Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Martinned2]

This seems as good a place as any to congratulate Israel with killing Nasrallah. Legitimate target in a legitimate place without, as far as I know, excessive collateral damage. He was a terrible person, good riddance.

[Krychek_2]

Agreed. What Israel is doing in Gaza is beyond the pale, but targeted strikes against actual terrorists is legitimate. Congratulations to Israel on a job well done.

[Brett Bellmore]

When I compare what Israel is doing in Gaza to what the Allies did in Germany, I end up questioning where you located this pale of yours. It's not like they're doing high altitude incendiary bombing of Gaza, it's much more targeted than much of what the Allies did in WWII.

It's true that Hamas and Hezbollah's extensive use of innocent shields complicates that targeting, but that's on Hamas and Hezbollah.

I do seriously regret that the Allies failed to pursue de-Nazification in the Middle East as enthusiastically as they did in Europe, though. It would have saved a lot of future trouble.

[Krychek_2]

Suppose Criminal A has ten victims and Criminal B has 20 victims. The fact that Criminal A’s behavior could have been worse hardly makes him a swell guy, and comparing him to B is nothing more than what-abouting, which seems to be your preferred method of argumentation. And I don’t recall ever speaking favorably of what the Allies did to Dresden so you’ll have to take it up with someone who did.

I’m not pretending that Israel has any really great options, but killing tens of thousands of civilians crosses the pale. And “see what you made me do” is the excuse of every drunk who ever came home and beat up his wife.

Israel had the moral high ground on October 7. Not any more.

[Commenter_XY]

There is no moral equivalence between Israel and hamas (or hezbollah), whatsoever.

[Krychek_2]

I never said there was. Brett was comparing Israel to the Allied bombing of Dresden in WWII.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, favorably; Nothing Israel has done has been remotely as bad as what the Allies were up to during WWII. The same cannot be said of Hamas or Hezbollah, of course.

[Krychek_2]

OK, it is not disputed -- at least not by me -- that on the awfulness scale, Hamas and Hezbollah are light years worse than the Israelis. But that's not the point. The point is that killing 20,000 civilians or whatever the number is, is unacceptable.

Suppose someone murders my child for no good reason. I then respond by taking out the entire city block where he lives and killing everyone in it. It is possible for two things to be true at the same time. First, his murder of my child is unacceptable. Second, so was my response to it. To acknowledge one is not to discount the other.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The point is that killing 20,000 civilians or whatever the number is, is unacceptable."

And my point is that, as a matter of the law of war, (To the extent there really IS such a thing.) you're simply wrong. Combatants aren't required to be perfect in order to wage war, and they ARE actually allowed to kill innocent shields, if doing so is unavoidable in pursuing a legitimate military objective, and the number of innocent casualties isn't disproportionate to the objective; In which case, the guilt for the deaths of the innocent shield is on the party using them, not the party forced to go through them.

So, "whatever number" damned well matters.

Now, if you want to say that war itself is unacceptable, go for it. But I don't really see any alternative to it in the face of an evil like Hamas or Hezbollah, since they're not going to be persuaded to just abandon their genocidal aims. When faced with a foe like them, you don't get to chose whether there's a war, just whether you fight back.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Israel had the moral high ground on October 7."

Jews as victims, good.

"Not any more."

Jews fight back, bad.

[Krychek_2]

Bob, I understand that you see the world in stark shades of black and white, but that's a pretty simplistic comment even from you. It's not that they are fighting back that's at issue; it's how they are fighting back.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it’s how they are fighting back"

No, its that you believe Hamas propaganda.

[Krychek_2]

What specific Hamas propaganda do I believe?

[Bob from Ohio]

That Israel targets civilians. The number of civilians killed too.

[Krychek_2]

That depends on how you define "target". Israel knew that a lot of civilians would die. And what number are you claiming?

[Frank Drackman]

Because the Terrorists hide behind them, who do think we killed in Hiroshima/Nagasaki?

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw - The allies killed around 100k-150k french prior to and during normandy from allied bombing. That number of french killed was in the range estimated to be killed during the planning of operation overlord.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"it’s how they are fighting back."

There's nothing wrong with how Israel is fighting back. The problem is that Hamas is using their own civilians as human shields. Which puts responsibility for the deaths on them, not Israel.

[Krychek_2]

That's only true up to a point. I agree that Hamas bears much culpability. Israel is still acting in full knowledge that a lot of civilians are going to get killed.

[Ska]

How many civilians can a country use as human shields before it's too many?

You make it sound like comingling strategic military targets in urban centers is a valid defense strategy, or a game of chicken where the government bears no responsibility when they lose and the citizenry pays for it with their lives.

[Commenter_XY]

That happens during declared wars = civilians are going to get killed

[Krayt]

Hamas' business model relies on shields getting killed, so people in the west will work to shut down Israel.

The Hezbollah guy, I think it was the one who just got killed, but no matter. In an interview with the BBC, they asked him:

"You plan to launch rockets in support of Hamas. Israel has said their response would be severe. Are you not concerned innocent Lebanese will be killed?"

In scarcely more words than this: Nope! Those are the breaks. Those deaths are on Israel!

The leadership hopes for it.

Keep in mind these are not freedom fighters, but kleptocracy fighters. "Liberation" is BS for western consumption.

[Martinned2]

The law does not allow you to respond to evil with evil.

[David Nieporent]

The law does not allow you to respond to evil with evil.

Well, if you define collateral damage as evil, then in fact the law does allow that.

[Don Nico]

K_2,
Israel has the high ground of defending its citizens from constant attack by thugs and crazies. Unfortunately more than 20,000 non-combatants have dies in the process. But Hamas left Israel with no other choice.
Your moral relativism is somewhere between disgusting and deeply misguided.

[Krychek_2]

So how many non-combatants would have to die before you would agree it was too many? A million? Ten million? The entire planet?

We're not debating (I hope) whether that line exists; merely where it is to be drawn. And I flatly disagree there was no other choice.

[Don Nico]

Fortunately, your disagreement is irrelevant.
You'd probably give the savages one more chance.

[Krychek_2]

My opinion is worth as much as yours, and you didn't answer my question. And no, the "savages" have had plenty of chances already.

[Don Nico]

I happen to agree with people whose opinions do matter. If you think that there were alternatives, spell them out.

[Krychek_2]

No, you think their opinions matter because you agree with them. There is a difference.

As for alternatives, how about what we've just seen in Lebanon: Targeting of high ranking Hamas and Hezbollah leadership. Israel just knocked Hezbollah on its ass without having to kill thousands of Lebanese civilians in the process.

Let every country in the Middle East know that harboring Hamas and Hezbollah leaders will get you a visit from IDF missiles. Targeted at the leadership. Israel knows where they are.

[Don Nico]

Wrong K_2.
Their opinion matters because they have the ability and willingness to take action. My agreement does not give them that. Be realistic.

[Krychek_2]

Right. Something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done. There's probably a logical fallacy in there somewhere.

The issue is not that they are taking action. It is the specific action they are taking.

[Don Nico]

You want a number?
In this case 50,000 ± 5%. Right now we're at half that number.

[Frank Drackman]

as the late Josef Stalin said to that (redacted) Lady Astor when she asked when he was going to "stop killing people"
"When it is no longer necessary"
whatever the number is when we get to that point.

Frank

[Drewski]

"And “see what you made me do” is the excuse of every drunk who ever came home and beat up his wife."

Set aside Israel for a moment. Are you saying you believe self-defense is categorically, morally wrong? Because people sometimes lie about it?

[Krychek_2]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that no matter what someone else does to you, you are still morally responsible for how you react. If the reaction is immoral, then it doesn't really matter what the provocation was. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I've already said, repeatedly, that I'm in full support of Israel killing off Hamas and Hezbollah leadership. I even understand that in war, it's inevitable that *some* innocent bystanders are going to get killed. I just don't think dropping bombs into heavily populated urban areas and killing 20,000 people (or whatever the actual number is) is a justified reaction. Hamas doesn't even pretend to be civilized; Israel does.

[Commenter_XY]

The question is one of proportionality, if I follow you.

Fine, make the case that Israel's military response is disproportionate. You can't.

[Krychek_2]

Well, just out of curiosity, what would you consider a disproportionate response?

[Commenter_XY]

K2, that is a fair question. Here is my understanding, based on the limited reading I have done. In the laws of war, an attack that causes a significantly higher number of civilian casualties than the value of the stated military objective(s) of that specific attack, would be considered a disproportionate response.

It requires a detailed examination of the circumstances surrounding the attack.

[Armchair]

Krychek....

Afghanistan suffered more than 70,000 Civilian Deaths as a result of the US intervention. Was that disproportionate?

[Martinned2]

Proportionality is not assessed at the level of an entire war, but at the level of an individual attack relative to a specific target.

[David Nieporent]

Proportionality is not assessed at the level of an entire war, but at the level of an individual attack relative to a specific target.

That is an overstatement. Of course you can't just say, "The war is necessary, so anything done in prosecuting the war is legitimate." But a combatant cannot compute the proportionality before each trigger pull, either.

[Don Nico]

K_2,
Iran and its proxies have launched 10,000 tons of explosives at Israeli citizens. The fact that almost all were intercepted does not render these attacks as moral. Try analyzing the whole problem before you let the terrorists manipulate your squeamishness.

[Martinned2]

I located my pale at the place where the international community put it after World War II, when we decided that bombing raids like they were used by all sides during the war were evil and shouldn’t be used anymore.

I’m not sure why this is confusing. You’re like the guy who’s insisting that owning people is still OK, by pointing to the Founding Fathers as precedent. Different times, different laws.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'm pointing out that Israel ISN'T engaging in those sorts of bombing raids. You know, unlike the people they're fighting, who have routinely been launching rockets into residential neighborhoods, for years and years?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "And I’m pointing out that Israel ISN’T engaging in those sorts of bombing raids"

I'm not sure what you're pointing out, Brett. Israel dropped hundreds of massive bombs into densely packed urban areas in Gaza. These were "dumb" bombs, not precision muntions. They were 4X larger than vast majority of the largest bombs the United States dropped on ISIS during the war against the extremist group in Syria and Iraq. Their kill radius is 1000ft. CNN :

"In the first month of its war in Gaza, Israel dropped hundreds of massive bombs, many of them capable of killing or wounding people more than 1,000 feet away, analysis by CNN and artificial intelligence company Synthetaic suggests.

Satellite imagery from those early days of the war reveals more than 500 impact craters over 12 meters (40 feet) in diameter, consistent with those left behind by 2,000-pound bombs. Those are four times heavier than the vast majority of the largest bombs the United States dropped on ISIS during the war against the extremist group in Syria and Iraq.

Weapons and warfare experts blame the extensive use of heavy munitions such as the 2,000-pound bomb for the soaring death toll. The population of Gaza is packed together much more tightly than almost anywhere else on earth, so the use of such heavy munitions has a profound effect.

“The use of 2,000-pound bombs in an area as densely populated as Gaza means it will take decades for communities to recover,” said John Chappell, advocacy and legal fellow at CIVIC, a DC-based group focused on minimizing civilian harm in conflict."

https://www.cnn.com/gaza-israel-big-bombs/index.html

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sucks that Hamas is doing that to their own people.

[Krychek_2]

"See what you made me do."

[grb]

One wonders what Brett would think if Russia dropped hundreds of 2000lb bombs with a 1000ft kill radius in the middle of Kyiv. But there is always a special standard for Israel in his eyes; the same standards that apply everywhere else don’t exist for Israel per Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

What I think is that Russia is the aggressor in the Ukraine war, which would be over tomorrow if they surrendered and withdrew, just as Hamas and Hezbollah are the aggressors in the current war Israel is involved in.

As such, none of their actions other than surrender and withdrawal are in any way defensible. There is no symmetry between the aggressor and victim in a war.

The war Israel is currently involved in is a little unusual, in that it normally isn't the case that the obviously weaker party is the aggressor in a war, but that's only because most states exhibit some minimal degree of sanity, while Hamas and Hezbollah are run by genocidal maniacs.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “What I think….”

What you “think” shifts from comment to comment. Above you insist Israel hasn’t engaged in indiscriminate bombing against a civilian population. Faced with evidence otherwise, you shrug your shoulders and say you don't care.

Tomorrow you'll probably be back to talking of how clean and professional the IDF is. That special standard that excuses any Israeli brutallity or sadistic tactic will be back in full force again.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"One wonders what Brett would think if Russia dropped hundreds of 2000lb bombs with a 1000ft kill radius in the middle of Kyiv."

Are Ukrainians hiding military infrastructure in tunnels under populated areas of Kyiv?

[Commenter_XY]

Nothing in the article you cited (12/23) accused Israel of indiscriminately bombing civilians. If Israel had simply wanted to indiscriminately kill palestinian civilians with big bombs, they could have done so with great ease.

Yes grb, some big bombs were used between October 8 and December 23 of last year. They continue to be used to this day. That happens in war.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "That happens in war"

But as the article notes, that HAS NOT happened in wars fought by the U.S. Our forces have not regularly used 2000lb bombs, much less used them indescrimately in dense urban areas. That's because our forces didn't want to kill tens of thousands of civilans.

But you refuse to hold Israel to the same standard you would use for any other country. And - yes - "indiscriminately bombing civilians" is precisely what the article described.

[BadLib]

Were the US targets you speak of bunkered down in a tunnel network built over a more than a decade for military purposes? Were the entrances to those tunnels carefully positioned under large "civilian" buildings in dense urban areas?

[Commenter_XY]

The article you cited does not make that slanderous accusation, grb. You do. = And – yes – “indiscriminately bombing civilians” is precisely what the article described.

[Armchair]

No, the US used the 4,000 pound bombs in urban areas around Belgrade and Bagdad.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28

[Don Nico]

Martin,
Your pale is very misguided. And there is no international community." That is a myth useful until the next crisis emerges. Maybe you explain why so many countries have are are trying to have nukes.

[Sarcastr0]

Realpolitik is old and busted, dude.

[Don Nico]

What a meaningless rejoiner.
Your politics are busted, dude.

[Commenter_XY]

It is not just politics that is busted with Gaslight0.

[Sarcastr0]

"there is no international community. That is a myth useful until the next crisis emerges" is a philosophy that was all the rage like 50 years ago.

It has been found that alienating other countries has plenty of costs, and in fact there is an international community one should be aware of.

FWIW, in the longer term dealing unprotected with this actual for reals community and its norms is going to become an increasing challenge for Israel as America's support for Israel, strongly age-correlated, wanes in the coming decades.

[Don Nico]

Your language is just a poor attempt of using language to assume the answer you politics prefers. Just where is this community. Who speaks for it. And don't give us the joke of the UNGA circus.

[Bwaaah]

There is no meaningful "international community," any more than there is a "black community" or a "Jewish community."

What are the "international community's" norms? Is the "Jewish community" for or against the war in Gaza? Does the "black community" favor race-based preferences? It all depends on who you ask, not some abstract voice of community.

Dumb-ass thinkers like Sarc use such language to simplistically paint the world in a way that calls for their dumb-ass solutions. It is a rhetorical device to declares his preferred faction as being "the community," and in the spirit of demagoguery, tries to marginalize other perspectives. Like so many distorted representations of the world, it obfuscates the complexities of reality, and by doing so, invites solutions that don't really address actual interests or conflicts.

Occasionally, there are real solutions that work for varied factions. But Sarc's rhetoric poison's the well of solutions by trying to nullify the voices of those who oppose *his* definitions of community and the particular special interests he wishes to address. He is an idiot who pretends his norms are *the* norms.

[Sarcastr0]

Ukraine is an example of some international community norms being violated. Pretty universal condemnation.

Israel is not in good standing with the International community, and relies on US support to avoid the consequences.

Do you have any idea how much work we do to build up an international scientific commons? Or norms about cultural subparts of nations not breaking off?

[Sarcastr0]

Don, what policy do you think I prefer?

Do you think I want Israel to be an international pariah?

[Bwaaah]

Sarc exhorts you to adopt his view of “community” in which people who don’t want to stoke Ukrainian war with Russia, people who think Israel should energetically pursue its defense interests, and scientists who question climate catastrophism are pariahs. He claims the mantle of “pretty universal” truth.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"When I compare what Israel is doing in Gaza to what the Allies did in Germany, I end up questioning where you located this pale of yours. It’s not like they’re doing high altitude incendiary bombing of Gaza, it’s much more targeted than much of what the Allies did in WWII."

Precision-guided weapons did not exist in WWII, so your entire comparison is that of a moron.

We've found better ways to wage wars, and found better ways to hit military targets with fewer civilian casualties than unguided, 2,000lb Mk. 84 bombs into civilian populations.

To nobody's surprise, your understanding of the LoAC is just as misinformed and idiotic as your claimed understanding of regular US law. Minimizing civilian casualties is always the responsibility of the attacker. There is no such thing as "Hamas made me do it."

[JasonT20]

Minimizing civilian casualties is always the responsibility of the attacker. There is no such thing as “Hamas made me do it.”

That's true. But it is obvious that any amount of civilian casualties was a win for Hamas. The suffering of the Gazans was the point of the Oct. 7 attack. They wanted to provoke an attack that devastated the civilian population in order to gain sympathy, paint Israel as the bad guy (even if they were completely scrupulous in adhering to international law), whip up anti-Israel sentiment among Muslims already against Israel, and maybe even get Western support for Israel reduced.

Nothing excuses Israel's violations of the laws of war, but Hamas could make it stop instantly by surrendering. They clearly won't do that, and it is just as clear that they are guilty enough of their own crimes that they should. And it is just as clear that the well-being of the people they rule requires that they surrender.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Minimizing civilian casualties is always the responsibility of the attacker. There is no such thing as “Hamas made me do it.”"

It is the responsibility of combatants to separate themselves from civilians. When Hamas commits war crimes by using civilians as human shields, the minimal amount of civilian casualties is still pretty high. And Hamas bears responsibility for that fact.

[Martinned2]

Yes, and if the other side shoots at the human shield, knowing it is there, there’s a good chance that both sides are guilty of war crimes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Of course. But there's no evidence that anybody's targeting human shields, they are targeting the military target being shielded.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, and if the other side shoots at the human shield, knowing it is there, there’s a good chance that both sides are guilty of war crimes.

That's not how it works, not in the least. The term "war crime" is thrown around indiscriminately, but there is no rule of war that forbids "knowingly" killing civilians/hostages, as long as that's not the objective of the attack. (Proportionality is always at issue.)

[JasonT20]

That’s not how it works, not in the least. The term “war crime” is thrown around indiscriminately, but there is no rule of war that forbids “knowingly” killing civilians/hostages, as long as that’s not the objective of the attack. (Proportionality is always at issue.)

I have no knowledge of the actual details of international laws of war, but I had thought that the importance of the goal was supposed to be a factor in whether knowingly risking civilian casualties could be a war crime. An extreme case to illustrate the point, knowing that 50 civilians would be killed to get to a few regular soldiers might be too many dead civilians compared to the military gain to be in the clear of a war crimes prosecution. But one side knowing that 50 civilians would be killed for them to destroy a whole command center where the enemy had planned many attacks that had killed their own civilians in the thousands would seem to be justified. As you said, proportionality matters.

[JasonT20]

It is the responsibility of combatants to separate themselves from civilians.

If that is not possible, then what? A country fighting to defend its own territory might not be able to evacuate its people to a place separate from its military forces. That is relevant in Gaza, because, despite the "human shield" talking point, there just isn't a lot of room in that small strip of land to keep fighting forces separate from the civilians. Hamas putting its weapon stores, command posts, or whatever right underneath hospitals or schools could be considered using human shields, but it isn't like there is room to have separate military bases.

[JasonT20]

When I compare what Israel is doing in Gaza to what the Allies did in Germany, I end up questioning where you located this pale of yours.

1) The Allies in WWII didn't have precision guided bombs and missiles or the kind of intelligence on German troop and infrastructure locations that Israel has.
2) The Allies in WWII were fighting a regime that had the whole country geared toward war production. Gaza has hardly any production of anything right now.

These are differences that don't favor Israel in any comparison. On the other hand,

1) The Allies were fighting a regime that did eventually surrender. Once Hitler killed himself, the German generals were fairly quick to surrender, right? Hamas is extremely unlikely to surrender, and their leaders won't commit suicide unless they can kill a lot of Jews as they do it. Total victory for Israel may not be possible without committing to re-occupying the entire area.
2) The hostages: Israel unilaterally stopping its attacks without getting any commitments from Hamas is simply not going to happen. Israel will at least want every hostage returned as part of any cease fire, and Hamas might not agree to that as it is the only real bargaining chip they have. It is disgusting that it works, but having Israeli hostages makes it difficult for there to be any pause in the war.
3) Hamas doesn't want the suffering of the Palestinian people to stop. Their suffering was the whole point of the attack on Oct. 7. They provoked Israel into a response that was inevitably devastating to the civilian population. Some countries see the Palestinians as only Israel's victims despite it being obvious that it serves Hamas's goals for them to argue that Israel is the bag guy here. If the world isn't paying enough attention to the victimhood of the Palestinian people, well, Hamas had better make sure that the Palestinian people really suffer more at the hands of Israel!

Anyway, TL;DR - the comparison to WW2 is garbage because the situations are just entirely different. Huge differences in technology, huge differences in the relative strengths and military capabilities of the different sides, huge differences in the motivations of each side, and huge differences in options to end the conflict.

