welfare, both trials came off to me as unwarranted. If his name was not “Hunter Biden,” would they have been brought?

The White House press secretary stated President Biden will still not give him a pardon. I suppose this also means a "commutation," for those who want to parse words.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/09/05/hunter-biden-alford-guilty-plea-taxes/

Speaking of pardon power generally, what about the death penalty? President Biden stated he was against it and supported Congress overturning the death penalty.

Will he commute any death sentences at the end of his term?

[hobie]

I think he should pardon only those in his orbit, rich people, family members and Vladimir Putin. The hell with all the nameless niggas and spics in fed prison. Only in this way can MAGA not fault him

[Frank Drackman]

Lot of numbers, there, try this one
$1,400,000, that's how much in Taxes Hunter didn't pay, real crime is the IRS took that long to figure it out, I get Audited the same year for dotting a "T" instead on an "I"
"end of his term?"
You really think Parkinsonian Joe is going to serve until January 20, 2025? Do you think he's serving now?

Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Frank, that's (D)ifferent and you know it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They have arrested the shooter's father for "knowingly permitting him to possess a weapon."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYjRiGoq75s

If you are trying the 14-year-old as an adult, how can you then logically try the parent for not properly supervising a minor?
I see a logical inconsistency here.

[not guilty]

I haven't seen the charging instrument yet, but Georgia Code § 16-2-20 provides:

a. Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime.
b. A person is concerned in the commission of a crime only if he:

1. Directly commits the crime;
2. Intentionally causes some other person to commit the crime under such circumstances that the other person is not guilty of any crime either in fact or because of legal incapacity;
3. Intentionally aids or abets in the commission of the crime; or
4. Intentionally advises, encourages, hires, counsels, or procures another to commit the crime.

I surmise that the father is being charged as an aider or abettor for arming the son.

[Z Crazy]

Have you noticed the shooter looks different than most murderers?

But if the cops got the right guy, then he has the same character as all murderers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Have you noticed how much the mugshot (with shoulder-length hair) looks from the picture that the British press found?

I'm thinking psych stuff here. Well, normal people don't go on shooting sprees, but still.. And is long hair for boys now "in" now -- it isn't in the North, but this is Georgia.

[Frank Drackman]

You still see the random mullet, but in dudes of my (advanced) Age (62? fuck at my age Milhouse Nixon was already an Ex-President*) I don't notice the younger dudes hair styles because I'm not Pete Booty-Judge

* I hope Milhouse got a chance to see “Point Break” before he passed, and can anyone remember the other “Ex-Presidents” bank robbing crew?

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

There's something more here because there are *two* charges of Second Degree Murder and there are *four* murders -- two teachers, two students.

It's been 30+ hours (34 to the press conference) which means that at least the DA has signed off on this, on something as high profile as this, I suspect the State AG did as well.

The Sheriff said for letting the son "knowingly possess a weapon" -- but this is rural Georgia where boys routinely get a gun (usually a bolt action .22) as a Christmas present. And the Sheriff doesn't strike me as a gun control nazi.

Can a minor be a "prohibited person"? If he'd been psych committed? IDK...

[Dr. Ed 2]

More importantly, they are questioning the 14-year-old without father present and then using what he said to arrest father. Exclusionary rule?

[David Nieporent]

Exclusionary rule?

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

Dunning-Kruger took one look at you and just threw up their hands and left.

[not guilty]

"More importantly, they are questioning the 14-year-old without father present and then using what he said to arrest father. Exclusionary rule?"

No. Arrests are routinely based on hearsay. But it is likely excludable on other grounds.

At trial for the State to offer the son's statements against the father would present hearsay problems and, if the son does not testify, confrontation clause problems. If the son's statements implicate the father, that could require separate trials of the two pursuant to Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).

Apparently law enforcement had previously interviewed both the father and the son. It is not a good idea to talk with police without counsel.