[John F. Carr]

I haven't heard how much damage there was to innocent bystanders. I saw a map with destroyed buildings marked, no labels.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The savages built apartment buildings on top of their underground lair. Forgetting penetration, if you destroy the underground lair, there no longer is structural support for the apartment buildings on top of it. Remember the condo building in Florida that collapsed because of a fault in the parking garage?
Or what OBL *tried* to do to the WTC in 1993 -- because of an illegally parked vehicle, they couldn't get the bomb truck close enough to the structural support they wanted to take out, and I've seen reports that would have toppled one tower into the other.

[Sarcastr0]

"The savages built apartment buildings"

Maybe you're gonna need another adjective to describe why Hamas sucks.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seems accurate enough, though.

[Bob from Ohio]

Sarcasto doesn't like insulting terrorists.

[Armchair]

But once again, we know what side Sarcastr0 is supporting.
It's the side the Jews aren't on.

But he's not an antisemite. He has lots of Jewish friends....

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Blood libel!

[Don Nico]

Do you really think that they are not savages?
If you have a strong stomach, go back and watch Hamas' self-made films of October 7.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Perhaps Sarcastro doesn't believe that killing Jews is savage behavior.

[Krychek_2]

Right, because anti-Semitism is the only possible explanation for a disagreement as to tactics. Nope, there couldn't possibly be any other reason for a tactical disagreement.

[Don Nico]

K-2, you don't understand the difference between strategy and tactics in this case

[Krychek_2]

OK, so explain it.

[grb]

Don Nico : "K-2, you don’t understand the difference between strategy and tactics in this case"

If you're killing civillians at a rate only seen in the Syrian civil war or Chechnya during recent decades, maybe the distinction between strategy and tactics isn't relevant.

I've seen supporters of this Israeli government claim the Second Battle of Felucia is analogious situation - until they learn the U.S. and its allies killed civillians at a small fraction of the rate Israel has. I saw a column by an Israeli supporter saying the U.S. has killed 20,000 civillians too - but his frame of reference was 20yrs for the U.S.

Putin gave a speech earlier this year saying the outrage against Russia killing civillians was hypocrisy - just look at what Israel is doing in Gaza he said with a smirk. But (of course) Israel's supporters are impervious to numbers or like comparisions. Their special standard for Israel can't be touched by facts.

[Sarcastr0]

Don, do you think I don't believe that killing Jews is savage behavior?

You seem to be defending that. Based on the distinction between tactics and strategy(???)

Come on, man.
Commenter and Bob and TiP are pieces of shit willing to abuse accusations of antisemitism to feel righteous on the Internet.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Bob ... pieces of shit "

I love you too!

Its not that you are a Jew hater, its just your "Last Reasonable Man" pose won't work in this situation. One side here is good, one bad.

Both siding it is like doing so in WWII between Germany and the US. You can do it but it makes you look bad.

[Sarcastr0]

This is you being a piece of shit. I've said none of that, you're putting words in my mouth.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you’re putting words in my mouth."

I'm describing your position. I made up no quotes.

You are defending Hezbollah and Hamas on this very thread with your horror at calling them "savages"

[grb]

Bob from Ohio : “…your “Last Reasonable Man” pose….”

What’s amusing is how Sarcastr0’s attempts to offer an even-handed non-hysterical take on issues enrages our friends from the Right.

Just look at every thread! He offers an low-key non-shrieking counterpoint to the latest emotional hurricane of right-wing histrionics and (low-key notwithstanding) it’s like a stone thrown into a hornest’s nest. Immediately wingnuts are purple-faced with fury, spraying everyone about with spittle & gusts of angry bluster.

Understandable, of course. Right-wingers like their irrational rage, regardless of the whole foundation of sand problem. To see someone calmly dismiss their latest frenzied farrago is like a red flag to a bull.

[Bob from Ohio]

"low-key non-shrieking counterpoint "

He is highly offended that Ed rightfully called terrorists "savages".

I will give you this, he is not an out and out Hamas supporter like you, that would involve taking a position.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I was not highly offended at that.

Compare and contrast my comment to Ed with my reactions to you calling me some kind of terrorist fellow traveler.

[Armchair]

I mean...every time Sarcastr0. Every time....
Every time the Jews come up, you're arguing the other side.

I challenged you to just once find a case where you unreservedly supported Israel. Just one, single post. In the tens of thousands of posts you've made. Just one.

You refused to do so. Kicked it back. Said it "wasn't your job" or something like that.

After a while....well, it's apparent.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Because he won't "unreservedly support Israel," that makes him an antisemite? Do you even understand what the word or the concept means? Are you honestly this stupid?

[Don Nico]

I think that the Sinchat Torah pogrom was an exemplar of savage behavior.
It is truly amazing how dishonest you are in accusing others. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Sarcastr0]

One of the dire things about human nature the Nazis taught us is you can be mechanized and industrial and have all the trappings of civilization and still do horrific, inhuman things.

If your only go-to response is 'savage' you have failed to learn from history.

In this case, the people building apartments may or may not awful people, but savage is not the right appellation as a general blanket.

A appreciate you coming with an argument, not just unthinking knee-jerk like Brett, and not eager to put thoughts in my head so you can call me an antisemite like TiP, or Bob.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, I suspected you might take that tack; That Hamas and Hezbollah are precluded from being "savages" based on not being hunter-gatherers limited to throwing rocks.

No, I think they are savages, they are just savages buoyed up by a massive influx of support from actually civilized and merely evil people. Absent that continual support, they would quickly lapse into utter and complete poverty, because they genuinely are not capable of civilized behavior.

In fact, even their base of support falls a bit short of genuinely civilized; I'd be interested to see what the Middle East would look like if they lost that continual flood of petro-dollars. Prior to it they weren't exactly developed nations, would they have any hope of retaining their grasp on developed nation status without it?

[Sarcastr0]

My point was that if you want to call them savages, you need to be careful about how broadly you throw around that term, or else you look like knee-jerk and broadly prejudiced against broader sets than just Hamas/Hezbollah.

I don't think Hamas fighters or political representatives are building apartments. Certainly not post Oct 07.
But Hezbollah...Hezbollah as understand itself contains varied functions and thus presumably noncombatant civilians supporting community service and not bomb-making that Hamas does not. Doesn't mean they can't be killed, but does require more care navigating.

[Riva]

You almost sound proud of your ignorance. Hezbollah is an Iran-backed Islamist terrorist organization. They have pledged their loyalty to Iran. They receive hundreds of millions of dollars from Iran. They operate global criminal and narco-trafficking networks. They have a long, long history of terror attacks including attacks against Americans. They have been subjecting Israel to rocket and missile attacks, killing Israeli soldiers and citizens. That they may be the dominant political force in Lebanon does in no way excuse these proxy terrorist animals of Iran.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not saying what a great org full of great people. Not that yo're one for nuance.

But a challenge is their deep roots in the community by the community support work that they do.

Ignore aspects of your enemy so you can hate them more purely at your peril.

[Riva]

What the fuck kind of community support work do the offer? Pensions for the families of terrorists who “martyr” themselves?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure. And the Nazis made the trains run on time.

[Riva]

And "Ignore aspects of your enemy so you can hate them more purely at your peril." interesting, now look in the mirror and say President Trump.

[Don Nico]

Hezbollah is no more a legitimate government of Lebanon than the Mafia is a legitimate government of Sicily.
You really buy into their evil propaganda.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say they were a legitimate government, Don, for fuck's sake.

You've strawmanned me about half a dozen times today.

[grb]

Don Nico : "Do you really think that they are not savages?"

Indeed they are - full stop. But what's your opinion on the behavoir of the Israeli government and IDF? Can I coax a little matching honesty from you?

Let's look at recent Israeli actions in the West Bank, where they have bulldozed miles and miles of roads in several Palestinian cities, destroying sewer and water lines. If you want to give your honesty a prod, Don, open up the link below, read the details, and watch the video of the IDF in action.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/25/world/middleeast/west-bank-raids.html

[David Nieporent]

Maybe you’re gonna need another adjective to describe why Hamas sucks.

Er, I think that's a noun.

[Sarcastr0]

Grammar Nazi

😛

(seriously though good put. How in the world did I mess that up?)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Who said anything about Hamas?

[Sarcastr0]

I got it from Ed and 'underground lair.'

[Bob from Ohio]

He was referring to Hezbollah.

Try to keep up.

[Sarcastr0]

Then that oversimplifying is worse not better.

[Bob from Ohio]

Hezbollah is not a bunch of savages?

Interesting.

[Sarcastr0]

Who built the apartment building?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Who built the apartment building?"

Arch Consulting

"September 17, 2020
Washington – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned two Lebanon-based companies, Arch Consulting and Meamar Construction, for being owned, controlled, or directed by Hizballah. Additionally, OFAC designated Sultan Khalifah As’ad, a Hizballah Executive Council official, who is closely associated with both companies."

[Sarcastr0]

Ed called them savages.

Seems you agree with my whole thing about overinclusiveness.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Seems like the Department of the Treasury agrees with Ed.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump was too much of a pussy to order his assassination.

[OtisAH]

Inasmuch as it is something that seems like something Convicted Felon Trump would do, there is no world in which he allows himself to be shot at. Of course, it is sort of up in the air whether he was (I’d still like to see a graphic of the first guy’s shot pattern). But barring any evidence to the contrary, we have to accept that he was and would have been shot at. So CFT probably didn’t Bob Roberts himself.

I could see Junior and The Dumb One attempting such a farce, though. But not without getting caught in the most stupid way possible.

[Joe_dallas]

Stealing a thread - Iran is currently launching missles against Israel

Ch 14 reported that the U.S. and Iran are negotiating the scope of the strike so that the U.S. will be able to compel Israel not to retaliate.
Get it?
The Biden-Harris administration is reportedly telling a U.S. enemy what level of assault against a U.S. ally is acceptable.

https://x.com/CarolineGlick/status/1841149611370529129?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1841149611370529129%7Ctwgr%5E565b1b9a7535a92a150c7896e7c1de2df8fb8948%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F675482%2F

[Kazinski]

The INS released some interesting information on immigrant demographics this week:

"More than 13,000 immigrants convicted of homicide — either in the United States or abroad — are living freely in the U.S., outside of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention, according to data ICE provided to Congress earlier this week.

The immigrants are part of ICE’s “non-detained” docket, meaning the agency has some information on the immigrants and they have pending immigration cases in the U.S., but they are not currently in detention either because they are not prioritized for detention or because ICE cannot find them."

http://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/28/immigrants-ice-report-thirteen-thousand-homicide-us-border-migration.html

Knowing how wrong I am for reporting on this story which will not help the Harris campaign, and is certainly going to be used in a last minute campaign blitz, I am only quoting the first two paragraphs of the NBC news story, because I know the "Open Thread Source Watch™" will soon be along to tell me why I shouldn't have posted it.

[bernard11]

Skipped a few things there, Kazinski.

These are not just immigrants who came during the Biden administration. Many came in years, even decades ago, includin during the Trump administration.

Many are in prison in the US.

Damn, you're quick to spread Trump's BS.

Aside from all that

[TwelveInchPianist]

Trumps's BS? It's a CNBC article. And it says they're living freely, not in prison.

[grb]

TwelveInchPianist : “Trumps’s BS?”

Yeah. There’s no other way to describe it.

Trump:

“14,000 CONVICTED thugs and slimeballs who have committed MURDER have been allowed to enter our Country, totally unvetted and unchecked, and roam free to KILL AGAIN…And they will kill again, over and over.”

Facts :

1. This number isn’t for the past three years. It’s for all time and goes back more than 40 years.

2. “Non-detained” means they aren’t detained by ICE. Many or most of them are instead detained in prison. ICE has no idea how many.

3. The total non-detained docket for all crimes increased 10% under Trump and 5% under Joe Biden.

4. Murderers who have served their sentences and been released—an unknown number—are generally deported. But some countries won’t take them, and the Supreme Court says they have to be allowed out.

So the rate of total non-detained increased twice as much under Trump than Biden? I guess he allowed them "to enter our Country, totally unvetted and unchecked, and roam free to KILL AGAIN”. I wonder if the Orange One’s bootlicking brigade in these comments will raise their heads from polishing Trump’s shoe-leather and explain that….

https://jabberwocking.com/14000-noncitizen-murderers-roaming-free-um-no/

[David Nieporent]

5. The "AGAIN" part is wrong, though I don't suppose this really makes immigration policy look good either. For the most part, these are not people who were convicted of murder, came to the U.S., and were allowed to roam free. That would be weird and isn't something that CBP/ICE does. These are people who were convicted of murder at some point after they were released from immigration custody.

[Kazinski]

Trump’s BS?

I could have sworn the byline said “NBC NEWS Julia Ainsley”, not Trump.

And I was careful to quote the top two paragraphs, unedited word for word (well except for the bolding) precisely so I wouldn’t be accused of slanting the story.

So other than bringing up the subject at all, can you explain how I went wrong?

And I should also say that even if not all the murderers came during the Biden Harris administration, it does illustrate why we should only let people in after background checks and vetting.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, why did you omit the paragraph the following paragraph?

It is not clear when the first migrant of the 13,000 crossed into the U.S. Two law enforcement officials familiar with the data told NBC News many of the migrants on ICE’s non-detained docket, including serious criminals, crossed into the U.S. under previous administrations, including former President Donald Trump’s.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"U.S. Two law enforcement officials familiar"

lol, that's as stupid as the ol' Trump days of "Two people familiar with his thinking"

lol, morons

[Kazinski]

That's actually the 4th paragraph, I copied the first 2. I realize there's no hard and fast rule about how much of a exerpt constitutes fair use, but 4 paragraphs seems excessive. Especially since that paragraph doesn't provide more information it just says we don't know a fact that neither of the first 2 paragraphs asserted.

You might actually have a valid complaint if I didn't include the link, now that you've demonstrated that you are capable of clicking on the link and reading it yourself, its hard to see what your complaint is.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He is a pedantic baby trying to impugn your motives

[Magister]

It is difficult to get a man to understand four whole paragraphs, when his cult membership depends upon his not understanding it!

[Kazinski]

Well lets take a look analytically at those first 4 paragraphs then.

The 1st paragraph cites a fact, and an official source:
"More than 13,000 immigrants convicted of homicide — either in the United States or abroad — are living freely in the U.S., outside of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention according to data ICE provided to Congress earlier this week."

That's seems both authoritative and easy to understand, and then the second paragraph provides some context for the official numbers:
"The immigrants are part of ICE’s “non-detained” docket, meaning the agency has some information on the immigrants and they have pending immigration cases in the U.S., but they are not currently in detention either because they are not prioritized for detention or because ICE cannot find them."

The 3rd paragraph then provides the provenance of the data it came from the ICE director, at the request of a congressman, and is current as of July 21st, 2024: "Acting ICE Director P.J. Lechleitner sent the data, collected as of July 21, as part of a request sent in March from Republican Congressman Tony Gonzales of Texas."

Now we come to the all important 4th paragraph, which doesn't actually provide any more information, in fact it starts with "It is not clear", then it then cites two unnamed sources who are talking directly to NBC news, and the unclear information they are providing isn't part of the data from the ICE director that was provided to Congress: "U.S. Two law enforcement officials familiar with the data told NBC News many of the migrants on ICE’s non-detained docket, including serious criminals, crossed into the U.S. under previous administrations, including former President Donald Trump’s.", with indication of what "many" means.

Seems to me the reason NBC led with the official data and the official source is because its the core of the story, but they knew how bad it makes our current freeforall at the border look, regardless of who is responsible, so they threw in the "Its not clear" paragraph from unnamed sources to muddy the waters.

Excuse me for concentrating on the official data from the official source that was disclosed 'against the administration's interest' (to drag in a legal term).

[Brett Bellmore]

Traditionally it's "One, two, many", so I suppose at least three of them originated from earlier administrations.

[Life of Brian]

so they threw in the “Its not clear” paragraph from unnamed sources to muddy the waters

And, let's note, flailing around in that process to the point where they actually said in so many words that some of the people on the "non-detained docket" (which ICE conveniently and succinctly defines as: "Aliens released from detention with final deportation orders, as well aliens who have been released and are waiting for an immigration court hearing") may have been in the country for 20 or even 40+ years.

It's surprising that they would consider short-term rhetorical point scoring worth essentially admitting that we have no real control over the process.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You re-posted the part of the story which you want spread across the internet, and omitted key context which clarifies that the list is comprised of names of people from the last several administrations.

Despite the clue that you were about to make an error, you came here and definitely stated it would be bad for Harris.

A small amount of investigation into the context you deliberately omitted here would have spared you such embarrassment.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/29/politics/fact-check-trump-harris-immigrants-homicide/index.html

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, said in a Saturday email: “The data in this letter is being misinterpreted. The data goes back decades; it includes individuals who entered the country over the past 40 years or more, the vast majority of whose custody determination was made long before this Administration. It also includes many who are under the jurisdiction or currently incarcerated by federal, state or local law enforcement partners.”

More dishonesty from Lyin' Ted. Either that, or an incurable case of cognitive bias. Seeing and repeating exactly what you want to see and believe, oblivious to and obfuscating the truth because it doesn't fit your narrative.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What difference does it make when some of them entered? The buck stops with Biden now.

[David Nieporent]

Because if they entered before Biden was in office, then "Biden let them in" — or, even sillier, "Harris let them in" — is false.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Did anybody make that claim on this thread?

[Magister]

Why else would it be bad for Harris (who has been Vice President only for almost four years) rather than for Trump (who was President for four years with the same problem)?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who says Trump had the same problem?

[Magister]

Trump spent four years (two of them with better majorities in Congress than Biden) with the same problem, and didn't fix it. Same way he blamed Obama for not stocking up for a pandemic which hit in the final year of Trump's term; why didn't he fix that?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The evidence that you people are determined to ignore. The evidence which demonstrates that you and Kazinski are nothing more than partisan filth spreading deliberate deceit.

[Commenter_XY]

I always thought CNBC was financial pornography for old men who like watching the chyron. But no! CNBC is now a Trump propagandist. Who would have thought. 🙂

[Magister]

Financial pornography, old men who like watching the chyron, Trump propaganda - who would not expect these to go together?

[Frank Drackman]

Years ago? so during Barry Hussein's administration also?
Trying to remember who's administration we're in now (the guy who's it is probably doesn't remember either)
and why are they taking up our precious Prison Cells, where is Cums-a-lot gonna put all of this years "Insure-Erection-ists" when she tries to steal another erection?

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

If they were in US prisons, ICE would know where to find them.
It doesn't -- QED they aren't.

[Magister]

Ignoring state and local prisons which ICE might know less about, and assuming they are all using the same unique identification. Recall that the Trump administration did not keep enough information to reunite separated families when implementing one of their many horrific policies.

[Joe_dallas]

nor did the obama administration

[Magister]

Well, the Obama administration did not reunite children later separated by the Trump administration due to a lack of time machines, but under more likely interpretations Joe_dallas is as dishonest as usual.
Fact check: Did Obama administration separate families? This claim, from DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and conservative commentators, is false, according to immigration advocates and former officials.

[verochkax]

Trump tried to deport many illegals, and was stopped by the deep state and the courts, filled with judges all too happy to rule all of his actions "arbitrary and capricious." We call it "Trump law."

The media is covering for the fact that Harris enthusiastically participated in importing 6 million immigrants for electoral advantage.

[not guilty]

Ryan Wesley Routh will be arraigned today before a United States Magistrate in Florida. I wonder if his counsel will seek Judge Aileen Cannon's recusal.

Donald Trump, the intended victim as to Count One of the indictment, appointed Judge Cannon to the federal bench. That by itself is not enough to warrant recusal. See In re Executive Office of the President, 215 F.3d 25 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Both Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer participated in Clinton v. Jones, 530 U.S. 681 (1997), despite having been appointed by President Clinton. Chief Justice Burger, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Powell, all appointees of President Nixon, participated in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), and all three plus Justice Rehnquist participated in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Bear It participated in Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312 (2024).

Judge Cannon's extreme solicitude to Trump in other civil and criminal litigation involving him, however, brings her within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a): "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Judge Cannon quite egregiously “has engaged in conduct that gives rise to the appearance of . . . a lack of impartiality in the mind of a reasonable member of the public.” United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1446 (11th Cir. 1989). An amicus brief filed in the Eleventh Circuit includes relevant details: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.25.2.pdf

For Routh's defense counsel not to seek Judge Cannon's recusal would likely amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"Judge Cannon’s extreme solicitude to Trump in other civil and criminal litigation involving him, however, brings her within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a): "

lol idiot

[Dr. Ed 2]

Only Nixon could have gone to China...

[Frank Drackman]

and sucked Mao's cock, love how Tricky Penis said “The Chairman’s writings moved a nation and have changed the world.”
Mao answered “I haven’t been able to change it. I’ve only been able to change a few places in the vicinity of Peking"
later Mao asked Henry the K what his "Secret" was, how a schluby Jewish guy got such beautiful women,
"Power is the ultimate Aphrodisiac" he replied

Frank

[Kazinski]

I fully support Routh’s right to a fair trial before he is convicted and sent to prison for the rest of his life.

But as for Cannon’s recusal, what she supposed to spend her time on now that Jack Smith’s case is off the docket?

And do you really think Routh’s lawyers think they stand a better chance in any other federal court in Florida, or even Manhattan or DC?

[not guilty]

The indictment is here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1370506/dl

The evidence against Routh is quite strong as to Count One. As to Count Three, (assaulting a federal officer,) not so strong. The Secret Service Agent fired at Routh, and he dropped his rifle and fled. I anticipate that defense counsel will file a motion to dismiss Counts Two, Four and Five alleging that the cited statutes as applied violate the Second Amendment.