[Moderation4ever]

What strikes me about the Georgia case and the earlier Michigan case is that in both cases the parents were alerted to problems the child was having. In both cases the parent went on to buy the child a gun. This seems to be insane. If your child was having problems and experience mental health issues, it seems keeping weapons away from the child would be a priority.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is Glenn Greenwald on the revival of Russian®™ interference hysteria.

https://rumble.com/v5drv71-dems-desperately-revive-russian-interference-hysteria-ahead-of-election.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp

[David Nieporent]

Hey, Putin won't shill for himself. It's a dirty job, but someone'sno one's got to do it, and Glenn Greenwald is up for the task.

[Sarcastr0]

Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald Oct 28, 2023

"One of the smartest, most independent, and *most informed* voices to emerge in media in years is Darryl Cooper, as I've said before.

I cannot recommend highly enough this interview he gave to Breaking Points about the Israel/Gaza war"

[Cooper is the Holocaust denying Nazi historian Tucker just interviewed]

[grb]

Michael Ejercito : “Here is Glenn Greenwald on the revival of Russian®™ interference hysteria”

And here is the Reublican-led Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election. Some of its findings:

1. “an unprecedented level of activity against state election infrastructure” by Russian intelligence in 2016.

2. Russians’ hacking of three companies “that provide states with the back-end systems that have increasingly replaced the thick binders of paper used to verify voters’ identities and registration status.”

3. A targeted Russian social media campaign to influence voters to vote for Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary elections, for Donald Trump over Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio in the Republican primary elections, and Jill Stein as well as Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the general election.

4. An overall conclusion “the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election”

5. The Senate Intelligence Committee also concluded Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered the 2016 Democratic National Committee cyber attacks and subsequent leaks of stolen material damaging to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

6. The Senate Intelligence Committee assessed that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s “high-level access and willingness to share information with a “Russian intelligence officer” was a “grave counterintelligence threat”.

7. The report mentions that “Russia took advantage of members of the Transition Team’s relative inexperience in government, opposition to Obama Administration policies, and Trump’s desire to deepen ties with Russia to pursue unofficial channels through which Russia could conduct diplomacy.

Do I trust the Senate Intelligence Committee over Glenn Greenwald? Definitely – as the latter is a whack-job loon and one of Putin’s most fervent bootlickers. Do I trust both of them more than Michael Ejercito?

Of course. He’s just another troll knowingly posting lies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

[Z Crazy]

There werew some murders in Georgia that recently made the news, and its being discussed on Threads.

the suspect is 14 years old.

Her's a descrioption of the mother.

https://www.threads.net/?xmt=AQGzLGadFnMVn3cOYlvX-MTCCWYsQMn-DCUYfXicON1PY_E

"I saw somewhere that she has been in and out of jail. What I've been seeing is that she has a drug problem. So she very well might not have been around for any of this due to her own issues."

the suspect is WHITE, not black, unlike most murderers.

I am wonder how many overwhelmingly white communities are plagued with poverty, drug addiction, and crime?

The media often does stories about crime and violence in the ghetto, and the ghettoes are usually predominantly black.

But there may be white ghettoes with the same problems.

Maybe they don't get as much media attention because they're not located in major media markets with millions of watchers and readers.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The kid was being transed by some Democrat groomer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You may be more right than you realize -- I'm wondering about sexual assault. It's clear he detested trannies (not made fun of them as I do, but truly disliked them).

Something like that makes you really wonder about either a sexual assault or -- particularly at 14 -- taking a chance on a girl who wasn't a girl. And there is the Aunt mentioning how much the perp was abused.

I know you are trying to be a male Ann Coulter, but I am being serious here -- childhood sexual abuses messes up a lot of kids...

[David Nieporent]

childhood sexual abuses messes up a lot of kids…

Is that what happened to you? Or were you just dropped on your head a lot?

[Frank Drackman]

Ever notice it's the child molestors who joke about child molesting? Have you stopped doing that yet?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I am wonder how many overwhelmingly white communities are plagued with poverty, drug addiction, and crime?

Much of Maine is, I'm told that much of Vermont is as well.
I'd say that half of the lobstermen under the age of 40 are addicted to opiates, starting with Oxy, then Heroin and now Fentanyl, it's been a REAL problem for about 30 years now. I know a lot of people who have overdosed.

This is a Title I School which means that a certain (significant) percentage of the students are below the poverty level -- Title I is Federal money administered through the state, and I'm not going to pretend to know anything about Georgia's Title I program.

The only difference between these rural (White) areas and the urban (Black/Hispanic) areas is that there are more trees and hence stray rounds from drive by shootings tend to wind up hitting a tree rather than an innocent bystander. The flip side is that the hospital and officer's backup are further away.

The media often does stories about crime and violence in the ghetto, and the ghettoes are usually predominantly black.

They don't have to drive 3 hours.

What I heard about the mother is that she, in the midst of a messy divorce, was found in a vehicle with meth. Meth is worse because it makes you psychotic/paranoid.

I *knew* that there was something not being said about this kid, that's why I thought he was Black (he isn't) but if he is allowed to nonchalantly walk out of classes to the point where other students consider it routine for him to do this, the other reason why the school would ignore it is because they don't want to put him in an uber-expensive SPED outplacement.

I'm glad this is going to trial because there are a lot of things which hopefully will come out in the trial. I'm not a fan of the voodoo scientists -- not only are half of them nuts, but they often do more harm than good. Particularly with kids on Medicare, which he probably is.

20 years ago, the APA and AMA came out with a joint statement of concern with a joint statement of concern about the extent to which not just antidepressants but antipsychotics were being prescribed. Intrepid reporters have done the same thing, particularly regarding Medicaid children -- I wonder how many drugs this kid was on.

The number of drugs he was legally prescribed to be on, along with whatever else he may have been taking which can make a rather volatile and unpredictable mix. A good defense attorney will bring this out, and I think the public needs to know it.

[Z Crazy]

Ever heard of Operation Ceasefire? (I heard about it from one of the regulars here)

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives/80445/

I'm sure it'll work as well in white communities as black communities.

I wonder why Operation Ceasefire isn't mentioned more often. It works!

[Brett Bellmore]

That's the problem: All it does is work. It doesn't disarm people. Worse, it doesn't disarm innocent people.

The key point to understand about the gun control movement, is that they're the gun control movement, NOT the violence control movement. They don't give a shit about anything that would merely reduce violence, if it leaves people still owning guns.

Worse, if you reduce violence, it reduces their excuse for disarming people! It's actually counter-productive from their perspective...

Operation Ceasefire? Project Exile? All they do is work, they don't disarm innocent people, so what good are they if all you care about is disarming innocent people, and violence is just an excuse?

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes, why aren't there programs that attack a fundamental of human nature, rather than going after the thing that makes violence turn deadly really really easily.

Your need to find bad faith in the policies you don't like has lead you to a very silly place yet again.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've been fighting in the gun rights trenches for decades now, I speak from experience.

The institutional gun control movement doesn't give a shit about violence, except as an excuse to control guns. They have no interest in programs that will reduce violence without impacting gun ownership. If they did, they'd go off and pursue them, because they could have more effect on violence if they weren't getting push back from gun owners who don't want to be disarmed.

The useful idiots like yourself have rather more complicated motivations, if not thought processes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like prosecuting people of color who shoot other people of color in Chicago with illegal guns?

[Martinned2]

Thoughts & prayers...

[Sarcastr0]

You make telepathic ipse dixit, and then say that comes from your experience.

Sure, experience making things up about people you disagree with.

You are pulling the same shit as "You are not allowed to care about police use of force until black-on-black violence is over."

You don't get to point to another cause and then declare that everyone for the cause you don't like is bad because the other cause is more important. There are many ways to combat violence. Some folks have chosen guns as that way.

Or you can make shit up about their secret agendas and the coming camps. By dehumanizing people who disagree with you into political thriller caricatures.

[Bwaaah]

Somebody uses the term "ipse dixit," and suddenly, everything for you is ipse dixit.

Weird. No...mechanistic like a shallow-minded drone.

[Michael Ejercito]

And that is the difference between rank-and-file supporters and sympathizers and the leadership, spokesholes, and financiers.