A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955). I have grave doubts about Judge Cannon's ability to be fair in any matter involving Donald Trump.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Pointing even an empty gun at someone is "assault" in my book.

MA defines "assault" as "reasonable fear of imminent battery."

[John F. Carr]

Count three. From the proffer in support of pretrial detention:

The Agent then observed a long black object protruding through the fence and realized the object was the barrel of a rifle aimed directly at him.

This is evidence of assault. The government will also need to prove that Routh knew the target of the assault was a government official.

[not guilty]

The government’s written factual proffer in support of pretrial detention, submitted to the U. S. Magistrate, recites:

3. While the former President was on the 5th hole, the Agent cleared the area along the 6th hole. Specifically, the Agent rode in a golf cart along the chain link fence that separated the 6th hole from Congress Avenue and Summit Boulevard.

4. At approximately 1:30 p.m., the Agent spotted the partially obscured face of a man in the brush along the fence line. The man was later identified as Ryan Wesley Routh (“ROUTH”). ROUTH’s position was directly in line with the 6th hole. The Agent then observed a long black object protruding through the fence and realized the object was the barrel of a rifle aimed directly at him. The Agent jumped out of the golf cart, drew his weapon, and began backing away. The Agent saw the rifle barrel move, and the Agent fired at ROUTH.

5. The Agent took cover behind a tree and reloaded his weapon, then looked up and saw that ROUTH was gone. The Agent called out over his radio that shots had been fired by the Agent and that there was a subject with a rifle.

6. The position ROUTH occupied when the Agent first noticed him was directly in line with the 6th hole green.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.675055/gov.uscourts.flsd.675055.14.0_3.pdf

Did the accused “forcibly assault[]” the Agent for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1)? The answer is not clear cut, and I would have reasonable doubt.

The Eleventh Circuit pattern jury instructions state:

There is a forcible assault when one person intentionally strikes another, or willfully attempts to inflict injury on another, or intentionally threatens another coupled with an apparent ability to inflict injury on another which causes a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.

https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/919#:~:text=There%20is%20a%20forcible%20assault%20when%20one%20person%20intentionally%20strikes

Based on what has been reported to this point, I am not persuaded that the accused intentionally or willfully aimed the rifle at the Agent. I would infer that the Agent, while on his golf cart, traversed the path of where Routh had aligned the rifle before the Agent’s approach. When the Agent fired at him, Routh dropped the gun and fled.

[John F. Carr]

If I were on the trial jury I might have doubt that the defendant was intentionally aiming a gun at a government agent. On a motion to dismiss I think the government has enough evidence.

[not guilty]

For purposes of a motion to dismiss, I agree.

[Noscitur a sociis]

For purposes of a motion to dismiss, it doesn't matter how much or what evidence the government has. The indictment says that he did it.

[not guilty]

"The government will also need to prove that Routh knew the target of the assault was a government official."

That is incorrect. SCOTUS has held that in order to incur criminal liability under § 111 an actor must entertain merely the criminal intent to do the acts therein specified. United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 686 (1975). The Court there opined:

We conclude, from all this, that in order to effectuate the congressional purpose of according maximum protection to federal officers by making prosecution for assaults upon them cognizable in the federal courts, § 111 cannot be construed as embodying an unexpressed requirement that an assailant be aware that his victim is a federal officer. All the statute requires is an intent to assault, not an intent to assault a federal officer.

Id., at 684.

[Commenter_XY]

Extreme solicitude. I like that. 🙂

Can you specify the behaviors from Judge Cannon that warrant her recusal within that ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). What you might call extreme solicitude, others might call taking great care to develop a full trial record for the Circuit court (and SCOTUS), knowing they will get the case.

What behaviors specifically crossed NG's line?

[not guilty]

The amicus brief that I cited upthread makes the case more persuasively than I can, but I will give a few examples.

Following the lawful execution of a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, Judge Cannon granted Donald Trump's application for a temporary injunction prohibiting the government from further review and use of any of the seized materials for criminal investigative purposes pending resolution of a special master's review process. Trump v. United States, 625 F. Supp. 3d 1257, 1274 (S.D. Fla. 2022). That interference by a District Court with a criminal investigation is breathtakingly irregular. A panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which included two Trump appointed judges) stayed the injunction pending appeal on September 21, 2022. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22671411/11th-circuit-says-doj-can-resume-criminal-probe-into-trumps-mar-a-lago.pdf

On December 1, 2022 a different panel of the Eleventh Circuit (also including two Trump appointed judges) opined that Judge Cannon wrongly exercised equitable jurisdiction from the outset and ordered dismissal of Trump's lawsuit. Trump v. United States, 54 F.4th 689, 702 (11th Cir. 2022). The opinion was scathing.

In pretrial proceedings in the criminal case. on March 18, 2024, Judge Cannon ordered the defense and the Government to submit competing drafts of jury instructions on applicability of the Presidential Records Act which draft instructions must assume that two (batshit crazy) “scenarios” were “correct formulations of the law.” Scenario (a) posited that the jury in an Espionage Act prosecution may “make a factual finding as to whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that [a record retained by a former president] is personal or presidential using the definitions set forth in the [PRA].” Scenario (b) posited that a president has “sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency”; that “[n]either a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision”; and that an outgoing president’s decision to withhold records from the National Archives must be deemed to be his “categorization of those records as personal under the PRA.” Neither "scenario" regarding the PRA has any foundation in law whatsoever.

Judge Cannon's dismissal of the indictment of Trump regarding the Mar-a-Lago documents, based upon her ruling that the Attorney General has no statutory authority to appoint a Special Counsel, is just plain lawless. In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694-95 (1974), the Supreme Court determined that the Attorney General had statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, and 533 to appoint a special prosecutor comparable to the instant Special Counsel. Every other court to consider the question has concluded that the Supreme Court’s determination that those statutes authorized the Attorney General to appoint the Watergate
Special Prosecutor was necessary to the decision that a justiciable controversy existed and therefore constitutes a holding that binds lower courts. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

[Commenter_XY]

I read the linked 11th circuit petition, that you provided NG. The impression I got was it was a bunch of law professors (lawyers) saying 'Waaah. We disagree with her ruling!'; but nothing of actual unethical conduct. I am not dismissing their argument, it is an alternative interpretation of a set of facts (I am not entirely sold).

The lawless piece; the dismissal. The 11th circuit is taking up that question, correct? I would want to see what the 11th circuit says, esp if Judge Pryor is on the panel (Yes, the Chief) hearing the case. They've addressed this case twice now, IIRC.

[not guilty]

The amicus brief I linked to calls for reassignment of the Trump documents case to another District Court upon remand -- a remedy which the government did not request in its initial brief.

Since 1974, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) has required a federal judge to "disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. Opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). The standard under § 455 is objective and requires the court to ask "whether an objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt about the judge's impartiality." McWhorter v. City of Birmingham, 906 F.2d 674, 678 (11th Cir. 1990).

Even if any of Judge Cannon's irregular actions, standing alone, would not meet the test for recusal, her repeated adoption of outré theories that directly contradicted longstanding law, each for the benefit of Donald Trump, display a deep-seated favoritism in all matters regarding Trump.

[David Nieporent]

Neither “scenario” regarding the PRA has any foundation in law whatsoever.

The problem wasn't merely that both got the PRA wrong — though they did — but that the PRA doesn't have anything to do with the case in the first place. Smith was very careful not to try to expand the case to one about ordinary stolen government documents; doing so would have actually made the case vulnerable to the attack that "everyone does it" and that it's just a civil dispute. Instead, he focused tightly on NDI so that the only issue was the Espionage Act.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I hope Judge Cannon finds a way to pass this case to another judge, otherwise anti-Trump types will portray Routh as a Martyr to Trumpian Injustice. Keep attention on what Routh did, not what the judge supposedly did.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Exercised his second amendment rights.

[not guilty]

I expect that Routh's defense counsel will raise an as applied Second Amendment challenge to three counts of the indictment, whereupon some heads may explode in the Trump cult.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If he's convicted of attempted assassination then I would hope he'd get a severe sentence even apart from his previous record, or any felon-in-possession charges.

[Drewski]

“For Routh’s defense counsel not to seek Judge Cannon’s recusal would likely amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.”

Although I agree he should seek recusal, that would be a very difficult claim to win on. I believe it’s completely foreclosed in some circuits. Except in the most absurd circumstances it’s a classic strategic decision of the sort the courts are loathe to second-guess.

[Moderation4ever]

I don't agree. While Trump was the target the case is a pretty straight forward case of plotting and attempting a murder. The target should not figure into the case in court. In the public the case will focus on the target, but it should not in court.

[David Nieporent]

For Routh’s defense counsel not to seek Judge Cannon’s recusal would likely amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.

Strickland requires a showing of prejudice.

[Riva]

This is patently absurd. Judge Cannon has done nothing that would cause a reasonable member of the public to question her impartiality. It is not reasonable to question her impartiality simply because you disagree with her rulings. Now Chutkan has made on the record comments in other J6 cases wondering why President Trump was not in jail. Have you argued for her recusal? Merchan is statutorily conflicted in NY. Have you argued for his recusal? Your dislike of President Trump merits your recusal from commenting on this. (That’s a joke by the way for the TDS inflicted crowd)

[David Nieporent]

Bot programmed to post fake talking points about other judges whenever Cannon is criticized.

[Riva]

I think bat shit crazy clowns who believe it’s possible to conclude that killing President Trump would benefit the country are also precluded from commenting. What do you think, bat shit crazy clown?

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes the canned DMN deflection to bullshit he never posted response.

More of those lazy if/then type responses lately. Not even a neural net.

[Riva]

Typical Democrat projection. It’s you clowns who attempt to distract with your obnoxious insults. I would prefer never exchanging comments with you or bat shit crazy guy (It was he who wrote: “It’s possible to conclude that Trump being killed would benefit the country”). It’s you who insert yourselves to poison any comment chain with your garbage.

[Sarcastr0]

You post it in response to DMN every single time. Like a bot would.

And it is bullshit, your grammar module seems to have missed the difference between passive and active voice.

[Riva]

You f’ers make the same obnoxious belittling insults over and over again and now complain that my responses to your shit are repetitive? My comments conveyed nothing more than what the bat shit comment noted. Are you trying to argue that the bat shit comment isn’t bat shit crazy?

[Nelson]

"Judge Cannon has done nothing that would cause a reasonable member of the public to question her impartiality."

Apparently you haven't noticed Cannon's erratic and often-overturned decisions that (to your complete surprise, I'm sure) always favor Trump and conservatives. She is basically the template for a dishonest judge who lacks even the most basic appearance if impartiality.

The question isn't whether Cannon will find in favor of her preferred outcome. It's how transparently dishonest she'll be in her ruling.

[gVOR08]

Have you considered his lawyers may prefer a judge of questionable competence who's likely to generate grounds for appeals?

[Noscitur a sociis]

For Routh’s defense counsel not to seek Judge Cannon’s recusal would likely amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.

This seems like a pretty silly claim. At best, I think you’ve made a case that a request for recusal might not be frivolous. But one that any competent attorney would be required to make? Come on. Do you have even a single example of a case where a judge was held to have had a duty to recuse due to partiality to a non-party involved in the case, based purely on judicial decisions in a different case? That wouldn’t be enough to establish that a motion for recusal is professionally required, but without it it’s a complete nonstarter.

[Kazinski]

Trump’s appeal in the ridiculous half a billion dollar fraud case seems to be going poorly, poorly for the Letitia James:

“Justice David Friedman of the appellate court pressed Deputy New York Solicitor General Judith Vale on the law that James had used to bring the lawsuit against Trump in the first place, stating that it “hardly seems to justify bringing an action to protect Deutsche Bank against President Trump which is what you have here.”

“You have two really sophisticated players in which no one lost any money,” Friedman added, according to CNN’s report on the matter.”

The New York appeals panel also questioned the size of the penalty imposed by Engoron. Justice Peter Moulton told Vale on Thursday that the “immense penalty in this case is troubling,” adding, “How do you tether the amount that was assessed by the Supreme Court to the harm that was caused here where the parties left these transactions happy?”

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-letitia-james-new-york-fraud-civil-appeal-1960126

[Commenter_XY]

The process was the punishment. And a warning.

[verochkax]

As a former legal practitioner, I'm not surprised by this. Engoron is a political hack. His conduct during the trial made this very clear.

The appellate judges on the other hand, even if they are Democrat appointed, presumably understand that the reason sophisticated parties use New York as a choice of law and venue is that they trust there's an established body of case law and that they'll get a fair shake from the courts, if it comes to that.

You jeopardize that, and people will start picking other jurisdictions, which is bad for New York.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They already have jeopardized that, and I suspect that people ARE picking other jurisdictions already.

NY's tax laws don't help.

[verochkax]

Certainly possible

[Magister]

It's not just the two parties; people who couldn't get loans or paid more for loans because they weren't fraudsters, and the state itself, also have interest in discouraging this unlawful conduct.

[David Nieporent]

But it's also the fact that fraud is assessed at the time the fraud is committed, not after the fact. If I forge documents to conceal the fact that I'm embezzling from my employer, and I manage to hit at the racetrack and return everything I took before my forgery is discovered, we do not say, "Well, nobody was harmed, nobody lost any money, so it's not an issue."

[Magister]

Well, they do say that on Law & Order: Victimless Crime Unit.

[verochkax]

That's fine, but even judging from the perspective of someone looking at the conduct at the time of origination, the lenders knew full well what the value was, and did their own diligence. There was no fraud.

Additionally, Engoron's saying that Mar-a-Lago was only worth $20 million showed how full of shit his analysis was.

[Bob from Ohio]

"did their own diligence"

Exactly. No reliance which is an element of fraud.

[verochkax]

Yes, this is the crucial part people miss.

It's not "You are telling us this asset is worth $100 million, and we're trusting your figure, so we're loaning $80 million against it."

It's more like "You are telling us this asset is worth $100 million, but let's be honest with each other, you and I both know it's bullshit, and that it's actually worth $50 million. But that's okay, because you're only asking us to loan $40 million against it, so we're comfortable with the risk."

No one relied, no one was harmed, and there was no fraud.

[Magister]

Testimony of Nicholas Haigh said otherwise.

[David Nieporent]

the lenders knew full well what the value was, and did their own diligence. There was no fraud.

Trouble is, this claim is made up. There was no such testimony. There was testimony to the effect that they automatically discount self-valuations like that, and that they did so in Trump's case. But "We assume that values provided by loan applicants are inflated and therefore discount them by X%" is not remotely the same thing as "We did our own valuation and knew it was worth $Y." Also, this was not common law fraud where reliance was required, anyway, but a violation of Executive Law § 63(12).

Additionally, Engoron’s saying that Mar-a-Lago was only worth $20 million showed how full of shit his analysis was.

That is not in fact what he said, Do you not understand how summary judgment works? The judge doesn't resolve factual disputes in a summary judgment context. Only one side put in admissible evidence about the value of Mar A Lago. (The government.) Handwavy "I'm such a very stable geenyus and very important person so my property is worth a billion dollars, maybe more" is not a valid submission. (Especially since that fictional figure was based on the false premise that the property is a home, when in fact it is not allowed to be used as one, or to be otherwise developed.) Engoron simply ruled, as judges do every day, that based on the factual record before him there was no dispute about the value of the property.

[verochkax]

The lenders said that they knew the values were inflated. Thus, they did their own diligence, or would not have extended the loan.

And yes, I know how summary judgment works. Trump did in fact put in evidence about the value of Mar-a-Lago. The judge should not have credited an obviously false fact, even if it was uncontradicted, which it was not.

[David Nieporent]

The lenders said that they knew the values were inflated. Thus, they did their own diligence, or would not have extended the loan.

The lenders did not say that. They said that they assumed all such valuations are inflated, and knock them down by a certain percentage to account for that. There was no testimony that they did their own valuations of the various properties in question.

Trump did in fact put in evidence about the value of Mar-a-Lago.

Reading is fundamental: I said admissible evidence. What Trump submitted was nothing more than someone saying, essentially, "Trust me, it's worth a billion dollars."

[Harvey Mosley]

In your hypothetical embezzlement would it matter if your employer’s attitude was “no harm no foul” and decided not to pursue the matter?

ETA: I realize that a crime would still have been committed. My question is more along the lines of would a prosecutor still prosecute under those circumstances.

[Nelson]

"also have interest in discouraging this unlawful conduct."

Don't forget about the Deutsche Bank investors and stockholders, whose returns were negatively impacted by Trump's fraud.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why can the Harris government fly in millions of illegals and give then tens of thousands in free cash, but can't do shit when millions of Americans are in need after a hurricane?

Do you think the Harris government is ignoring these Americans because they are mostly White as a matter of equity?

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/30/kamala-harris-promises-equity-hurricane-recovery-resources-not-everybody-starts-same-place/

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I guess in their minds that are righting wrongs by letting these White people suffer necessarily.

I wonder how many Whites they want to let die before the accounts are settled? All of them?

[Nelson]

We waste a collosal amount of federal money through flood insurance, most of which go to people with multimillion dollar who just rebuild in the same flood-prone areas.

Can we at least cancel that nonsense?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Sure, after we start seeing FEMA trucks showing up we can talk about it.

When do you think that might be?

[Nelson]

Days ago.

[gVOR08]

Declarations of emergency are in place for the five affected states and FEMA is on the ground. Trump has criticized both Biden and Harris for not being in the affected states, which would be pointless and hugely disruptive. Do you have any other basis for a claim "the Harris government" is ignoring them?

[Nelson]

The increasing likelihood that there will actually be a Harris Administration is making the Trumpkins lose their minds. Well, even more than they had lost it before, which was already a lot.

[Harvey Mosley]

Hmm. Seems to me Bush was criticized for not being in N.O. after Katrina, which would have been "...pointless and hugely disruptive."

[OtisAH]

To what “Harris government” do you refer?

[MoreCurious]

Moron. States of emergency have already been declared. FEMA, the Red Cross, utility companies, and many other organizations and entities are already on the ground providing food and shelter and restoring power. Efforts will increase once access to the affected areas are possible. Have you ever considered educating yourself before you write? There's a chance that doing so might make you seem less foolish and uninformed.

[myself]

Don't worry, Trump is visiting one of the affected areas. And because of the two assassination attempts the Secret Service is going to need to be extra vigilant in locking down everything around.

But don't worry, I'm sure people in the area prefer a Trump photo opp over emergency aid.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How else is he going to throw paper towels at people and inquire about boat ownership?

[myself]

I think he's mostly there to scout out the new ocean front property.

I'm actually still a little baffled about that one. I suspect he's thinking about inland areas that become "ocean front" after sea levels rise, but does he not realize that existing "ocean front" property will simply become "ocean"?

[SimonP]

What is with this constant need to lie about everything?

[Kazinski]

John Kerry:

"The 1st Amendment stands as a major roadblock for us right now"

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1840223221120979211?t=RhESzJ9oNDaP63gyXX5DyA&s=19

I should hope so, thats what the 1st amendment is for.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If he actually were innocent, she is one of the few judges who could release him.

[Kazinski]

Sorry Ed, I moved my comment on Routh to where it should have been.

[Commenter_XY]

Just 20 years ago, that same man nearly won the Presidency.

He went from 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' to 'The 1st Amendment stands as a major roadblock for us right now'. Quite a metamorphosis.

[Kazinski]

In fuller context it even looks worse, first of all his remarks were at the World Economic Forum, which is appropriate, because he doesn’t seem to identify as American anymore:
“So it is really hard, much harder to build consensus today than at any time in the 40-50 years I’ve been involved in this.

You know there’s a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you’re going to have some accountability on facts, etc.

But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence.

So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.”

And he goes on:
“I think democracies are very challenged right now and have not proven they can move fast enough of big enough to deal with the challenges they are facing, and to me, that is part of what this election is all about. Will we break the fever in the United States?”

I hope not, I got a fever for freedom.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, hopefully that fever for freedom is as catching as covid.

[Martinned2]

He’s not wrong. Free speech absolutism as practiced in the US is objectively screwing up your society in lots of ways. Covid misinformation is only one of them.

From bribing politicians to practicing medicine without complying with regulations, everything is free speech now. (Except libraries, somehow.)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That isn't what Kerry was referring to though.

That being said, why don't the politicians have enough morals to refuse the bribe?

[Kazinski]

His two primary concerns were the US election and Climate Change. You'd think if he were unassailably right he'd be able to muster the arguments to win, rather than hammer contrary sources out of existence.

By the way speaking of craziness , what did you think of the revelation that Boris Johnson was planning a military raid on a Dutch vaccine factory to sieze covid vaccines from the EU?

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-ex-pm-johnson-says-he-planned-raid-dutch-factory-get-covid-vaccines-2024-09-28/

That's crazier than any anti vaxxers shooting up horse tranquilizer.

[Sarcastr0]

You would prefer he say the First isn’t any kind of impediment?

Seems simplistic. Lots of policies must be be made such that they do not run afoul of this or that Amendment.

Not really worth your a-HA theatrics.

Off topic, John Kerry? I did not know he was still active.

[Kazinski]

Way too active. He was Biden’s climate envoy until earlier this year.

But he doesn't say the first amendment should be respected, he says tgey don't have enough power to rollover it yet.

[Sarcastr0]

I think 'win enough votes' is a clue that's not what he means.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, I think win enough votes so we can nuke the filibuster, then, expand the Supreme Court, and then roll the law back to the Alien and Sedition acts is exactly what he meant.

You already have Tim Walz on the record saying hate speech and misinformation are not protected by the first amendment.