Michael McBride, mentioned in the article, had supported an assault weapons ban back in 2013. He had not been aware back then that such a ban would guarantee that the assault weapons market would be fully in control of the likes of the Crips, the Latin Kings, and the Mafia, whose members are more likely to use assault weapons as tools of violent crime than the general population.

This article may shed light on the true motivations of the leadership. spokesholes, and financiers.

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/10/02/gun-control-more-racial-disparities-than-the-drug-war/

Most socially liberal gun control champions don’t see themselves as pushing policies that would abet racial profiling or worsen the problem of mass incarceration. They see themselves as going after their political enemies—socially conservative white men in red states.

(emphasis added)

Michael McBride was presented with a red pill at that White House meeting.

I wonder if he took it.

He also supported Operation: Ceasefire, and was also disappointed the Obama Administration did not do more to support it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"They see themselves as going after their political enemies—socially conservative white men in red states."

I like how you take some random opinion writer's word for how other people see themselves. No support, no quotes, just Brett like clairvoyance into other people's motives. Brain worms seem to have affected you all.

[Michael Ejercito]

I decuded this conclusion.

The same side calling for stricter gun control laws...

...is the same side that pushes for decarceration, pushes for defunding the police, accuses the police of habitually hunting down and gunning down unarmed Black men, and accuses the criminal justice system of being systemically racist.

Rafael A. Mangual shares this sentiment.

https://archive.md/luCMe

Yet the loudest voices on the Left are demanding both more gun control and less law enforcement. So many of the same people who say things like "we can't arrest or incarcerate ourselves out of our violent crime problem" also seem to believe that we can somehow regulate our way out of shootings.

[Randal]

Huh? This is such a stupid take. Wanting fairer, less racist criminal justice doesn't mean we don't want actual crime actually prosecuted, especially gun crime.

If anyone is against prosecuting actual criminals it's the right, at least when they're white.

[Bwaaah]

“Wanting fairer, less racist criminal justice doesn’t mean we don’t want actual crime actually prosecuted, especially gun crime.”

Indeed, in the Democratic criminal justice calculus in many of the cities, it is “fairer” and “less racist” if the state declines to enforce criminal laws simply because enforcement would have a disparate impact on [fill in the name of an absurdly superficial category of people].

Democrats have actually systematized unequal enforcement of criminal laws on the basis of race [for example], thereby permitting certain types of crime in exchange for some sick notion of improved race-based statistics purporting to measure criminal justice performance.

In NYC, for example, penalties for illegal gun possession are easily reduced and bargained away to the benefit of inner city street criminals (who probably carry guns more for defense than offense). Non-enforcement of those laws makes our criminal justice system fairer for “black” people (for example) in Democratic calculations of “criminal justice reform.”

[Randal]

Wait... what? You're sad because New York isn't more aggressively prosecuting Black people for carrying guns in self-defense?

I mean, I suppose that's on-brand for you but still...

[Bwaaah]

And that’s the point…you’re OK with not prosecuting crimes as long as that benefits certain “kinds” of people. That’s what you call “racial justice” (if it’s race-based) or “criminal justice reform” (if you need a catchall phrase).

Of course, that strategy caused crime to go up. So Democrats started ramping up enforcement last year in anticipation of elections and recognition that crime is a real problem (in addition to racism).

It’s idiotic to equate non-enforcement of criminal laws with racial justice. And yet, that’s exactly what you do. The public is screaming about crime, and all you want to talk about is racism.

[Michael Ejercito]

Huh? This is such a stupid take. Wanting fairer, less racist criminal justice doesn’t mean we don’t want actual crime actually prosecuted, especially gun crime.
I can understand why a decarceration advocate would support punishment for someone who merely pointed a firearm in random directions in a populated place. The others in that place are victims (barely), and punishing that sort of conduct is justifiable in both a constitutional and ethical sense, despite whatever racial disparities exist in the criminal justice system.

But what about mere peaceful possession of assault weapons?

Or mere peaceful possession of a thirty-round magazine?

Or mere peaceful possession of a firearm without having proved to the state that you can handle firearms safely by some arbitrary standard?

Or mere peaceful possession of a firearm without liability insurance?

Would they support these laws? Who are the victims?

[Randal]

You guys are coming at me from opposite sides, proving my point.

[Bwaaah]

We have different perspectives. Did you expect some kind of single-sided monolith? Two people, one voice? What is that, that you fancy? Some kind of a shared script? What?

[Randal]

Let me put it this way. I agree with Michael that Democrats favor strong gun crime enforcement. And I agree with you that Republicans think it’s wonderful to enforce laws against Blacks that aren’t enforced against whites.

[Randal]

No, you've once again drawn the wrong conclusion, Brett.

Operation Ceasefire works... on inner-city violence. The problem for McBride wasn't the lack of gun control, it was the lack of interest in inner-city violence. (Which is actually sadder, if you think about it.)

Operation Ceasefire won't work for these mass shootings, which is what people care about.

[Brett Bellmore]

People particularly care about mass shootings because gun controllers decided a while back that every local 'mass shooting' would be reported nation or world-wide, in order to give people the wildly mistaken impression they were somehow common.

In reality, mass shootings are responsible for about 0.1% of firearm homicide deaths. If you could reduce non-mass shootings by 1% at the expense of doubling mass shootings, you'd go for it in a heartbeat, so few people die in mass shootings.

So, why the focus on mass shootings? Why focus so much energy on the rarest sort of homicide?

Because the objective isn't to reduce deaths or violence. It's to whip up hysteria in order to produce public support for gun control.

[Randal]

Oh god, back to the conspiracy theories as the answer to everything.

So, why the focus on mass shootings?

a) They’ve got some chance of affecting pretty much anyone. Most people can simply avoid the inner city.

b) It’s not even mass shootings, it’s school shootings. There are one or two mass shootings in the US every day on average. The reason people care about school shootings is they affect kids.

Put those together and you have people afraid for the safety of their children being the driver of interest in these events.

It seems blatantly obvious, but of course you think everything that happens is a conspiracy against you for some reason.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I was going to type pretty much this. Brett makes himself dumb by not pausing to think about obvious factors that undercut his conspiracy theories.

Brett, if you want to stop looking like an idiot, maybe actually think about things rather than just leaning in hard to whatever your favorite narrative is. And, yes, with comments like yours above, you do come across as an idiot.

[David Nieporent]

eople particularly care about mass shootings because gun controllers decided a while back that every local ‘mass shooting’ would be reported nation or world-wide,

Oh, look, it's yet another conspiracy theory from Brett.

"Gun controllers" — whoever they are — "decided" this, eh?

So, why the focus on mass shootings? Why focus so much energy on the rarest sort of homicide?

Why do missing white girls get lots of attention? Did "gun controllers" "decide" that, too?

[Z Crazy]

Why wouldn't Operation Ceasefire work when it did work?

It doesn't make sense!

[Randal]

Operation Ceasefire is a program for inner-city violence, not mass shootings. What about that don't you get?

[NOVA Lawyer]

"They have no interest in programs that will reduce violence without impacting gun ownership. If they did, they’d go off and pursue them, because they could have more effect on violence if they weren’t getting push back from gun owners who don’t want to be disarmed."

You know, around here, your logical powers have often been shown to be severely impaired, particularly when you've already bought into a narrative.

An alternative explanation, that doesn't involve bad faith, is that whatever "programs that reduce violence without impacting gun ownership" you think would be more effective, they don't think will be more effective (or they think someone is already handling that angle). You seem just to be heavily leaning into gun control is bad, so anyone pushing for it must have bad motives.

Typical Brett reasoning (such as it is). If Brett has decided the truth of something, then anyone acting as if it isn't the truth must be acting from bad faith.

[Michael Ejercito]

If you read the article Z Crazy wrote (I am familiar with Operation: Ceasefire), it worked.

Here is a quote from the article.

The results of Operation Ceasefire were dramatic. Soon after Boston held its first meeting — known as a call-in — on May 15, 1996, homicides of young men plummeted along with reports of shots fired.