Then you have Kamala Harris saying that Trump should be banned from social media, and that Facebook and Twitter shouldn't be able to directly communicate with "millions of people" without government regulation.

The truth is the absolute worst possible interpretation of Kerry's remarks is in lock step with what the top of the Democratic ticket has already said publicly.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You would prefer he say the First isn’t any kind of impediment?"

He should absolutely say that the 1A is an impediment to censoring speech he disagrees with.

But it would be nice if he thought that that was a good thing.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you think this through? No one is going to think that the Constitution impeding their own prefered policies is a good thing.

The statesmen believe it better to pay that price than to argue around the Constitution.
Which is what's happening here.

[Harvey Mosley]

"No one is going to think that the Constitution impeding their own prefered policies is a good thing."

I do. I would rather not have birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens but the Constitution says otherwise. I'm glad that the Constitution is not on my side 100% of the time. It means that I can see the difference between what I want and reality. Not everything I want is mandated by the Constitution nor is all of what I want Constitutional. Anyone who believes otherwise about themselves is probably delusional.

[Sarcastr0]

If you want a thing you know you shouldn’t that’s fine. But if you would let that impulse fly but for the Constitution, your character seems worse than Kerry’s

[Harvey Mosley]

"If you want a thing you know you shouldn’t that’s fine. But if you would let that impulse fly but for the Constitution, your character seems worse than Kerry’s"

WTF? Because I think that maybe incentivizing people to come here illegally by granting their children born in this country automatic citizenship is not a good idea that means I'm a bad person? This is the kind of response I get from Mr. you shouldn't assume bad faith in your opponents even when they have demonstrated it time and time again?

You used to have some substantive comments. You used to even be interesting. Holy shit dude. I hope whatever happened to you gets better. If not, we could end up with another Kirkland.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Did you think this through? No one is going to think that the Constitution impeding their own prefered policies is a good thing."

Did you think this through? You're admitting that Kerry's preferred policy is censorship?

[Sarcastr0]

Neither he nor I said anything like that. Not everything that needs to be careful it doesn’t run afoul of the First is censorship.

As you well know, you argue the First allows a lot of policies I would call censorship, and don’t seem overly concerned you need to address 1A concerns.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You said, “No one is going to think that the Constitution impeding their own prefered policies is a good thing.”

The first amendment impedes people’s preferred policies by permitting other people to argue against them, and non-tyrants think that that’s a good thing.

[Sarcastr0]

Impeding not as in 'utterly blocking' as in 'making more difficult to craft.'

Like lots of laws.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah. A good thing.

[Martinned2]

I think Boris Johnson made that up to sell more books.

[Kazinski]

Not plausible, didn't he actually name the general he discussed the plan with? And they went as far as mapping the route and planning the logistics from what I saw.

[Michael P]

You continue to pretend that arbitrary and capricious regulations are legitimate. Sad!

[Sarcastr0]

He was talking about 1A, which seems a different objection than yours.

[Michael P]

He said "practicing medicine without complying with regulations, everything is free speech now", in reference to his belief that sending emails about pets can be regulated in the US as (veterinary) telemedicine, particularly by imposing a requirement that does not apply to human telemedicine. Please try to keep up.

[Sarcastr0]

If it's a 1A issue, the standard is not arbitrary and capricious.

I know, it's a fun leaglish phrase, but at this point I have no idea whether your issue is proper authority, 1A, ACA, or some kinda due process rational basis.

Smart money is on none of thise; you just hate the vibes and are sure there's gotta be a law.

[Michael P]

I didn't say the legal standard was "arbitrary and capricious". The regulation in question was, though -- the state could not produce facts to support it, only opinion, and as I said, it was a higher standard than use for human telemedicine. So it would have failed even such a deferential standard of review.

At this point, none of us can tell if your issue is that you're dumb, ignorant or just a really bad troll. Maybe all three are true.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, vibes. You just wanted to say 'arbitrary and capricious' because I guess you're one of those with a boner to deploy expert-sounding jargon.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that Texas made a dumb law - I think it's dumb.
But expert opinions are not a priori insufficient predicate to base a law on. Nor are comparisons to other current legal regimes, which may be too weak but not yet addressed.

The argument that a law is dumb is different than that a law is unconstitutional or legally problematic.

Dumb, vibes are fine. But you're trying to do both lifts and for the second you need to ID a doctrine.
5C is trying to do this lift via the First Amendment. Feel free to cite that if you want; I'm skeptical.

[Martinned2]

You didn’t see the VC post about that tele-vet the other day?

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned2 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"He’s not wrong. Free speech absolutism as practiced in the US is objectively screwing up your society in lots of ways. Covid misinformation is only one of them."

Other than ivermectin and Hxc treatment for covid , as much or more misinformation regarding covid was coming from the CDc and other health officials.

[Martinned2]

QED

[Joe_dallas]

https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

Go through the list of studies cited
Any guesses how many have serious flaws, omissions, truncated study periods, fail to account for cofounding variables, etc.

bottom line, there is a wealth of disinformation through out the CDC on this topic.

[David Nieporent]

Look, folks, he can balance a checkbook and he took high school biology. What more is needed to identify unaccounted for cofounding variables in scientific studies?

[Joe_dallas]

The fact remains - many of the studies the listed by the CDC have serious flaws , shortcoming, omissions, truncated study periods and fail to account for cofounding variables. The CDC remains guilty of spreading considerable misinformation.
See comments from the Barrington group
Cochrane, etc

[Martinned2]

I'm reliably informed that you'll be fine as long as you make sure to sunbathe your taint at least once a day.

[Joe_dallas]

M2 - that doesnt change the fact that the CDC provided significant amounts of misinformation regarding covid. the pro masking studies are not nearly as robust as you have been led to believe by the CDC.

Pick most any of those 40+ pro masking studies and you will find problems / limitations / deficiencies with the analysis

[TwelveInchPianist]

"From bribing politicians to practicing medicine without complying with regulations, everything is free speech now. (Except libraries, somehow.)"

No, just speech. And feel free to build a library containing whatever books you want.

[Martinned2]

If your system of free speech protects people's ability to "donate" money to politicians while allowing those same politicians to censor libraries as much as they like (because "tax money"), your system of free speech is profoundly screwed up.

But in the grand scheme of things that libraries thing isn't so important. That only hurts people who don't know what a library is anyway. Normal library users will just get information elsewhere. The Covid misinformation (war in Ukraine misinformation, latest mass casualty shooting misinformation, etc) is much more structurally damaging to American society, because it's undermining the very fabric of your democracy. (And, by extension, ours, because so much of what happens in the US has consequences abroad, despite our efforts to do damage control.) If, as a country, you are no longer able to settle on a common set of facts that you might have ideological disagreements around, the country will become ungovernable.

[Joe_dallas]

Liberals / leftists / governments dont like free speech

Neither did Stalin, Mao, Hitler, or M2.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Remember when Trump was telling his rally attendees to beat the hell out of protesters? Good times!

[David Nieporent]

No, you're lying. He was telling his rally attendees to beat the hell out of protesters and promising to pay their legal bills if they did.

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned2 47 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
“If, as a country, you are no longer able to settle on a common set of facts that you might have ideological disagreements around, the country will become ungovernable.”

As In John Kerry’s version of facts”
Take in John Kerry talking about the need to reach “consensus,” which obviously means agreeing to obey him—“

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If your system of free speech protects people’s ability to “donate” money to politicians while allowing those same politicians to censor libraries as much as they like (because “tax money”), your system of free speech is profoundly screwed up."

Fortunately, our system allows neither of those things. It allows people to spend money trying to convince others of their viewpoint. And it allows the government to decide what books go into public libraries (which all systems do). Nice try though.

"If, as a country, you are no longer able to settle on a common set of facts that you might have ideological disagreements around, the country will become ungovernable."

Since when has a free country been able to settle on a common set of facts?

But in any event, the process we use to try to settle on common facts, which is far superior to the system that you and North Korea prefer, where the government tells you what you're allowed to say, and by extension what you're allowed to think.

[Frank Drackman]

Lurch was for the First Amendment before he was against it (and the Second, remember his "is this where I get's me a Huntin' License??" event, I think he borrowed Michael Do-Cock-Us's Elmer Fudd cap.

Frank

[santamonica811]

Over the weekend, Trump—in yet another—rally speech filled with batshit-crazy rhetoric, called for Harris to be prosecuted. Of course. To the surprise of absolutely no one.

We should each have a “Vengeful Trump Prosecutions” BINGO card. My own submission:

Top row: Prez Biden; Harris; Hunter Biden*
Mid row: Pelosi; Letitia James; Schumer
Bottom row: Walz; Garland; Comey

*Sub in Fani Willis for Hunter, if he’s disqualified from this esteemed position due to already being prosecuted…even though Trump wants additional prosecutions against him.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Anyone prosecuted by a Trump administration will have the right to a fair trial, including the ability to raise any claims of selective prosecution that they might have, so there shouldn't be any problem.

[not guilty]

Has anyone not named Yick Wo obtained final relief from a criminal prosecution or conviction based on a selective prosecution theory?

[TwelveInchPianist]

As you've been telling us for months now, no.

Has that suddenly become a problem?

Maybe they can change their names.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Will anti-Trumpers, if nobody else, finally recognize the screening function of the grand jury, a function which has been hamstrung of late, creating rubber-stamp, ham sandwich grand juries? If grand juries were functioning as they're supposed to, then these supposed vengeful and unjustified prosecutions would be blocked, assuming they *are* in fact vengeful and unjustified.

But no, you emasculated the grand jury (at least on the federal level).

[santamonica811]

I'm confused. It's been a shibboleth of the right AND the left that one could get a ham sandwich indicted by a grand jury. That goes back MORE THAN 50 YEARS!!!!!! But you are whining and moaning about this being the fault of anti-Trumpers? Were you in a coma until 2015? Or did the ham-sandwiches-ness of grand juries just not bother you until Trump came along?

[Commenter_XY]

sm811, you can probably remove Fani 'The Smasher' Willis from the 'Trump Payback List'. The Smasher is screwing herself royally in GA state courts right now, and potentially with state financial auditors looking at expense accounts. 😉

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sigh…I was hoping for new converts to the non-ham-sandwich cause, to protect people from Trump, you dimwit.

I hadn't thought proposing to restrain Trump would have been interpreted as somehow pro-Trump, but then I guess you're not that bright.

[Magister]

Trump, Menendez, Adams, Santos - all of these appear to have been indicted well above a non-ham_sandwich grand jury standard. It would be better for anti-Trumpers if grand juries had a a better reputation, but I also would not care for a world where grand jury indictment by itself was widely viewed as evidence of guilt, without knowledge of the actual indictment. A more robust standard for indictments might work against Donald Trump's planned retribution, but if Donald Trump were able to win election, who would enforce that standard? He's not known for respecting norms.

Maybe point to some indictments that would not have been brought but for the ham sandwich level of indictment?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"I also would not care for a world where grand jury indictment by itself was widely viewed as evidence of guilt, without knowledge of the actual indictment."

Neither would I.

I seem to recall that the travel office charges under Clinton were pretty flimsy, but of course they got indicted anyway. I cite this example because it's pre-Trump and is less likely to trigger people.

[Magister]

Which "they" got indicted? Former Travel Office Director Billy Dale did commingle funds, which seems a reasonable basis for a grand jury to indict him for embezzlement and criminal conversion, for which he was acquitted. Were there other indictments?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Why did the trial jury acquit him, then? Wikipedia says "The jury acquitted Dale of both charges on November 16, 1995, following less than two hours of deliberations."

“Were there other indictments?”

I already gave you an answer to your question, take it or leave it. I'm not following you down another rabbit hole.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Maybe point to some indictments that would not have been brought but for the ham sandwich level of indictment?”

Oh, I get it, you’re asking me to go into alternate universes with proper grand juries and tell us how those grand juries would have operated.

Why don’t you tell me of an indictment which *shouldn’t* have been brought under your standards (if any), or is the system just hunky dory?

[Magister]

I’m only seeing one indictment for the Travel Office; you said “they” but maybe you just didn’t know Billy Dale’s pronouns. If prosecutors indicting ham sandwiches (as a metaphor for defendants of whom there is no plausible evidence?) then you could offer more than one example.

Against the claim that this is a huge problem, prosecutors value their conviction rate, and indicting defendants who they cannot convict would be a bad idea. It may be a problem that grand juries pretty much hear one side, but creating a burden on defendants to defend both in the grand jury and a regular trial would seem bad, and grand jury testimony is kept secret because it would often compromise other investigations.

If you can't point to any obviously bad cases in this universe, then the problem must not be a big one. It's more just a complaint that indictment of someone you like was baseless despite the evidence, which we get a lot of from Trump cultists.

(For someone who recently thought it too tiring to follow people from one thread to the next, you seem bent on carrying grudges, at least against me, from thread to thread.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You asked,

“Maybe point to some indictments that would not have been brought but for the ham sandwich level of indictment?”

How exactly can I evaluate, to *your* satisfaction, what happens in an alternate universe?

I see you didn't answer my question: "Why don’t you tell me of an indictment which *shouldn’t* have been brought under your standards (if any), or is the system just hunky dory?"

So it seems your standards have been met by every indictment which ever issued.

"indicting defendants who they cannot convict would be a bad idea."

And we know that prosecutors never err, so there must not be any false indictments.

“(as a metaphor for defendants of whom there is no plausible evidence?)”

Bad faith argument as usual.

[Magister]

If you can't point to a problem in this universe, then you're just yelling at clouds. Either some "ham sandwiches" (that is, people it was as unjustified to indict as a ham sandwich) were indicted, or not. If you are so certain that the former is true, you could point to a couple. I'm not asking for anything that happens in an alternate universe; I'm asking for things that did happen but shouldn't have in this universe.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

FY 2002: 1,669 federal trials leading to a verdict, of which 290 (about 17.4%) led to acquittals. But there's more:

"The overwhelming majority of defendants in federal criminal cases that year did not go to trial at all. About nine-in-ten (89.5%) pleaded guilty, while another 8.2% had their case dismissed at some point in the judicial process, according to the data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts."

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/14/fewer-than-1-of-defendants-in-federal-criminal-cases-were-acquitted-in-2022/

To your way of thinking, for every case involving an acquittal or a dismissal, the grant jury was always justified in filing charges. Yeah, that sounds likely.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And of course these statistics don't (or can't) measure the number of innocent people who had guilty pleas extracted out of them by threats and promises.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

2022, not 2002

[Magister]

To your way of thinking, for every case involving an acquittal or a dismissal, the grant jury was always justified in filing charges. Yeah, that sounds likely.

Not my way of thinking at all. My understanding is that there is often uncertainty whether a jury at trial will find the defendant guilty or innocent, so we can't fault the grand jury for making an incorrect prediction before any defense was presented. On the same standard, "your way of thinking" might appear to be that no grand jury should indict unless it is certain that the the trial jury will convict.

It is not clear how many of the 89.5% who plead are doing so because they are sure they will be convicted, or how many are coerced into pleading to a lesser offense by the threat of severe penalties that have only a small chance of happening, or how many give up on defending because of the cost of a defense attorney. All of those would be problems that grand juries not indicting ham sandwiches will not solve; trial juries sometimes are found to have convicted innocent people, and it seems unreasonable to think that a proper grand jury with less information would do better.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The grand jury's objective is to make their own judgment on the evidence before them, not to predict how the trial jury will act.

[Magister]

Then you can't use grand jury versus trial jury results as evidence that grand juries are doing a bad job.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That doesn't logically follow at all.

[Magister]

If it's not their job to only indict people who the trial jury will acquit, then you can't say they're doing a bad job. More failing at logic by Margrave.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, acquitted in under three hours; Might have been quicker, but the jury wanted lunch. 😉

What was genuinely gratuitous about the whole thing is that the Clintons fired the Travel office staff to install some campaign workers, (Including a distant relative of Clinton's!) in their place, and were perfectly entitled to do so without cause. The charges were just to make it look like they'd had an actual reason for replacing them.

Dale got put through the wringer for PR purposes, IOW.

[Magister]

Commingling government funds in your accounts is the sort of thing that should get you fired, and certainly looks like corruption. But Brett Bellmore, political telepath, knows the truth, which always aligns with his desire for scandal around those he opposes.

(Both Brett and Margrave seem to have not noticed that I mentioned Dale's acquittal.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"(Both Brett and Margrave seem to have not noticed that I mentioned Dale’s acquittal.)"

What does that even mean? You've acknowledged he was acquitted, yet you seem to think he should still have been indicted.

[Magister]

Indictment does not seem implausible. It does not seem clear that, not seeing the defense put on in a 13 day trial, a proper grand jury would not have indicted him.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Grand juries can always ask the suspect’s lawyer for exculpatory evidence – nothing stopping them. If they don’t it’s on them for uncritically swallowing what the prosecutor fed them. If they have evidence from both sides – and nothing stops them from collecting it – they can make a better decision.

In the travel office trial, Wikipedia says “ABC News’ Sam Donaldson and The Los Angeles Times’ Jack Nelson” served as character witnesses. Did the grand jury know that when they indicted? If not, it’s their own fault for their lack of curiosity.

[Magister]

You want the grand jury to conduct its own trial, acting on behalf of the defendant even to the extent of calling character witnesses?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Grand juries need not conduct a trial; they are not constrained by the rules of evidence applicable at a trial. (For instance, they get to consider hearsay evidence, Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956).)

So the grand jurors can look at affidavits by character witnesses, without having to examine the witnesses in person. And so on.

It's no wonder grand juries are rubber stamps, if the only question they're supposed to answer is "can the prosecution make the suspect look guilty by a selective presentation of evidence?"

Simply because grand jurors consider evidence informally doesn't mean they have to do so unfairly.

[Magister]

By the same argument, they can consider informal evidence and indict based solely on that; the assumption that such evidence would only argue against indictment does not seem well founded.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“the assumption that such evidence would only argue against indictment does not seem well founded”

Of course not, and if you find anyone who makes such an assumption, refer him to me and I’ll correct him.

https://lets-get-together.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/scarecrow2.jpg

[Magister]

Margrave, who cannot get logic right, will set Margrave straight? That would be something to see, if there were any chance at all that it would happen. Instead Margrave will continue to inhabit his fantasy world where grand juries would only use these powers only for good.

[bernard11]

Yeah, acquitted in under three hours; Might have been quicker, but the jury wanted lunch.

A conviction could also have taken less than three hours.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"who would enforce that standard"

Grand jurors who are aware of their function and won't be intimidated by prosecutors. This would apply to non-Trump cases, too.

[Magister]

But that is possible as a remedy right now. So the fault is not in our systems, but in our grand jurors. (If the same fault exists in our jurors, that's the more important thing to fix.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What an ignorant thing to say.

[Magister]

Margrave:

the screening function of the grand jury, a function which has been hamstrung of late, creating rubber-stamp, ham sandwich grand juries?

Also Margrave:

“who would enforce that standard”

Grand jurors who are aware of their function and won’t be intimidated by prosecutors.

Grand jurors could do that now. What forces them to be rubber stamps?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It’s a question of a lack of will, encouraged by prosecutors and the media. A responsible media would do some civic education and wake up potential grand jurors to their historic functions.

You're simply determined to attack, and mere evidence doesn't stop you, as indicated by the statistics above.

[Magister]

You leave so many unanswered questions and assert so many inconsistencies; it's not attack to try to resolve these. Better education of what grand jurors should do sounds like a good plan; why wouldn't you lead with that, or provide it before so many hostile replies?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Do tell, what inconsistencies have I asserted?

[Magister]

Listed only a few comments above.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Logic fail.

[Magister]

Yes, you did fail at logic.

[Thrax]

Anyone prosecuted by a Trump administration will have the right to a fair trial, including the ability to raise any claims of selective prosecution that they might have, so there shouldn’t be any problem.

I must have imagined those dozens of posts from Blackman complaining that the prosecutions of Trump are “lawfare.” Such a vivid imagination I have!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I must have imagined those dozens of posts from Blackman complaining that the prosecutions of Trump are “lawfare.” Such a vivid imagination I have!"

That appears to have been a losing argument, no?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

What a bunch of partisan bullshit.

Trump crimes detailed with evidence: "Lawfare."
Trump threatens for the 100th time to imprison his enemies without any evidence of any crimes: "Totes ok!"

Typical Trump-supporting scum.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Trump threatens for the 100th time to imprison his enemies without any evidence of any crimes: 'Totes ok!"

As you guys pointed out ad-nauseum in response to the lawfare claims, Trump had a fair trial and was convicted by a jury of his peers.

Anyone convicted by a future Trump administration will have the same rights.

[Sarcastr0]

You are not being consistent, and it’s clear to everyone what a hypocrite you are.

Saying ‘haha I’m just adopting the other sides arguments’ is not convincing anyone.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If you guys can adopt the "Lawfare!" argument, why can't I adopt the due process argument?

[Sarcastr0]

When you turn on a dime.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Again, if y'all can, why can't I?

[Sarcastr0]

Everyone else distinguished between Trump making a continual promise over and over to actual indictments.
Or they were specifically calling out the hypocricy of a Conspirator, and not making claims about merits.

You didn't bother to do either.

Now you're trying to pretend you were making some kind of clever point? And you think anyone's buying that who knows anything about your posting history??

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? I was responding someone complaining about Trump's lawfare with your frequent rebuttal to other commentors (not my, you're not as familiar with my posting history as you claim to be) lawfare arguments.

I guess it turns out that, as usual, you're the hypocrite.

[Frank Drackman]

Prosecuting a former VP? I'd start with Dick Chaney. lets see, Impersonating a Human Being, Shooting a guy in the Heart, Accessory to umm, a few hundred thousand murders...