If those cops in Georgia nabbed the right guy, then those murders at that school was indeed youth homicides.

[Frank Drackman]

Winder GA may not be Martha's Vinyard, but it's not a Ghetto.

[Martinned2]

Thomas Birley, 27, of Swinton, is jailed for nine years for taking part in a riot in Rotherham – the longest prison sentence handed out by judges following widespread violence last month.
(...)
He was part of a group which helped smash windows at the Holiday Inn Express in Manvers and added wood to a fire against the building, which housed asylum seekers.

Birley, 27, of Swinton, Rotherham, previously pleaded guilty to a charge of arson with intent to endanger life, violent disorder, and possessing an offensive weapon.

At Sheffield Crown Court, the Recorder of Sheffield Judge Jeremy Richardson KC said: “You are unquestionably a dangerous offender.”

His sentence is nine years in prison, with a five-year extension on licence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c9d18449ye4t

[OtisAH]

Convicted Felon Donald Trump continues to outpace Kamala Harris on policy. Question: what specific legislation will you commit to to make child care affordable?:

“Well, I would do that and we’re sitting down, you know, I was, somebody, we had Marco Rubio and my daughter, Ivanka. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about that because the child care is, child care couldn’t, you know, there’s something you have to have it in this country, you have to have it. I want to stay with child care. So we’ll take care of it. Thank you.”

Yes, thank you indeed.

[David Nieporent]

That's actually an abridged version of what he said. The full version is like 1,000 rambling words that boiled down to nothing more than "tariffs." It's a bit hard to see how imposing taxes on the public makes their child care more affordable, but when the only thing you know is that you hate foreigners, everything looks like a nail. That you want to stab foreigners with.

[grb]

David Nieporent : "That’s actually an abridged version of what he said."

And your description puts it mildly. “Tariffs” aren't going to just make child care affordable, they'll make everything under the sun completely free! It was clear from his droning word salad Trump didn't give the slightest damn about child care. He'd just briefly emphasize it would be Totally Free™ before seguing to his general point there'd be trillions in funds Totally Free™ because of “Tariffs”. Teo points:

1. This was in front of the Economic Club of New York. In theory, these people aren't as economically illiterate as most right-wingers. Down to every man & woman, they knew he was speaking total gibberish.

2. Harris received scathing criticism from Trump's lickspittles here over some half-baked talk on price gouging. Fair enough, but do they have the consistency to look at Trump's loony-tunes pie-in-the-sky pandering nonsense on “Tariffs”? (assuming they're not too economically illiterate to notice).

[Sarcastr0]

They're calling this 'sanewashing.'

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Some people are wary about charging the father in the recent school shooting. When I looked into it, the charging of the parents in another case appeared reasonable though not sure about the criminal penalty in that case.

The articles I saw about this case did not go into too much detail. The specific details would be very important.

An article also noted that it was a conservative jurisdiction that made the charges, along with the speed they were brought (which can be problematic if not enough care was applied).

[M L]

I know very little about this topic, but it seems that in California, as of 1/1/24, there is no asset test for Medicaid.

So you can be a multimillionaire but still get Medicaid and have the taxpayers pay 250k/year for your nursing home, for example.

They also give it to illegal immigrants (of course!)

https://cahealthadvocates.org/medi-cals-asset-limit-is-now-eliminated/

https://www.chcf.org/blog/how-california-made-almost-everyone-eligible-health-care-coverage/

[not guilty]

Trouble for Donald Trump in blastocystophilia land? https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/05/white-evangelicals-trump-abortion-00177595

Diehard opponents of abortion rights will not vote for Kamala Harris. But the extent to which they vote at all is very much in the air.

[not guilty]

Justice Juan Merchan has postponed the sentencing hearing for Donald Trump until November 26. Decision on the defense motion to set aside the jury verdict and to dismiss the indictment will be handed down off-calendar on November 12. https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/pdfs/PeoplevDJT-Letter-Adjournment-Dec9-6-24.pdf