[hobie]

"Former President Donald Trump said at a rally here Sunday that Vice President Kamala Harris should be "impeached and prosecuted" for her actions related to the southern U.S. border."

Immigration is part of her official duties.

Also, Trump should be careful about demanding prosecution for the transport (busing) of of cat-eating rapists across the nation. Could put a couple of governors in the crosshairs

[David Nieporent]

Immigration is part of her official duties.

It isn't. If for no other reason than that the vice president doesn't have official duties, other than breaking ties in the senate.

[hobie]

Didn’t Biden officially task her with immigration duties? Like some kind of special prosecutor?

[David Nieporent]

Literally, no. Setting aside that what you describe wouldn't be "official duties" anyway — the vice president doesn't actually report to the president and can't be ordered to do anything — Biden asked Harris to liaise with Central American countries about stopping the flow of migrants from those countries.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Since her actions are not part of her official duties then according to the SCOTUS she can be prosecuted for them.

Thanks for clarifying.

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside that SCOTUS's ruling was limited to former presidents, what crime did her actions purportedly constitute?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

All those rapes, murders, and pet eatings committed by the illegals her actions have let into the country.

[not guilty]

Unclear on the concept of causation, JHBHBE?

Check out 18 U.S.C. § 2 (the principal federal statute regarding culpability for the criminal conduct of another person):

(a)Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b)Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Sounds like she meets the bar.
Thank you for your support.

[not guilty]

Are you drunk, JHBHBE?

[Nelson]

No, but he's as dumb as Misek (in many of the same ways). That level of stupidity can read similar to being blackout drunk while shooting heroin and huffing glue. So basically, a typical NaziJesus post.

[Jmaie]

Why you feed da troll?

[Nelson]

So we can point at him and laugh, of course.

[MoreCurious]

More evidence that JHBHBE has lost what was left of his already feeble mind.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Biden asked Harris to liaise with Central American countries about stopping the flow of migrants from those countries."

Mexico and the Northern Triangle — El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras,:

A senior administration official said Harris' role would focus on "two tracks": both curbing the current flow of migrants and implementing a long-term strategy that addresses the root causes of migration. Cabinet members, including the secretary of state, are expected to work closely with Harris on these issues.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

vice president doesn’t have official duties, other than breaking ties in the senate.

They also generally preside over the Senate & have 12/25A duties.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Immigration is part of her official duties."

Her official duties of her main job as Border Czar, not her side gig as VP.

[Moderation4ever]

Real question is should we be paying attention to the ravings of a senile old man? If he can't talk policy should he even be running?

[David Nieporent]

From Trump's "town hall" event the other day in Michigan:

PERSON IN AUDIENCE: "What action will you take to make sure our jobs stay here in America so we can continue to build the best cars here in Michigan?"

TRUMP: "So pretty much as we’ve been saying… and what I want to do, I want to be able to, but years ago, I was honored as 'Man of the Year', it was maybe twenty years ago. When the fake new heard about it they said, it never happened. And I didn't know who it was, it was a group that honored me as "Man of the Year." The fakers back there, see the fake news? (booo) They said ohhh, they said it never happened, but I said 'I swear to you it happened.' I was man of the year. And I came I made a speech and said, “why do you allow them to take your car business away? Why do you allow it to happen? They're taking your business away.” And I didn't know too much about ... all I know is they were taking your car industry away from you. They said it never happened. And lo and behold, somebody said I remember the event and then we found out everything. We got the awards and everything. It DID happen. But I gave the speech, which at the time was pretty controversial. We can't let them take your car business away. It's an important business. You know it's an important business even in times of war when they switch over. And it was really something. And I looked at that speech, from, I don't know, nineteen or twenty years ago, and I can repeat it now without changing a word ... you cannot let foreign countries ... and a lot of the time our worst foes are our so called friends, okay. You know our friends, the European Union takes tremendous advantage of us. As an example, they give us cars by the millions. We don't have too many Chevrolets in the middle of European cities, okay. European Union is brutal. They don't take our farm products for the most part, they don't take a lot. But unlike Kamala, who always complains and doesn't do anything. I keep saying, why don't you do ... I saw Marsha the other day 'why doesn't she, why didn't she do it four years ago almost?' And I say that, and she's at the border today. What a day for the border! She goes to the border today and they announce just before she got up to speak that more than thirteen thousand murderers from jail, solitary confinement people in many cases, were released. But I just say, let's go back, So, we can't let them take our businesses and we're not going to let them take our businesses. And you can control that so easily through good policy, not her kind of policy by the way, she's changed her policy fifteen times. 'No fracking, oh I like fracking.' Defund the police. She wants to defund the police. Now, 'oh I love the police' all of a sudden. By the way, whenever anyone is into defunding the police, even for a day during their career, they can no longer serve as President of the United States. (cheering) So, we're not going to let them take our businesses. And really, a lot of that is determined by our taxation policy. When China has to pay all that money. People that like me the best are the steel companies because I saved them. They were dumping steel, there were others, but mostly China, were dumping steel like no one had ever seen before and it put the steel companies out of business. I put a fifty and a hundred percent tax on the dumping of steel and the steel companies thrived. I saved them, and you have to have the steel companies. So we'll do the same thing, and don't worry about it.

Here's what you have to do, I only ask you to do one thing, and then you can sleep beautifully all night long, go to a job you love and get a lot of money at the end of the week. You know what the thing is? Vote for Trump. If you vote for Trump everything's going to be taken. Everything is going to be taken."

(Note: Even the underlying claim, which of course is non-responsive, is false; Trump did not in fact win any Man of the Year award, unless he self-awarded it at some point, like his Time Magazine appearance: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-time-magazine-with-trump-on-the-cover-hangs-in-his-golf-clubs-its-fake/2017/06/27/0adf96de-5850-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html)

[Dan Schiavetta]

People still cheer when he babbles on like that.

[Frank Drackman]

That's why he's going to win, and anyone's words look ridiculous when you just print them verbatim, how about these Gems?

“an innocent young woman who was killed by an illegal — that’s right.” “But how many of thousands of people are being killed by legals?'
"We finally beat.......Medicare!"
“poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”
"Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see you!" (Chuck was sitting because he was a quadriplegic in a wheelchair)
"Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: Jobs. J-O-B-S."
"This election year, the choice is clear. One man stands to deliver change we desperately need. A man I'm proud to call my friend. A man who will be the next president of the United States—Barack America!"

Frank

[hobie]

Appears to have age-related mental decline

[Frank Drackman]

so what's your excuse?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's hard for him to type with the State's balls in his mouth as he gently strokes its throbbing member.

[Magister]

Of course any Man of the Year award would generate some publicity; that would be the whole point. But last week's "Kamala did not work at McDonald's" brigade have new talking points today.
.

[bernard11]

Don't let XY read this. He's convinced Harris is the "word salad candidate.

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

Harris is as eloquent as Trump and Biden. High praise.

[Magister]

Far more eloquent, and not weird.

[Riva]

What is more relevant than facetious comments at a rally is the real lawfare of Garland’s DOJ. Now warping a Civil War conspiracy statute to carry on the abusive J6 prosecutions following the exposure of his disgrace in Fischer.

[Nelson]

Fuck the J6 rioters. It still pisses me off that the Capitol Police showed so much restraint and only killed that traitor Ashli Babbitt. The world would be a much better place if they had treated those anti-American looters to a healthy dose of face-full-of-lead. That's the treatment America's enemies deserve, but the Capitol Police chose to treat them like people instead of the vermin they are.

It's a damned shame.

[Life of Brian]

Nathan Poe approves this message.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Do you have any other examples of "anti-American looters"?

[Nelson]

I'm pretty sure no one else has smashed their way into the US Capitol in an attempt to prevent the confirmation of the results of a free and fair election.

So no, there has never been an anti-American riot like that before. And, if we're lucky, there won't be another in the future.

But unfortunately I don't have a lot of faith that after he gets his ass kicked again, Donald Trump will graciously concede to the victor. He is constitutionally incapable of acknowledging failure despite experiencing constant and repeated failures throughout his life. But acknowledging reality and accepting things he doesn't like aren't skills he ever developed. It's typical in born-on-third-base trust find babies, but he's worse than most.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"there has never been an anti-American riot like that before"

But were there other anti-American looters?

[Nelson]

Who smashed government buildings in a futile attempt to overthrow the rightful, duly-elected, democratically-selected government? Not since the war of 1812.

But the parallels between a hostile, anti-American, invading army and MAGA isn’t lost on anyone.

[Harvey Mosley]

Seems like that's what happened at "CHOP".

[Nelson]

Not at all. While CHOP was a disgusting display of lawlessness and destruction, it wasn't in any way shape, or form an attempt to prevent a lawful government from taking power. Nor was it an attempt to replace a legitimate government with an illegitimate one.

There was absolutely no potential that CHOP could have changed the existing government or installed an illegitimate one.

So no, CHOP wasn't anything like January 6th.

[Harvey Mosley]

"There was absolutely no potential that CHOP could have changed the existing government or installed an illegitimate one."

Do you really think there was any chance that the yahoos had any potential to change an existing government or install an illegitimate one? Do you really think so little of our country that you think that was even a possibility with those on Capital Hill on January 6th?

[Magister]

Yahoos supported by the sitting president, whose party blocked him from impeachment for that support? Yes, there was a possibility, even if only of the constitution destroying kind.

[Nelson]

“Do you really think there was any chance that the yahoos had any potential to change an existing government or install an illegitimate one?”

A chance? With the loser sitting in the White House and controlling the government? Absolutely.

Trump is a moral black hole and thinks the law is something that doesn’t apply to him. He has no respect for or love of the Constitution. Why do you think he waited 3 hours to do anything about the violent mob wrecking the Capitol? He doesn’t care about anyone or anything but himself and stopping them immediately would have been bad for him, but good for the country. For him, it was a no-brainer.

But my point was about the “Look at CHOP!!!” nonsense you falsely presented as equivalent to January 6th. Thinking CHOP was anything like January 6th shows that you are either completely ignorant of what similarity is, or you are an apologist and supporter of the violent anti-American mob that smashed their way into the Capitol. Gee, I wonder which it is?

“Do you really think so little of our country that you think that was even a possibility with those on Capital Hill on January 6th?”

Over 50% of Republicans, to this very day, believe the fact-free fantasy that Turmp won the 2020 election. Over half.

Yes, I think that little of MAGA-era Republicans. They repeatedly show themselves to be fact-resistant, outcome-oriented, empty vessels who allow Trump to full them with any idiocy he wants. There isn’t any way to think less of such people.

[Bob from Ohio]

“Vengeful Trump Prosecutions”

Four active [more or less] ones right now.

So put away your smelling salts.

[Nelson]

Yeah, Trump should definitely consider stopping criminal activity. But that's who he's been his entire life, so I doubt in his declining years he'll stop being a criminal. His mental capacity is declining, so he may not even be capable of change any more.

[Dr. Ed 2]

To satisfy sex abuse judgments, the Catholic Church has to sell off its hospitals. Hence they become owned by Stewart which then sells the buildings and land to a third group. Stewart plays various games and goes bankrupt, the CEO is in contempt of Congress.

One of these hospitals is in Brighton, a rapidly developing part of Boston. The Governor takes it by eminent domain for $4.5M to keep the hospital open except the company that owns the land and buildings claims a value of $45M.

It probably would be worth $45M if it could be deve(b)loped into condos except that (a) it is zoned for a hospital, neither the city nor state has any intent to zone it for anything else, and (c) developments in Boston always require special permits beyond basic zoning, which would never be issued here.

So what is the the fair market value of real estate that was bought with the known "hospital only" encumberance but would be worth a lot more without it?

[John F. Carr]

The CEO may go to jail for refusing to give politicians the spectacle of taking the fifth on camera while they yell at him.

[bernard11]

Sorry, John, but the CEO, and his pals essentially looted the company.

[John F. Carr]

If he is sent to jail for financial crimes, good riddance and let his suffering be a lesson to others. If he is sent to jail for political crimes he is a victim.

[ThePublius]

nit: it's Steward, not Stewart. 🙂

[Ska]

What were the sales prices for the two preceding transactions? Why aren't those better indicators of FMV than the governor's valuation?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Both of those were when it housed a functioning hospital that didn't require 7-figure handouts from the Commonwealth to remain open.

There were no bids for this hospital in Bankruptcy, another four did receive bids and another two are being closed outright.

This one's current headcount is about 60 which is small for a hospital located in Boston, and the claim is that it serves the poor and minorities.

[John F. Carr]

The assessed value, determined by the city and not by either party to the eminent domain taking, is much higher.

Under traditional eminent domain law the state can offer you a dollar and if you want more you have to go to court. Challenging the price does not delay the land taking. This could turn out to be a $100 million bailout.

[ThePublius]

"Brighton, a rapidly developing part of Boston."

Excuse me? It might have been 'rapidly developing' 100 years ago, but now it's rather stable in that regard, no?

[Nelson]

"To satisfy sex abuse judgments, the Catholic Church has to sell off its hospitals."

Just think. If they hadn't knowingly run an international pedophile ring for 100 years or more, they wouldn't have been in that position in the first place.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts nonprofits' tort liability is normally capped at $20,000. If the law had protected religious organizations too there would have been no need to invite corporate raiders into Massachusetts' health care system.

[Nelson]

Hmm. Corporate raiders or an organized pedophile ring?

I think you found the only way to make corporate raiders look like the morally superior choice. I wouldn't have thought it was possible, but you did it.

[bernard11]

Paying the execs exorbitant salaries didn't help matters.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

James Lindsey laid out that Marxism was the only scientific theory that’s assumed to be true, and to Marxists, all empirical evidence demonstrating otherwise is what’s false.

I realized that his claim isn’t quite true. The bootlickers also have a version of that. Their Theory of Government. They believe government is assumed to be good, true, and effective no matter what everyone sees with their own eyes. That’s why they continue to bootlick, worship, and beg for more and bigger government.

Yesterday there was a popular post on Reddit about how super mega awesome government healthcare would be.

As if the reality of it wouldn’t be a steaming pile of shit where thousands, if not millions, of people die each year unnecessarily and the costs balloon even higher into the trillions. Where unaccountable Sarcastr0’s are picking who lives and dies based upon their color of their skin in the name of Equity.

Look how bad healthcare is when the government controls 60-70% of it? Why do these people believe it will get better when government controls 100%?

Because of their fact-free indoctrination into the Theory of Government ingrained in them, of course, through government schools. Another failing institution.

[Ed Grinberg]

From an old Reason comment:
“I don’t know which aspect of the bootlickers is worse: that they want their leaders to control other people or that they themselves want to be told what to do.”

A different Reason commenter talks about leftists' "existential fear of personal responsibility."

[Commenter_XY]

Defeat hamas and bring them home.

American hostages held by hamas in gaza, thought to be alive
Keith Siegel, 65
Sagui Dekel-Chen, 36
Edan Alexander, 20
Omer Neutra, 22

Dead bodies of Americans currently held by hamas
Itay Chen, 19
Judith Weinstein, 70; and Gadi Haggai, 73 -- married couple

[Frank Drackman]

This is entirely my own Idea, no help from Dr. Ed, and what Jimmuh Cartuh (less than 24 hours until he's our first 100 yr old POTUS) should have done,
Draw up a list of Ear-Ron's 20 most populous Cities, Tell the Ear-Ronians they have 72 hours to release the hostages, oh, and to give each hostage $100,000,000 in Gold as "Reparations", if they don't, every day drop a Hydrogen Bomb (I'd use our 50yr + Minuteman 3's they need to be tested, and we're replacing them in a few years anyway) starting with the City at #20, and if we get all the way to Terror-Ann and they still haven't complied, well, some people you just can't reach....

Frank

[Ed Grinberg]

"There seems to be a lot of academic politics tangled up in the Amy Wax case. According to an article in the Free Beacon..., these harsh sanctions [against Prof. Wax] were originally approved last year by Liz Magill, who at that time was President at U. Penn. Magill ceased to be President last December following those Congressional hearings about antisemitism on college campuses. Magill, at those hearings, told the Congressmen she couldn't punish antisemitic speech because of U. Penn.'s unbreakable dedication to free speech, to the First Amendment. I can imagine Amy Wax rolling her eyes right up to the ceiling when she heard that." (source)

[Commenter_XY]

It is not just academic politics at play, EG. The silence of the self styled defenders of academic freedom is quite revealing.

I wonder what Ben Franklin would have to say about U-Penn in this case.

[Longtobefree]

"I hope they hang the little bastard"?

[Sarcastr0]

She insulted a subset of her students to their face.

That's not speech, that is making an unwelcome classroom for the students paying you to teach them. That is doing your job badly.

The rest is all just smokemaking because someone decided it was wise to make this out-and-out racist into a right-wing martyr.

Protected views, to be sure. But what views? Oh, you know the ones.

[Ed Grinberg]

The author’s (crystal-clear) point is the hypocrisy of Ms. Magill & Co.
(If Ms. Wax’s comments are “not speech,” neither are the words & actions of the various “anti-Zionist” students & faculty whom Penn, Harvard, MIT, etc. supposedly couldn’t punish “because of [their] unbreakable dedication to free speech.”)

[Sarcastr0]

And I just showed you how to distinguish what Wax did from just speech.

[Bwaaah]

Just out of interest…can you please provide a sample direct quote of her “objectively bigoted” remarks? (And please...no hearsay.)

[Sarcastr0]

“ Wax also admitted that she said, "finally, an American" after she listened to a group of students with "exotic" names introduce themselves.

“American universities should primarily educate American citizens," Wax told the audience.”

https://www.thedp.com/article/2023/04/penn-carey-law-amy-wax-free-speech-webinar-recap

[Bwaaah]

Regarding the first one, “finally, an American,” I’d have to see the full context. For example, she may have smiled when she said it, as to indicate intended humor. And I’d be interested in knowing how many non-native-American students there were in the class, and not just their “foreign sounding names,” but the possible foreign accents with which those names may have been spoken.

I know I’m conjuring up a defense for which I have no evidence. But in the context of the issue of Amy Wax, accusations are leveled with maliciously biased interpretation and information hiding, just as you do here every day, Sarc. Am I wrong to think her remark there, which strikes me as probably having been intended as humor, isn’t being characterized in the worst possible light? Only a fool, like you, would think otherwise.

As for the second remark, I think you show your true censorial colors there. “American universities should primarily educate American citizens,” is, to you, an “objectively bigoted” remark. To me, it is an obviously reasonable (if not popular) opinion of how higher education resources should be allocated.

Would the opposite opinion not be more fringy than that one, i.e. “American universities should primarily educate non-American citizens?” Or maybe the problem here is a woke language rule that says that any expression of an opinion that takes citizenship into account is “objectively bigoted.”

You are a blight upon expression and free inquiry, Sarc. You, and the UPenn people leading this charge against Wax, are enemies of liberalism who not only choose their own flavors of bigotry, but comfortably seek sanctions of all others. They are small-minded, thin-skinned, weak people who lack any real leadership qualities, and so they hide their vendettas in the sanitized collective voices of their committees.

[Sarcastr0]

You want to see the full context, do your own homework.

But the burden is not on me at this point.
Now you're just speculating to be an apologist for an admitted bigot (look it up), who by all accounts doesn't seem able to keep her bigotry from how she treats her students.

As for the bulk of your post, she implied students with funny names were unamerican before she talked about only serving Americans!!

Instrumental myopia.

I've been quite clear I'm talking about how you directly treat your students. You just can't see it because you are dead-set on raging against me.

Stop being personal first and substance second. It makes you strawman.

[Bwaaah]

You are a blight upon expression and free inquiry, Sarc.

[Sarcastr0]

You're a sealioning ignoramus who prefers making assumptions to a moment's Googling.

You don't seem to have heard what I said about talking about job performance.
You are using censhorship not to further debate, but only as a rhetorical bludgeon.

Ironic.

[Bwaaah]

You are a blight upon expression and free inquiry, Sarc.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That’s not speech"

Did she use sign language? Seems like talking is always speech.

[Sarcastr0]

Playing dumb again, I see.

Just as conspiring to rob a bank is not protected speech, neither is fucking with your students.

[TwelveInchPianist]

X isn't protected speech, ergo Y isn't protected speech?

Terrible argument.

[Sarcastr0]

You argument was that all talking is speech, as though any regulation of speech is an imposition on free speech values.

I provided a counterexample.

This is not hard to understand.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, you made a ridiculous assertion that Amy Wax's talking was not speech.

It's true that some talking/speech is not protected (like crime-facilitating speech), but her speech wasn't crime facilitating, and you haven't made an argument that her speech wasn't protected, other than some ridiculous claims that speech that someone is insulted by isn't speech.

[Sarcastr0]

Ok so when I said speech you decided to discard context and parse what I said stupidly.

That’s on you chief.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You said, "She insulted a subset of her students to their face.

That’s not speech, that is making an unwelcome classroom for the students paying you to teach them. That is doing your job badly."

That's not me parsing stupidly, that's you writing stupidly.

[Sarcastr0]

No, that's you taking speech to mean 'talking' and not 'protected speech' (which is what was being discussed in the OP).

Because you didn't have a good argument, but still wanted to go after me. So you chose to pretend to be an idiot.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, that’s you taking speech to mean ‘talking’ and not ‘protected speech’ "

Which is what 'speech' does mean. But even of you insert "protected" into your claim it doesn't make any more sense. I don't think you're pretending to be an idiot, though.

[Bob from Ohio]

"fucking with your students"

Sex with students is bad, yes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“That’s not speech, that is making an unwelcome classroom for the students paying you to teach them. That is doing your job badly.”

Sigh. The fact that it’s doing your job badly doesn’t mean it’s not speech.

I mean, I'd argue that espousing communist ideals in class or teaching kids that men can give birth is doing your job badly.

[Sarcastr0]

Sigh. You get to fire people for doing a shitty job, even if it's speech.

Espousing bad ideals is not the same as directly insulting your students. But your personal censoriousness is noted.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Sigh. You get to fire people for doing a shitty job, even if it’s speech."

Lol. The whole point of academic freedom is that you don't get to fire people if the reason you think they're doing a shitty job is that they're teaching shitty viewpoints.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"She insulted a subset of her students to their face."

The fact that her students felt insulted means her speech wasn't protected?

I get that that's the go-to leftist position, but that's probably insufficient to protect academic freedom.

[Sarcastr0]

It was not some objective 'felt offended' it was calling a bunch of her students not real Americans, in an openly pejorative manner.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "She insulted a subset of her students to their face.

That’s not speech, that is making an unwelcome classroom for the students paying you to teach them. That is doing your job badly."

What about calling your students "white supremacists," to their faces? Some, probably most, would find that term pejorative.

Are those kinds of teachers on your shitlist?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Why wouldn't they be?

Oh, because you have to have something to bitch about?

[Sarcastr0]

Oh hay a deflection.

That’s how you know TiP knows he has lost.

[Bwaaah]

You didn’t answer my question, as usual.

Your claim of concern about teachers insulting students is bullshit.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure dude, not falling for deflection means I’m insincere.

You want and answer, ask it elsewhere.

What a childish take.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Sure dude, not falling for deflection means I’m insincere."

It's not a deflection. You said, "That’s not [protected] speech, that is making an unwelcome classroom for the students paying you to teach them. That is doing your job badly."

By that standard, saying your students are complicit in white supremacy wouldn't be protected speech either.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s deflection – neither of you have dealt with what you’re defending.

Context matters.
Wax’s situation is full of context, all of it bad.

Mirroring the context – first day, students are reading their names, and it’s not in the context of a lesson? Yeah that’s also bad.

Of course it is. Because I’m not some weirdo like you two.

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for calling him on that. He's a bluster-mouthed moron who won't answer for his consistently unprincipled positions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Context matters.
Wax’s situation is full of context, all of it bad."

Her speech was unprotected because it had context? Great argument! I thought it was unprotected because the content was objectively bigoted.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"it was calling a bunch of her students not real Americans, in an openly pejorative manner."

And the students felt offended. Students feel offended by lots of things teachers say. I'm sure students feel offended when teachers say they have unearned privilege due to certain factors, or that they're bigots if they're uncomfortable undressing in front of a man who feels feminine, etc.

Are those things not protected by academic freedom?

As they say, free speech isn't there to protect non-controversial speech.

[Sarcastr0]

Postmodernist fuckery won’t really let you off the hook from what she said.

It was objectively bigoted. Said to the objects of the bigotry.

You defend the worst shit in the weakest ways.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It was objectively bigoted."

Ah yes, the famous "objectively bigoted" exception to academic freedom!

I guess it's a good thing the ACLU didn't think the Nazis who wanted to march through Skokie were objectively bigoted! Or that they wanted to march in front of the objects of their bigotry!

[Sarcastr0]

Postmodernist fuckery.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The “Objectively bigoted” exception to the first amendment. Lol!

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, OK. Stuff like calling black students the N-word isn't really bad; that's just your opinion, man.

Deploying ‘there is no objective truth’ so you can be an asshole doesn’t actually work.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Your argument is that there is objective truth, that the claim that calling black student the n-word is bad is objectively true, that the claim that Amy Wax’s statements are bigoted is also objectively true, and that academic freedom doesn’t protect objectively bad or bigoted statements?

I think you’re just arguing that academic freedom doesn’t protect statements that you disagree with.

[Bwaaah]

“I think you’re just arguing that academic freedom doesn’t protect statements that you disagree with.

He would never say that. But it’s evident from his positions that that’s exactly what it means for him. The guy is a model of illiberalism who couldn’t possibly see such a thing in himself.

"Objectively bigoted." He actually speaks like this and the irony goes right over his head.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://reason.com/2024/09/26/rents-fall-and-listings-increase-after-javier-milei-ends-rent-control-in-argentina/

As the formerly-socialist Argentina is liberalizing its economy, the U.S. is poised to go in the opposite direction:
(from the Wall Street Journal article linked in the Reason post)

President Biden recently called for some rent increases to be capped at 5% annually. And Vice President Kamala Harris said that if elected president she “will take on corporate landlords and cap unfair rent increases.”

[Martinned2]

Yes, Argentina is doing great. If nobody can afford the rent anymore, rents will definitely come down.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/27/business/argentina-poverty-rate-increase-50-percent/index.html

[Life of Brian]

From your article: "The Catholic University of Argentina’s (UCA) observatory had estimated the poverty rate soared to 55.5% in the first quarter of the year before easing to 49.4% in the second quarter"

Given that the man only took office around the first of the year in the face of 200+% YoY inflation, and the poverty rate at that time was already 49.5%, any pattern you might try to divine out of 6 months of data under his watch seems to be very much pointing in the right direction.

[Martinned2]

The pattern I'm trying to divine is that poverty is high and rising, which is hardly a sign of a country doing well.

[Life of Brian]

Well, then it’s fairly unfortunate that your own source says poverty 1) is falling, not rising, and 2) is already back down to where it started when Milei took office. And as a bonus, the inflation that was trending sharply upward at the end of 2023 is now trending sharply downward.

Seems to me you statists are just so desperate for his anti-statist policies to fail you’re literally just making stuff up out of short-term statistics that, to the extent they say anything, say exactly the opposite.

[Sarcastr0]

You can be against a rent increase cap, even under explicitly pro-capitalist terms, without making a ridiculous comparison to this or that failed Latin American socialist state.

It just makes you look overdramatic.

[Ed Grinberg]

I don't understand why such a comparison is "ridiculous." As you like to say, show your work.

[Sarcastr0]

Because a regulation on a rate of increase is not the state owning the means of production.

[ThePublius]

That's rather simplistic. There is a spectrum of socialism. For example, the UK government doesn't own the means of production, yet has socialized medicine. Price controls, including rent increase rate caps, are indeed socialist policies; and one might make a reasonable argument that it constitutes a taking.

The bigger picture is that rent control in all of its forms has proven to be disastrous economic policy, actually limiting the supply of housing, and being rife with corruption.

[Sarcastr0]

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that socialism is a spectrum.

Conflating one policy you think is an unwise reg with the 100% side would STILL be stupid melodrama.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "Because a regulation on a rate of increase is not the state owning the means of production."

Nobody said it was. You are the only person to have implied, in your remark, such an absurd assertion.

Anyway, you are correct: rent controls are, in the long run, bad for market prices.

[Sarcastr0]

What do you think socialism means?

[John F. Carr]

I saw an interesting paper on the effects of Spanish colonialism in Colombia, specifically about the encomienda forced labor system.

We show that Colombian municipalities with encomiendas in 1560 enjoy better outcomes today across multiple dimensions of development than those without: higher municipal GDP per capita, tax receipts, and educational attainment; lower infant mortality, poverty, and unsatisfied basic needs; larger populations; and superior fiscal performance and bureaucratic efficiency, but also higher inequality. Why? Two mediation exercises using data on local institutions, populations and racial composition in 1794 shows that encomiendas affected development primarily by helping build the local state. Deep historical evidence fleshes out how encomenderos founded local institutions early on in the places they settled. Places lacking encomiendas also lacked local states for 3-4 centuries. Local institutions mobilized public investment in ways that doubtless suited encomenderos, but, over time, spurred greater economic and human development.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/122257/

The paper cites previous research dividing colonial institutions into "the good, the bad, and the ugly." Mexican haciendas were good. I would compare them to building a new factory in town. Traditional slavery was bad, not just bad for the slaves but long after slavery was abolished. And the encomienda system was ugly. Bad for the natives while it lasted, but leaving public institutions that make affected regions better off five centuries later.

The Church and King condemened the treatment of natives in South America. Remember Nancy Reagan saying "just say no"? About that effective.

[hobie]

I can't tell if this is you trying to worm in some justification for slavery or you're just into dry, historical socio-economics. Owing to this blog's character, probably the former

[SRG2]

Shows how long historical influences persist - centuries, not decades.

[Ed Grinberg]

And therefore ... what? "Reparations"? Get outta here!

[SRG2]

I wasn't thinking about reparations. Interesting that you went there so quickly. Fuck off.

[hobie]

That's why 'history and tradition' cannot work. Our history and tradition is just one long bigoted, misogynistic, violent hillbilly elegy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bad for the natives while it lasted, but leaving public institutions that make affected regions better off five centuries later.

Might as well be Locke, justifying forced dispossession of Indians in North America. Also, usefully anti-woke.

[Krayt]

By mass importation, aren't you helping displace them further?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt — Locke was in favor of mass importation. Invested in it. Wrote a charter for South Carolina to facilitate governance based on mass importation.

Did I miss your point?

[John F. Carr]

A noncompete agreement made in Massachusetts is enforceable against an employee who moved to California, notwithstanding California's general prohibition on noncompete agreements.

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1443P-01A.pdf

It took the First Circuit five months to decide this "expedited" appeal of an injunction that by its own terms expired in nine months.

[Life of Brian]

What a refreshing, down to earth, readable opinion.

And after reading the first several pages, the result is even less surprising to me. The employee signed a non-compete with Massachusetts business in Massachusetts and agreed it would be interpreted under Massachusetts law. Turning around and arguing that California law should nullify all that just because he moved there in the process of breaking the non-compete seems just plain silly if not frivolous.

[Michael P]

Kanye West, Mike Lindell and others have been deplatformed, debanked and otherwise cancelled. Sean “Diddy” Combs has not. Why not? Is he better than them? Are his alleged offenses more acceptable than theirs?

[Moderation4ever]

Seems his time is coming. Don't get impatient.

[SRG2]

"Don't be hasty, bararoom"

[Frank Drackman]

Not into P-Diddy, (I'm more of an R Kelly fan)
but with this current Department of In-Justice? 700 Dildos??
Umm, are Dildos Illegal? were they "Assault-Style" Dildos? Did he not have a permit to own Dildos??
and you don't think William Juff-uh-son Clinton had a few?
or Me-Shell Osama?
and how many innocent young women did P-Diggy leave to Asphyxiate (Not Drowned, there's a difference) in an Oldsmobile??
That's right, more women died in the front seat of Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile than from all of P-Diggy's Dildos,

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

But that was 1969 -- an earlier era when drunk driving was seen as a recreational sport.

[Nelson]

A friend of mine from Georgia called it "The Southern Badge of Courage".

[David Nieporent]

Mike Lindell was running a sale the other day on one of his products for $14.88 each.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, so he's clearly a Nazi then, like Humbert Humphrey was, C'mon (Man!") his initials were "HH"????? even if he wasn't he should have changed his name just for the "Appearance of Impropriety" (and "Humbert Humphrey" was just a horrible name)

Frank

[OtisAH]

Here’s piece of shit *still* not providing a non-Nazi reason for that particular price.

[ThePublius]

Lots of things are priced at $14.88, just google "$14.88." Are we to believe you that the sellers are all Nazis?

[OtisAH]

Yeah? Lots, huh? Then why is it so hard to present a non-nazi explanation for it? What is the strange coincidence that has people pricing items, none of which you’ve listed, at $14.88?

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, they're Nazi's just like Humbert Humphrey

[OtisAH]

Nobody knows what you’re talking about, piece of shit.

[Frank Drackman]

"Nobody" is doing alot of work there

[Bwaaah]

Indeed.

Sincerely,
Nobody

[ThePublius]

I said "google it," you jerk.

[OtisAH]

I’m not googling “1488,” dickhead. And I am not surprised by your ducking and weaving.

[David Nieporent]

I googled it. I found no products of any sort priced at $14.88. I saw some products with that as one of the dimensions of the product, but none with that as the actual price. (I used Google Shopping rather than main Google to focus on products for sale rather than the zillions of other hits on that number.)

I did find one credit card with a 14.88% APR, which was probably just a coincidence given how frequently rates fluctuate and how they're generated by algorithm. But I say "probably" because the bank was the "German American Bank." Which, if it was a coincidence: ouch.

[ThePublius]

That's utter bullshit!

Here's one you can probably use:

Depend Night Defense Incontinence Underwear for ...

Walmart
https://www.walmart.com › ... › All Incontinence
Best seller. Popular pick. for "adult diapers" ; Popular pick. for "adult diapers" ; Count:15 ; One-time purchase. $14.88 ...

[Bob from Ohio]

"Walmart"

Its been a while, but pre-Biden inflation, Walmart used to use 14.88 a lot.

Its just another BS "dog whistle" that only libs can hear.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, only libs know 1488.

Why to things that happen to Nazis keep happening to people Bob feels oblidged to defend.

Sure, Nazi is an overused label by the left sometiems. But look at you folks - Jack Probisec is a Nazi, and ya'll seem to like him fine. His twitter account, endwokeness is increasingly posted here.

Trump and Vance are going full blood and soil, blood libel included, and you're mad we bring up Nazis.

Maybe stop forming cults of personality around right-wing nationalist authoritarians if you're so traumataized.

[Bob from Ohio]

"But look at you folks – Jack Probisec is a Nazi, and ya’ll seem to like him fine."

Me? Prove I "like him fine". I've never mentioned him here or elsewhere.

[Bwaaah]

That's stupid, David. Lots of stuff has been priced at $14.88 and every other price. (Note that I excluded search results from this year in order to avoid the numerological idiocy of this moment.)

[Life of Brian]

Wow, today I learned there's an alt-left hold-your-head-just-right-and-just-believe numerical superstition reminiscent of the Bible Code. Really just amazing how hard people have to work concocting material to maintain their grifty outrage.

If you're brave enough to withstand the cooties, clicky clicky on the actual site -- you'll find that prices of various items in the sale all end in .88 and include $9.88, $14.88, $18.88, $19.88, and $29.88. Oh, let me guess: those are all taken too.

[Sarcastr0]

Lots of things by lots of people? Sure.

But do your stats right, and reduce it to right-wing luminaries. Use the proper set and things look a lot less like coincidence.

You’re defending Nazi shit again ThePublius. Every wonder why does this keep happening to you?

[Bob from Ohio]

Dude, your kind has been calling "right-wing luminaries" Nazis for decades. Its a 'race card" variation, tired from overuse.

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, that's not an argument against what I said, it's just complaining.

[Bwaaah]

No. It’s a proper characterization that explains where this numerological bullshit comes from. It’s the same old same-old from the left:
“You’re a Nazi.”
“You’re racist.”
“You’re homophobic.”

The only new one is the “You’re transphobic” accusation. It was tired from the start.

“You priced your product at $14.88. You’re a Nazi!”

That's some real empirical genius Sarc, straight from the center of the pile of your dumb-ass litany.

[ThePublius]

I'm not defending Nazi stuff. I'm refuting the association of things priced $14.88 as Nazi.

[Sarcastr0]

Your refutation is statistically fallacious.

So you're using fallacies to defend someone signaling a white supremecist/Nazi shibboleth.

And this is not the first time. You still thinking the Haitians are eating pets?

[ThePublius]

"Your refutation is statistically fallacious."

Oh, really? Care to substantiate that?? (As in, show your work?)

[Sarcastr0]

I did above - you used the wrong denominator.

Rando not online retail dude uses 1488 in something, no big deal.

Very online right-winger uses 1488, he knows what he's doing. That is the appropriate set to baseline, since the hypo is that the frequency of use is not randomly distributed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

He's saying your prior about Mike Lindell's Nazism isn't as high as his.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Rando not online retail dude uses 1488 in something, no big deal.

Very online right-winger uses 1488, he knows what he’s doing."

Show your work. How many numbers do online right-wingers use for "something"? How many online right-wingers want to signal Nazism? What are the distributions?

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t need to show my work - my thesis is only that ThePublius set a bad baseline. I argued as to why, and it seems you have accepted my argument, if you want me to bear the burden of proving the opposite thesis.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Your thesis is this: “Very online right-winger uses 1488 [in something], he knows what he’s doing.”

Show your work.

And your baseline isn’t much better.

[OtisAH]

Sean “Diddy” Combs is sitting in jail right now, dummy.

[Nelson]

Sure, he might spend the rest of his life in prison for being a terrible person and a huge criminal. But that's not as important as if his posts had been taken down by social media.

Priorities, people.

[Moderation4ever]

I have mentioned before the innovative use of solar fields for sheep grazing and it came up again in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal.

https://madison.com/news/local/environment/fitchburg-solar-farm-sheep/article_89df1e14-7d00-11ef-ae89-0315b5822a46.html

A great idea to combine renewable energy with agriculture and double the use of the land.

[hobie]

In Southern Portugal, I lived next to a large solar farm. Every week Alberto, the local shepherd, would be given access. A win-win for both. His sheep also kept my orchards nice and tidy

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-stank and Sheep? did Alberto grant you "Access"??? a "Win-Win"?? I'll bet the Sheep didn't think so.

[Jmaie]

Why limit to only two uses?

https://www.elmundo.es/mundodinero/2010/04/12/economia/1271063308.html

Can't find an English report but Google translate works pretty well.

[Stephen Lathrop]

On a similar basis, Iowa has become one the nation’s leading states in wind energy generation. It's a pretty obvious concept, even if being obvious does not do much to get it prioritized in renewable energy decision making.

[Krayt]

Until someone detects a trivial amount of some solar panel runoff in the sheep and a lawyer gets a gleam in his eye.

[Michael P]

This may be related to why lots of Americans are skeptical of the value added by Haitian migrants moving to the US: https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/haitian-president-edgard-leblanc-fils-un-speech-goes-viral-after-water-pitcher-mishap/videoshow/113759287.cms

Does the man not understand how water pitchers work? Were there no cups nearby? Was he trying to establish dominance by drinking straight from the pitcher?

[hobie]

[SRG2]

The argument that having a physically incompetent president casts aspersions on an entire country need not be restricted to Haiti.

[hobie]

I think Eric Adams should be prosecuted for accepting luxury travel perks while in office

[Frank Drackman]

way to "Back the Blue", Hobie-Stank

[Sarcastr0]

Check out the Labor Party too.

[hobie]

FEMA - ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’
North Carolina Hillbilly: 'You skedaddle!'

As the hillbilly and his shack and his welfare check float on down the river, he swells like a toad with pride at the thought of remaining true to his beliefs

[Michael P]

It's okay, hobie the hick, you can admit your hidden hayseed hillbilly identity. You don't have to put on an oikophobic act for this audience.

[Moderation4ever]

What I hope people notice is we did not get Trumps homemade weather maps to warn people. Will he go to the region an throw out some paper towels? Probably not as he likely has the regions votes anyway.

[apedad]

Trump to visit Georgia on Monday in aftermath of Hurricane Helene

"He is expected to meet with local officials, help distribute relief supplies and deliver remarks, his campaign said."

Guesses for what he tosses?

Towels
Paper towels
Gold Trump Sneakers
Gold Trump Watches

[hobie]

Conspicuously avoiding North Carolina I see. Could be an opportunity for Harris to show what a black non-Nazi can do for the state.

[Frank Drackman]

Better than Pete Booty-Judge and his boy-toy Jizz throwing Vibrators and Lube to people in Palestine (think how disappointed Petey was when he found out it was Palestine Ohio)

Frank

[Super Scary]

You seem to have a lot of hate in your heart.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Kirkland left a hole which hobie is trying to fill.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Asheville is about as non-hillbilly as you will find in North Carolina. Some pretty big shacks there.

[SRG2]

Climate change leading to border changes: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgk7r0rrdnmo

I don't recall any climate denialists predicting that glaciers would melt.

[hobie]

Will the same happen for America? Glaciers are probably responsible for keeping the Mexicans of the Yukon (Eskimos) out of our faces. The pet whales of Springfield will no longer be safe!

[Frank Drackman]

It’s a good thing Glaciers melt or 1/2 of the US and most of Europe would be uninhabitable.

[hobie]

The longshoremen strike coming up should test the recent pro-union sensibilities of America's new Labour Party. On the one hand its a union (and let's not be coy, the hayseeds will always hate unions) yet a nice long strike will raise consumer prices at just the right time. So what say you, Hayseeds? Aren't unions/labor awesome?

[apedad]

Fourth Circuit weighs meth user’s Second Amendment rights

A federal judge last year sentenced (Stephen) Simmons to 37 months imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to a machine gun charge. The judge gave him a stiffer sentence than usual, determining that Simmons' drug use (drug test during arrest came back positive for meth and cannabis), prohibited him from possessing a firearm at the time of his arrest.

Simmons argues that the lower court wrongly factored in his possession of lawful guns when enhancing his sentence.

(Public Defender Lex) Coleman also claimed that although Simmons tested positive for meth and cannabis, he was sober at the time of his arrest. The government prohibits substance abusers from possessing guns due to the perceived danger of the user.

https://www.courthousenews.com/fourth-circuit-weighs-meth-users-second-amendment-rights/

I'm all for tightening gun controls for criminals AND also for ensuring there are pathways for folks to regain their 2A rights.

So my question is, at what point can a person be considered not a substance abuser; only by a doctor's diagnosis?

[apedad]

Feds charge 20-year-old California man in bomb attack on county courthouse

Nathaniel James McGuire, 20, was scheduled to appear for an arraignment in the Santa Maria courthouse on a firearms violation Wednesday, according to law enforcement officials. Instead, McGuire entered the courthouse and threw a backpack into the lobby, according the 9-page complaint, parts of which have been redacted. The bag exploded, and McGuire fled the scene on foot. Five people were injured in what prosectors are calling "an improvised explosive device."

McGuire was quickly apprehended outside the courthouse while trying to get into his red Ford Mustang. According to the complaint, while being arrested, McGuire "yelled that the government had taken his guns and that everyone needed to fight, rise up, and rebel."

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/usa-v-maguire-complaint.pdf

Sheesh...

Why can't he just be like other loser 20 year olds and try to illegally buy alcohol while looking up old high school girlfriends?

Hopefully they can quickly find a replacement for his McDonald's job making french fries.

[Longtobefree]

Done:
https://www.autofry.com/

[not guilty]

What is McGuire's handle on these comment threads?

[Nelson]

The odds-on favorite would be Jesse, but there's stiff competition among the paleocons here.

[apedad]

Cops Battle Data Brokers for Privacy in Constitutional Clash

s Northern New Jersey cop Jane Doe investigated a criminal organization between 2021 and 2022, the gang acquired her home address from an online data broker.

When Doe’s investigation ultimately took down a group leader, text messages on a retrieved mobile phone confirmed she’d been the target of a surveillance operation tracking her movements “to and from her home,” according to court filings. Criminals had been stalking Doe, even as the task force was about to topple the gang.

Two years later, she’s now an unnamed plaintiff in a spree of lawsuits against the very websites that doxxed her and other officers for as little as an email address and a free trial.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/cops-battle-data-brokers-for-privacy-in-constitutional-clash

This story is just part of a larger debate about privacy, the data broker industry, and businesses working, " . . . to help customers opt out of a growing trove of personal data up for grabs to marketers and 'people search' sites."

I think the main issue is the easy which brokers can amass millions of data points on individuals and the fix has to be people have to choose to "opt in" and not the current "opt out" choice which can also be difficult.

[Krayt]

Is there any point to forbidding a panopticon to the government, as big a task as that seems currrntly, if private industry can do the same thing and just sell it to them?

Seems like that may be a loophole.

Are we gonna end up like OCP in Robocop, where the private stuff can be used against anybody except the corporate execs?

[Stephen Lathrop]

With commencement of early voting, the nation enters a final commitment to a test of its sovereignty. That has long been foreseeable—but also strangely uncontested, at least in public.

Alas, contests for sovereignty are not usually amenable to resolution by accustomed civil means. They too often devolve to tests of brute force. It is thus far wiser to thwart such contests in advance, than to wait patiently for their full development to manifest justification for action. Action delayed until after the practical balance of political power has swung will arrive too late.

The parties contending are on one hand, Donald Trump—and by extension his MAGA legions—and on the other hand the jointly sovereign People—and by extension their government. That government is led by a doddering President, and a chief prosecutor who apparently longs to act instead as a judge.

Merrick Garland sits inactive, apparently fearful of onus which the inherently one-sided nature of prosecution might attract. Trump and his legions organize actively and in public, to arrange an extra-Constitutional crisis to thwart use of the electoral college to decide the election. Trump trumpets those efforts on television, and praises by name operatives doing the groundwork. Garland does nothing in response.

It is easy to foresee that to delay until after the election a forceful attempt to frustrate Trump's lunge for unappealable power will prove unwise. Any sign Trump's objective is close to being within his grasp will risk fatal compromise of whatever remnant power the People might then command. Given energy and foresight in government insufficient to cope, it could even come within Trump's power to create such a sign by mobilizing violent followers into nationwide action prior to Election Day.

It is already almost beyond question that a corruptly partisan Supreme Court majority is prepared to enlist in Trump's service. Is reliance on that Court any misplaced part of Garland's hesitancy? People plotting to organize a second Trump attempt to steal an election should already be under arrest. I wonder if Garland has given thought to what it would be like to arrest a Supreme Court justice, or why it would be wiser to avoid confronting that crisis later, by use now of forceful action against lesser figures.

It will be an ironic tragedy if an American majority is forced to accept that American constitutionalism is gone, because energy to thwart ragtag power proved unavailable from government, and because the Supreme Court decreed it so.

[ducksalad]

What's more likely to happen:

Trump will make some unfounded accusations of widespread fraud, and some of his followers might act out a bit.

However, this time there is fair warning of what they're likely to do. Security will be much better organized around election offices on Election Day, around state capitols on Electoral College voting day, and most especially around the US capitol on the day the electoral votes are counted.

In particular, the crowd barriers around the capitol will be hundreds of yards further out and an order of magnitude more officers will be deployed. This time both the DC mayor and the POTUS (well, his handlers) will be on the same side as to if and when the National Guard needs to be deployed, and will have agreed in advance on rules of engagement.

The previous riot got as far as it did because the Capitol police basically gave up and let them in the building. Unlikely to happen this time.

Meanwhile, on the lawfare front, the accusations from you and some on the left that the courts are corrupt are mostly bullshit. Federal courts, in reality, only get involved in vote counting when there is a genuine dispute. As you and some of the left like to point out when it's convenient, courts all over the US with judges appointed by both parties uniformly declined to overturn elections when asked to by Trump. The same will happen again.

I expect to wake up the day after to a democracy not much more degraded, nor much better, than what we've had for decades. I'll eat breakfast and go to work and traffic will be normal.

[Commenter_XY]

DMN taught me a new word last week, responding to one of your posts: logorrhea. 🙂

He (DMN) has the quotable quote of the year, and now is rivals Judge Selya for vocabulary.

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY, as so often happens with people taught by DMN, you have been misinformed. “Logorrhea,” does not properly apply to cogent commentary no longer than a shortish op-ed.

Also? It would not surprise me to discover that DMN’s aggregate contributions on this blog rival or exceed mine in volume. He sticks his nose in everywhere. I reserve my comments for subjects where I have personal knowledge or experience to contribute. On a large majority of threads published here, I comment not at all.

Readers with attention spans crippled by a Twitter habit are always free to ignore my stuff and rest their brains. Come to think of it, a lot of the replies I get do show signs of incipient mental exhaustion. If I have strained your cognitive apparatus, feel free to just cut back.

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

I reserve my comments for subjects where I have personal knowledge or experience to contribute

Unfortunately, for the readers here, your knowledge and experience are typically nonexistent and full of failure. You'd burn ice cream.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I was remiss. I mentioned incipient mental exhaustion, but failed to include the chronic kind.

[apedad]

I’m an optimist (and usually take the long view), and even if Trump wins – and even if the Republicans gain control of Congress – there’s enough sane Republicans to hold off Trump’s extreme measures.

Either way (Trump wins or Trump loses), the Republican Party is going to have a major internal battle after Trump’s out of the public eye to see what they’re going to be like in the future.

Please just don’t encourage people to start shooting and bombing – both sides - i.e., call the other side stupid but don't shoot them.

[Frank Drackman]

"Extreme Measures"??
Like not getting the US in WW3? supporting our only Ally in the Middle East? Letting the "Several States" decide whether it's Kosher to kill unborn humans?
That's why "45" will be "47", none of those are "Extreme", it's no surprise that Dick Chaney is on Cums-a-lot's team

Frank

[Bwaaah]

“I’m an optimist (and usually take the long view), and even if Trump wins – and even if the Republicans gain control of Congress – there’s enough sane Republicans to hold off Trump’s extreme measures.”

That very much comports with my sentiments.

[Nelson]

I agree completely. We’ve had terrible Presidents before (most recently from 2016-2020) and we survived and thrived after they left office. Our Republic is much more robust than people give it credit for.

Trump would be even worse the second time than he was the first. The Republican party is far worse now than it was four years ago. But we won’t be destroyed even if they control the White House and both Houses of Congress.

They will overreach, turn off a sizable percentage of Americans, and lead to Ds winning more than they should for the next several cycles, at which point they’ll overreach, turn off a sizable percentage of Americans, and lead to Rs winning more than they should … wash, rinse, repeat.

The idea that we might be allowed to have a competent, moderate government is apparently a bridge too far. We’re stuck with wild pendulum swings.

RCV, which would eliminate the extremists, is a bad idea because it would weaken the power of the two parties. A bad idea according to partisans and extremists in both parties.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bush came close to destroying America…we got very lucky Obama came on the scene and even he made some pretty big mistakes like with Gates and Afghanistan. Also fracking was fortuitous which was proven economical in 2010 and was an economic engine to get us out of the Great Recession. Btw, most people forgot the inflation under Bush because the China shock made many things cheaper. But food and energy prices led to what amounted to a trillion dollar regressive tax increase.

[David Nieporent]

Merrick Garland sits inactive, apparently fearful of onus which the inherently one-sided nature of prosecution might attract.

It probably has a bit more to do with the fact that crimes found in the U.S. Code are within his ambit, while crimes against Stephen Lathrop's philosophical notions are not.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — Do you suppose Jack Smith in Garland's seat, and with Garland's ambit, would be proceeding so passively?

More generally, do you suppose conspiracies to circumvent the electoral college by obstructing vote counts violate no items in the U.S. Code?

[David Nieporent]

I think that Jack Smith has shown in his prosecutions of Trump that he moves very slowly and cautiously, so yes. (Also, prosecutors are supposed to be passive; they're supposed to react to crimes.)

More generally, do you suppose that you have anything resembling admissible evidence that could show by even a preponderance, let alone b.a.r.d., any "conspiracy to circumvent the electoral college by obstructing vote counts"? What specific act that has actually been committed do you think establishes the existence of such a conspiracy?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I dunno. I thought election deniers who passed vote counting rules in Georgia, which senior state officials called lawless, and which obviously serve to create possibility of open-ended delays for vote reporting, with a risk that no valid total will ever receive a timely report, followed by Trump's public praise by name of those election deniers for doing it, and thus contributing as Trump said to his upcoming victory, might be worth looking into.

Maybe three other questions I ought to ask you: First, do you suppose a legal claim that a deliberate attempt lawlessly to nullify votes, and thus thwart the electoral college, is nevertheless a legal and constitutional means to contest a federal election? Second, and perhaps more fundamentally, is the electoral college a federal institution, or a state institution? And third, if multiple parties conspired to use violence to thwart operation of the electoral college, and acted overtly to put that plan in motion, what crime would that be?

Finally, one other question, Lincoln's question. Do you think Lincoln was wrong to insist he would not permit all the laws to be overthrown, for the sake of punctilious enforcement of one of them—in that instance, habeas corpus?

[David Nieporent]

I thought election deniers who passed vote counting rules in Georgia, which senior state officials called lawless, and which obviously serve to create possibility of open-ended delays for vote reporting, with a risk that no valid total will ever receive a timely report, followed by Trump’s public praise by name of those election deniers for doing it, and thus contributing as Trump said to his upcoming victory, might be worth looking into.

"Creating the possibility of open-ended delays with a risk that votes won't be timely counted" is not a crime on any planet in this solar system. (It could be part of the basis for an injunction against those rules, but that's a far cry from prosecution.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — I posited an investigation. Perhaps it is happening. If so, that would be to Garland's credit, and I would be mistaken in my criticism, but not remiss in a supposition that crime worth investigating is ongoing. For that, we would have to see what turned up.

I asked you 3 questions, with an eye to elucidate context to judge whether or not federal crimes could be proved. You addressed none of them.

[David Nieporent]

An investigation of what crime, Lathrop? The laws and regulations in question speak for themselves; one need not "investigate" them to know what they provide for.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Merrick Garland sits inactive, apparently fearful of onus which the inherently one-sided nature of prosecution might attract.

Prosecution for what? What, specifically, do you think someone has been doing to undermine the sovereign people that hasn't been charged?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur — You probably got your comment up before mine arrived. Look right above your own.

[Zarniwoop]

As a resident of Wisconsinland, I am compelled by state law to post this interesting bit of cheese science:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/25/science/oldest-cheese-ancient-dna-china-mummies/index.html

[Nelson]

Anything about cheese is worthy of attention. Ben Franklin supposedly said, "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.". Cheese and coffee are two reasonable substitutions.

[M L]

"Unfortunate" that Mayor Eric Adams said some of the same things as Trump about migrants.

Indeed quite "unfortunate" for Adams it seems.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/09/26/jayapal-unfortunate-adams-said-the-same-things-as-trump-about-migrants/

[M L]

Migrants barged into a Brooklyn home and stabbed six people at a party as violent crime continues to explode all across New York City and its surrounding environs even as the Big Apple’s mayor is indicted on corruption charges.

https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2024/09/27/migrant-crime-explodes-nyc-mayor-eric-adams-indicted-corruption-charges/

[Sarcastr0]

Remember when Breitbart had a black crime tag?

A truly awful blood-and-soil type buncha shit read by just the worst people.

[Frank Drackman]

Well “Black Crime” is sort of redundant

[hobie]

Well, I just woke up. Time to peruse the national paper for all the caucasian crime committed in the last 24 hours.

{reading]...[reading]

[Looks up slowly over the crest of the paper]

Oh, ML, you're not gonna like this...

[Ed Grinberg]

The Biden/Harris Justice Department thoroughly "cancelled" him for his politically-incorrect speech.
Lesson for other Democrats: be as corrupt as you like, but watch what you say!

[Sarcastr0]

The right's pivot to *defending* Democratic mayor Adams when he's done crimes, and his admin has done yet more crimes is a trip.

Of course it's all a Dem conspiracy.

Because executive accountability is always a frame-job now. Levels of authoritarian that would not sound believable in a book.

[hobie]

If Adams goes down, Harlan Thomas could be next

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Latest on the Eric Adams front:

"NYC Mayor Eric Adams moves to dismiss bribery charge from his indictment, saying gifts to curry favor do not a bribery charge make.

Adams says the alleged scheme “does not meet the definition of bribery and indeed does not amount to a federal crime at all.”

I expect a VC post supporting the argument soon.

[hobie]

Indeed. Balckman doesn't like binding codes of ethics for our betters. And he sure doesn't think that 4 million dollars of luxury gifts doesn't equal corruption...much less Adams' paltry $100k.

[grb]

JoeFromtheBronx : "I expect a VC post supporting the argument soon"

Maybe; maybe not. But there's one thing we know with absolutely certainty : Expect a SCOUS ruling on Adams which redefines each bribe as a "gratuity". You'll say Adams is a Democrat and therefore ineligable for one of those Roberts or Kavanaugh Get Out of Jail Free Cards.

Nonsense. With some issues, the conservative majority is so committed and passionate they set aside all thought of partisanship. Protecting politicians from any irksome bother over corruption is definitely one.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I know from past action the Democratic pols from NY benefited from SCOTUS decisions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/nyregion/sheldon-silvers-conviction-is-overturned.html

[M L]

Leftwing comedian Tim Dillon . . .

“If you were going to build a robot in a lab that would be secretly controlled by billionaires, it is Kamala Harris . . . She is perfectly comfortable with being used as a tool by other people to say anything and do anything. Kamala is perfectly at home and perfectly calm and at peace with being full of sh*t . . . ”

https://x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1819822641412538738

[Sarcastr0]

"Dillon said in 2016, "I'm politically all over the map, though I lean conservative", and "I don't think politically I line up with anything. I think it's all fake." He said he did not vote in the 2020 US general election, disapproving of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden."

What a stupid, trivial lie.

[M L]

Pretty sure he used to be described or described himself as left of center, though maybe that stems from before 2016. I could be mixing him up with progressive/left Jimmy Dore a tiny bit though.

[David Nieporent]

I've never heard of the guy, but I think based on the above quote calling him a "comedian" is a bigger lie than calling him "left wing."

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, I take a strong eye of the beholder on that stuff, especially when it's partisan.

Though I will declare that the Babylon Bee is objectively not funny.

[Zarniwoop]

The BabBee may be a pale&weak imitation of The Onion, but they occasionally manage to land a decent joke.

[hobie]

Wouldn't JD 'the human windsock' Vance also qualify? Peter Thiel's arm is so far up his ass that I can see his Qanon decoder ring in the back of Vance's throat

[Kazinski]

I have to disagree with Dillon on this one. Its pretty clear at least to me, how Kampala arrived at her positions.

She comes from an environment, Berkley/Oakland/San Francisco where the way to get notice and approval and advancement is to take the most left wing and radical stances possible on any issue.

That's how she got on the record favoring taxpayer funding of gender reassignment surgery for prisoners, and illegal aliens, and favoring open borders and an immediate path to citizenship, and reparations, confiscation of drug company patents, mandatory gun "buybacks", wealth taxes, ban on fracking, EV mandates, ending fossil fuels, and all the other things she has supported over the years with little thought to the consequences, other than it resonating in the Berkeley/Oakland/SF echo chamber.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The White Sox ended on a good note! Won five of six. Yes, they ended 80 games under .500 (41-121) but accentuate the positive!

The Mets/Braves play a DH today, not being befriended by the MLB gods (the Diamondbacks need one of them to sweep).

[Krayt]

Congrats! 5th worst team of all time, modern era. Iirc, Detroit, now 7th worst, went on a tear at the end to avoid the crown, too. Can't even be the best at being the worst!

[Frank Drackman]

A daytime Doubleheader that actually matters! and in the “City too Busy to Hate!”(dont come when we’re not busy) Will probably be more Mets fans than Braves in the stands(one of them being Mrs Drackman, Can’t help she had a deprived childhood)

Frank

[Estragon]

What a game! Mets in!

[Frank Drackman]

What a game! Braves in!

[John F. Carr]

Bloomberg Law looks at the fate of legal challenges to agency action when the "major questions" doctrine is argued. Major questions is always a loser in the most liberal circuits. By far the most popular venue to present "major questions" challenges is the Fifth Circuit and such challenges usually win there.

In round numbers a third of challenges win, a third involve questions that are not "major", and the other third fail because the authority to decide the major question was properly delegated to the agency.

The article does not try to judge the effects of plaintiffs choosing venue and the strength of each particular case.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberg-law-analysis/analysis-major-questions-losing-record-since-west-va-v-epa

[Kazinski]

Well the forum shopping in different circuits does have the beneficial effect of creating circuit splits and getting the issue to the Supreme Court for final resolution.

[M L]

71 days: Kamala Harris Avoids Holding a Press Conference Since Joining Race

Vice President Kamala Harris has not held a press conference on issues facing American families since joining the presidential race 71 days ago.

Harris’s attempts to weave and dodge suggest her record is a political liability. President Joe Biden stated Wednesday that he delegated “everything” as commander in chief to Harris, including foreign policy and domestic policy.

Harris had many chances to hold a press conference. Thursday was not an exception when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited Washington, DC. Taking no questions, Harris bolted from the podium and directed Zelensky out of the room.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/09/30/71-days-kamala-harris-avoids-holding-press-conference-joining-race/

[Nelson]

I'm trying to remember if Fonald Trump has held a press conference in the last 71 days. I don't think he has.

In fact, I don't think Donald Trump has held a press conference in years.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Two SCOTUS related articles ...

"'Be Not Afraid': Kavanaugh on the Importance of Being Thick-Skinned"

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2024/09/26/be-not-afraid-kavanaugh-on-the-importance-of-being-thick-skinned/

"US Supreme Court justices, other judges can stay at corporate-owned homes without disclosure"

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-justices-other-judges-can-stay-corporate-owned-homes-without-2024-09-24/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Also:

"Last Week Tonight
@LastWeekTonight

This week’s main story is about our federal courts, and how Donald Trump has impacted them. It’s also about a wet marine, a woodsy owl, and a huge set of legs. So it’s not all bad."

It will be posted on YouTube later this week.

[Kazinski]

Oftentimes during the campaign season charges and counter charges fly, many of them are dubious interpretations of disputed facts that don't usually amount to much.

But Marni Rose McCall writes a devastating critique of conservatives in Newsweek that just leaves me nodding my head stunned, as her argument is pretty irrefutable.

When I read the opening line I knew she had the goods:

"It all began with Sydney Sweeney's cleavage"

Then she brings the academic heavyweights with the goods:
"The conservative hot girl "isn't a particularly new phenomenon," Victoria Cann, an associate professor at the University of East Anglia in the U.K., told Newsweek. "Women have been positioned through the lens of the masculinist imagery in conservative, populist politics for a very long time."

Can't refute that. If it were just words, it probably wouldn't matter, you could shrug it off but she's got probably a half dozen photos from the press and Instagram to nail down her theses.

The essay is titled:
How Hot Girls Became the Right's New Obsession

https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-hot-girls-republicans-election-haliey-welch-sydney-sweeney-snl-1958629

[M L]

Harris will snub the Al Smith dinner, first presidential candidate to do so since 1984.

[Frank Drackman]

Walter Mon-dull did the world a favor by not showing

[Martinned2]

She already has the pope's endorsement, so what more does she need to lock in the Catholic vote?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crkdmdg78jgo

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Openly declare her worship of Baal.

That will seal it.

[ThePublius]

With this particular pope, that could well backfire on her.

[Nelson]

As opposed to the pro-pedophile Nazi who preceeded him and "retired" soon after taking a lifetime job?

[Martinned2]

Of course. Why would a Catholic want to follow the Pope’s advice on an ethical question?

[Nelson]

Careful. Accusing the Catholic Church of supporting ethical or moral behavior is questionable, at best, these days.

[M L]

Would CNN be in trouble for this under the new CA law about fake images or whatever?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/09/25/cnn-admits-using-digitally-altered-photos-donald-trump-laura-loomer/

[Sarcastr0]

Quit shitposting every article on the Breitbart frontpage to VC.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great comment. I love how you tried to silence the poster and ignore his complaint!

Classic!

He should be a good citizen and only post things you approve of, after all, we heard Kerry. It’s too hard to govern if the citizens don’t toe The Narrative, and thus a threat to our Sacred Democracy That Dies in Darkness.

[M L]

No brilliant legal analysis to offer? What a surprise.

[M L]

Just trying to help some of you folks broaden your horizons. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, the problem with the VC is not enough right-wing extremism.

I'm fine with occasional Breitbart, but would it kill you to pick and choose a bit?

Over the course of a couple of hours, just about your only posts were 4 Breitbart links, each more slanted than the last.

You're like Rivabot with hyperlinks.

[Life of Brian]

I’m fine with occasional Breitbart

How big of you. No, really.

As reported, CNN issued a retraction on air for airing in multiple program segments an implausibly distorted photo that, as it turns out, they had just grabbed off a random Twitter parody account and not even attempted to source or validate. Far from “slanted,” those are incontestable, stone-cold facts you can’t verbally joust your way out of.

That your Trusted Sources™ all averted their eyes and opted to pretend that one of their own had not engaged in the very DISINFERMASHUN they routinely profess to despise speaks volumes.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s okay you swallow racist lies whole if you can find any negligent fact checking anywhere else?

What a tragically low standard you set for yourself.

[Michael P]

You haven't even pointed to any racist lies, you liar.

If you set any standards for yourself, you would still fall short.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL I will leave finding the racist lies from Breitbart as an exercise for the reader.

If you want to just go ahead taking the 'black crime' guys as gospel, it's not like anything I say will keep you from your buttnuggetry.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nobody else around here desires a view of the inside of your own asshole, but thanks for thinking of us.

[apedad]

Citizen journalist challenges Indiana police recording law at Seventh Circuit

The law in question allows on-duty police to order anyone to move 25 feet back from them. It criminalizes the refusal to do so as a Class C misdemeanor punishable by up to 60 days imprisonment.

Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb, a Republican, signed the bill in April 2023 after it easily passed through both houses of the GOP-dominated state legislature. In court filings, Nicodemus said South Bend police used the law against him in July 2023 as he filmed them responding to local reports of gunfire.

At the time of that incident, a police officer approached him and ordered him back, Nicodemus wrote. The citizen journalist said he was more than 25 away from police to begin with.

Nicodemus said he complied with the order. Then, another officer ordered him to move back another 25 feet. This ability to create an expanding bubble of press exclusion, he argues in court documents, "vests unbridled discretion" in police to pick and choose how and when First Amendment rights apply.

https://www.courthousenews.com/citizen-journalist-challenges-indiana-police-recording-law-at-seventh-circuit/

Law enforcement activity in public always has the potential to quickly escalate and also quickly move, e.g., foot chase, etc. so I can see some measure of a buffer zone.

At the same time, 25 feet seems excessive.

A two-lane road is approx. 20 feet so they're basically saying stay on the other side of the road.

Look how close the videos were of Derek Chauvin and George Floyd - which definitely helped in Chauvin's prosecution.

[santamonica811]

Interesting-looking case. I hope you (or one of the VC bloggers) will keep us updated, as the case progresses.

[hobie]

I happen like that Indiana law. I enjoy watching police camera videos. Over the past couple of years I've been encouraged to see that about 99.5% of the time the police act professionally and with admirable patience under cascades of abuse. What I also see a lot of is groups of blacks like to swarm police when they have a suspect down. They may not actually strike the police but they make it almost impossible to facilitate an arrest without heavy backup.

[Frank Drackman]

they're pack Animals

[hobie]

Like all peoples of the earth, Frankie. Including yourself and myself. Just American blacks seem to have taken to being as obnoxious as possible

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Especially when they buried the part where you saw him eat all those pills!

They knew exactly what to cover up!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

This non-response from the Federal government is what Equity-based governing looks like.

They are going to do the same when they ban our healthcare freedom.

If you’re White, be prepared to die in the name of equity.

[apedad]

Trump says ‘1 rough hour’ of policing would end crime

“See, we have to let the police do their job. And if they have to be extraordinarily rough—” Trump said at a rally in Erie, Pa., trailing off and claiming there are cases of criminals walking out of department stores with large appliances on their backs.

“One rough hour — and I mean real rough — the word will get out, and it will end immediately, end immediately. You know, it will end immediately,” he said.

Trump campaign officials said the former president was not putting forward a serious policy proposal but was speaking more broadly about letting police crack down on crime.

The former president, who has the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, has frequently spoken in favor of allowing law enforcement to do their jobs without fear of repercussions, calling for broad immunity for police officers. Trump has on multiple occasions said he would support the return of stop-and-frisk, a controversial practice that a judge in 2013 deemed violated the Constitution when used in New York City.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4906904-trump-endorses-police-rough-hour/

We (collectively) have been working long and hard to get Qualified Immunity controlled and Trump just wants to waltz in and dump that all while not even having that authority.

Trump supporters are stupid.

[M L]

Gavin Newsom just signed a voter ID bill . . . . . BANNING voter ID.

Things that make you go hmmmm.

[apedad]

Why would that make anyone go hmmmm.

Cali is simply joining around 14 other states which do not have voter ID requirements - and many other states have less restrictions or exceptions to voter ID requirements.

Exceptions to Voter Identification Requirements

- Have religious objections to being photographed (Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin).
- Are indigent (Indiana and Tennessee).
- “Have a reasonable impediment” to getting an ID (Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina).
- Do not have an ID due to a recent natural disaster (North Carolina, Texas).
- Are victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking and have a "confidential listing" (Wisconsin).

https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id

[M L]

From what I saw the bill is not a matter of eliminating some existing state ID requirement - what it does is ban localities from requiring ID.

Having some extremely narrow limited exception to a voter ID requirement is not in the same universe as having no voter ID requirement at al . . . ?

That being said, none of those exceptions seem very necessary anyway.

How do you suggest ensuring that every citizens vote actually counts? I.e. election integrity. I thought what Peter Thiel said recently makes sense, if rather obvious and nothing new: "At a minimum, you'd try to run elections the same way you do it in every other western democracy. One day voting. Practically no absentee ballots ... somewhat stronger voter id and make sure the people who are voting have a right to vote."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"somewhat stronger voter id"

The voters' id is well-displayed this election.

[M L]

Well played.

[bernard11]

every other western democracy.

Not so. But if you want to that here then:

Make election day a national holiday.

Extend voting hours.

Provide enough polling places and workers so that the lines aren't miles long. Set a standard for the average and 95th percentile of wait times and require that polling places have enough workers and machines to meet that.

Let bystanders supply water and snacks to those waiting.

Make getting ID a quick and simple process.

[David Nieporent]

I never understand the "make it a national holiday" thing. We don't live in Cuba; declaring a national holiday doesn't mean businesses all shut down. It doesn't mean any businesses shut down. All it means is that government mostly shuts down. Which is the opposite of helpful to voters.

Even if we could somehow require businesses to shut down on the day — which is not the same as merely declaring it a holiday — there would be essential businesses that would have to stay open. And as we saw during the early days of COVID when all but essential businesses were required to close, close to half of workers would fall into that exception.

Most if not all states already require that employers give an employee time off from work for the purpose of voting, if necessary for that employee based on the employee's work schedule and the poll times.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And as we saw during the early days of COVID when all but essential businesses were required to close, close to half of workers would fall into that exception."

Sheesh. Yes, if you mindlessly decide that you're going to shut down 'nonessential' businesses for weeks on end, you're going to find that close to half of all workers are "essential". If you decided to shut them down for a whole year, you'd find that more like 90% of them were.

A better measure of what's "essential" for ONE day known well in advance, is what stays open on a regular and widely enjoyed holiday like Christmas. NOT how much of the economy you can shut down for a month without widespread loss of life ensuing.

[M L]

Friends of mine in N.C. said there is no gas at any gas stations and no stores are open, and they can't even go anywhere apparently, the roads are washed out/collapsed and the town may not even be accessible from the outside world.

[ThePublius]

And where is the Biden/Harris administration on this? Where is FEMA? Private citizens in privately owned and operated and financed helicopters are delivering meals to evacuees with a complete lack of government aid or assets.

I guess it's Trump's fault.

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1840574035962351807?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1840574035962351807%7Ctwgr%5Ea8ffd83872b0761b3908a24459dc4a021b7937f3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F675260%2F

[M L]

Harris is partying in Hollywood with celebrities. Side note, it sounds like she might be a bit of a drinker.

Biden for his part, here's an RNC tweet:

"Do you have any words to the victims of the hurricane?"

BIDEN: "We've given everything that we have."

"Are there any more resources the federal government could be giving them?"

BIDEN: "No."

https://x.com/RNCResearch/status/1840580469009661960

[David Nieporent]

And where is the Biden/Harris administration on this? Where is FEMA?

This is as dumb an attack on Biden as it was on Bush wrt Katrina. (Though as an attack on Harris, who is not the president, it's even dumber.) FEMA's primary job is to coordinate and supply resources to the states, not to give direct aid to individuals. FEMA is already doing that.

[ThePublius]

That's not so. From FEMA's website:

"Our mission is helping people before, during and after disasters. Our core values and goals help us achieve it.
...
A major disaster declaration provides a wide range of federal assistance programs for individuals and public infrastructure, including funds for both emergency and permanent work.
...
Disaster Assistance
Different disaster assistance programs are available for individual citizens and public groups, such as government agencies and private nonprofit organizations."

[David Nieporent]

Nothing in there contradicts anything I said, so I don't know how it's "not so."

[Michael P]

Your primary job is to post misleading bullshit to defend Democrats from well-deserved criticism.

You never answered the question of where FEMA is during this disaster response. Well, they announced they can spare one whole Starlink unit per county for local officials to coordinate their response and otherwise communicate. How generous!

[Sarcastr0]

DMN is very much not a Democrat, nor does he defend them; he just is based in reality.

That you keep making this mistake says a lot about you and your weird distorted view of politics.

He answered 'where FEMA was' like 3 comments above.

[David Nieporent]

You never answered the question of where FEMA is during this disaster response.

According to Google, FEMA is at 500 C St SW, Washington, DC 20024, during this disaster response (and at all other times). Weird question to ask, though; are you planning to tour their offices?

[ThePublius]

"The Biden-Harris administration has yet again shown its complete inability to effectively manage disaster responses. From its appalling handling of the tragedy in Lahaina, Maui, to its blatant indifference toward the people of East Palestine, Ohio—and now the failure to properly aid the victims of Hurricane Helene, especially in Asheville, N.C.—the pattern is clear. Time and time again, we've witnessed an administration incapable of stepping up when it's needed most."

The Biden-Harris Federal Response to Helene Is a Total Disaster

[David Nieporent]

Oh, no! If Kamala Harris has lost PJ Media, she has probably lost Breitbart, too!

[Nelson]

I am a diehard Pearl Jam fan and the fact that a common way to reference the band is shared by that bunch of gaslighting, intentional lie spreading, factually deficient, propaganda spewing cheerleaders of the lunatic fringe turns my stomach.

[Zarniwoop]

Too slow, predictably boring attack, and spreading the usual tired falsehoods:

Vice President Kamala Harris will end her West Coast campaign swing early and travel from Las Vegas to Washington, DC, on Monday morning to be briefed on the ongoing impacts of Hurricane Helene at the FEMA Headquarters, according to a White House official.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

She's helping out, like she did with the border.

[Michael P]

She's going to get briefed. Wow. Has she already scheduled a cackle in response to the briefing?

[Frank Drackman]

with who the Harris administration is letting in, that's not such a bad thing.

[M L]

Latino Support for Kamala Harris Drops to Historic Low for a Democrat as Donald Trump Surges Almost 20 Points

https://www.breitbart.com/2024-election/2024/09/30/latino-support-kamala-harris-drops-historic-low-democrat-donald-trump-surges-almost-20-points/

[Frank Drackman]

can see this as one of the "Top 10 Reasons Kamala Lost the Erection"
#10: "ill advised campaign pledge to shoot 30% of your supporters"

[hobie]

Heh. You get your information from Breitbart.

[M L]

NBC News/Telemundo/CNBC poll

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So an IC whistleblower is claiming to GOP Oversight that the IC is hiding verifiable links between Walz and the CCP.

That guy better prepare for the gold ol' fashioned DOJ/FBI rubdown. He's gonna die.

[M L]

Walz also lied about his military career for 20 years.

[Nelson]

You'll parrot any irrational interpretation that supports your priors, won't you?

Trump really has taught an entire generation of far-right folks how to feel pride in telling blatant lies, not shame.

Reason #5287 proving American conservatism is worse since Trump came down that tacky elevator in the building his father's money bought.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Braves lose. Mets in.

GA trial judge has struck down enforcement of Georgia's six-week abortion ban on state constitutional grounds.

[hobie]

That's a shame. I was hoping state policing power could limit what women could do with their own bodies

[not guilty]

Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney's order is here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25178645/final-order_5cce1275.pdf

It is a tour de force in defense of liberty, privacy and bodily autonomy under the state constitution. My favorite line: "Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"Everyone out of the bedroom... leave your wallet, 'cause you still gotta pay for everything though"

[not guilty]

What source material are you quoting there, JHBHBE?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Stephen Douglas weeps.

[hobie]

"While the State’s interest in protecting “unborn” life is compelling, until that life can be sustained by the State -- and not solely by the woman compelled by the Act to do the State’s work -- the balance of rights favors the woman."

[hobie]

Wow, you ain't wrong. Once I started, I couldn't stop reading until the end

[Michael P]

This judge's last attempt to impose his policy preferences on the entire state was overturned by the state's supreme court, and the lead plaintiff expects this ruling to fare as poorly. The only questions are which court will stay this ruling and how quickly.

[M L]

In an unprecedented move, Democrat-appointed FCC commissioners fast-tracked a deal for George Soros to take control of over 200 broadcast radio stations. The deal will give foreign interests a major ownership stake. Republican-appointed commissioners dissent:

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-94A4.pdf

The Commission’s decision today is unprecedented. Never before has the Commission voted to approve the transfer of a broadcast license—let alone the transfer of broadcast licenses for over 200 radio stations across more than 40 markets—without following the requirements and procedures codified in federal law.1 Not once. And yet the Commission breaks this new ground today without seeking public comment on altering our established regulations, without actually changing the rules on the books, and without seeking the feedback of other federal agencies with relevant equities. . . .

[M L]

Other dissent:

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-94A3.pdf

..a Commission eager to fast-track a billion dollar broadcast media reorganization, disregarding foreign ownership concerns, is the same Commission that has gone back to the well several times to impose and re-impose foreign sponsorship identification rules on our smallest independent broadcast license holders every time they place local church content on the air.

[Commenter_XY]

L'Shana Tova Tikateyvu to my fellow Tribe Members (I will be away for the holiday). I hope next year for you is better than this year.

[SRG2]

Shana tovah to you! May you have a sweet year.

[Krayt]

So I'm watching live streams of the war in the mid east. Ground invasion starting, nope, yep, maybe, reliable sources, whatever. I click on one, it starts with an ad, Kamala is walking quickly across the screen. Of course, it is not immediately obvious if pro or anti her or Trump.

But it's a quick ad. "I inequivically support Israel."

Which is fine, but Biden equivocated earlier today, not in support of ground invasion.

Which is fine, you are the leader, do your thing. But is this Israel forcing a "ball cutter" moment? Will she finally equivocate?

Lots of popcorn tonight and the next few days.

[Stephen Lathrop]

For those not in the know, get ready to hear about ultra-strange political theorist Curtis Yarvin, AKA Mencius Moldbug—a guy so far out the conventional political spectrum features no place to put him. Yarvin might be the ultimate anarchist—comprehensively anti-institutionalist—except he advocates dictatorship. Says Americans have to get over, "dictator phobia."

Reason you may start to hear about Yarvin is that a tape of J.D. Vance ran last night on the Maddow Show (MSNBC), with Vance styling himself a Yarvin acolyte. Shown in a 2021 taped interview with some right-wing blogger, Vance went on for a bit, about ripping out social institutions root and branch (my words, not Vance's, he was more specific). For instance, get rid of universities, public and private. Hand the campuses over to developers.

I sat bug-eyed listening while Vance wandered from crazy point, to crazier point—stuff you never heard from anyone. I thought Vance was weird. I had no idea.

Right after Maddow concluded, Lawrence O'Donnell came on, to say he had stood riveted to a TV in the hall, apparently as startled as I was.

Yarvin is said to command some kind of cult-like following among Silicon Valley operatives. I think I got that from Wikipedia. Other than that, I can't tell you much about him.

Given likelihood that Vance could succeed Trump (old, visibly deteriorating, uncertain courtroom future), Maddow's report will either become an epic journalistic get, or suffer a giant bypass among other outlets too nervous about the contents to do anything but avoid the story—the ultimate sanewashing.

[ReaderY]

The 4th Circuit set oral argument in GenBioPro v. Raynes for the end of October. GenBioPro is a manufacturer of generic mifepristone who is challenging West Virginia’s abortion ban on grounds that the FDA’s regulation of mifepristone pre-empts it. I think this case could be much more influential than the AHM case regarding the scope of FDA regulation. Standing is particularly clear. GenBioPro’s business is undeniably hurt by West Virginia’s ban.

The district judge upheld the ban on narrow but I think very soumd grounds, finding that the statute GenBioPro claimed required pre-emption did nothing more than instruct the FDA that, in promulgating its own safety regulations, it shoild ensure that its safety requirements did not unduly restrict access. This limitation on the FDA’s own regulatory power, the district court held, had nothing to do with West Virginia and hence dis not preempt its laws.

I think West Virginia’s appelate brief is ill-advised. It focuses on big game like a claim that GenBioPro has no standing hecause it doesn’t sell its drug in West Virginia and the merits are controlled by the major questions doctrine. I think the district court quite rightly rejected these arguments. GenBioPro isn’t selling in West Virginia because the abortion ban is in the way, but pretty clearly would have significant sales otherwise. And FDA decisions under a statute telling the FDA to promulgate safety regulations for a general class of drugs involve ordinary agency action that doesn’t become a major question just because the drug in wuestion involves abortion. West Virginia should have respected and defended the district court’s narrowly reasoned ruling in its favor, rather than try to go for long shot homers. I thought the amicus broef on behalf of 22 states was much better.

I think the brief on behalf of various pro-life organizations deserves singling out for particular reprobation. It’s more a fund-raising tract than a legal brief. It asks the 4th Circuit to find a constitutional right to life, to declare that the FDA can’t approve abortifacients as a matter or law because they’re unsafe for fetuses and the FR&C act protects the unborn, and to undo the approval on grounds that mifepristone is inherently unsafe for woman.

Perhaps they are taking advice that because this case has standing, this is the case to raise all the arguments AHM tried to do. But the brief comes over so thick that it takes a win at the district court level that could be particularly valuable, from a Clinton appointee who was obviously reluctant in concluding he was constrained to hold that West Virginia had the better legal position, and turns it into a complete loser of a case. No federal court except perhaps a particularly conservative panel of the 5th Circuit is going to accept any of the propositions the brief argues. Dobbs did not find a constitutional right to life; West Virginia can win without implicating the validity of the FDA’s original approval of mifepristone or the approvability of aborticients generally; federal courts outside the 5th Circuit are not going to overrule FDA scientific conclusions based on bogus partisan pseudoscience. Etc.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

How does GenBioPro wish to distribute its product in West Virginnia? The mail, and the interstate routes of private express companies, are closed by federal law to abortifacients. 18 U.S. Code § 1461 and § 1461.

Of course, the administration won't enforce this, but I don't see how a court can order something which violates a valid federal law.

[apedad]

In Dec 2022, the DOJ issued an opinion that that 18 U.S. Code § 1461, " . . . does not prohibit the mailing of certain drugs that can be used to perform abortions where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully. Because there are manifold ways in which recipients in every state may lawfully use such drugs, including to produce an abortion, the mere mailing of such drugs to a particular jurisdiction is an insufficient basis for concluding that the sender intends them to be used unlawfully."

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/file/1560596/dl

[ReaderY]

Earlier in the case, the district judge rejected the Comstock Law argument, I think incorrectly, based on the DOJ’s reasoning.

The DOJ’s opinion is flat-out wrong, even intentionally misleading. It relies on cases construing a completely different law that contains limiting language (requiring proof of intent to use for a specifically illegal purpose) that the Comstock Law does not have.

I’m honestly surprised defense lawyers in murder cases haven’t latched on to it and suggested that, because lead can be used for many legal purposes, someone who merely delivers a small quantity of it can’t be held responsible for intending what happens at the receiving end.

I think that West Virginia should have pointed out the flaws in the DOJ’s argument in its appeal.

[ReaderY]

See below for specifics on why I think the DOJ’s opinion on the Comstock Act is complete nonsense not worthy of a defense lawyer, let alone a prosecutor. I’ve made it a main thread.

[bernard11]

So the factory owner in Springfield who spoke in praise of his Haitian workers is getting death threats, posters calling him a traitor.

F.B.I. agents showed up at McGregor Metal out of the blue on Sept. 12.

They warned him that they had determined that some of the threats on social media were credible and that he must take precautions.

They advised locking the lobby doors at McGregor Metal along with other safety protocols.

Security experts also sat the family down. Vary your driving routes to work, school and other places, they advised. Don gloves and use tongs when handling and opening mail. Keep the blinds drawn at your house.

The family was also advised to scrub their digital footprints, install cameras, motion sensors and alarms, and start parking rear-first in the garage, keeping the car in drive until the door is all the way down.

[John F. Carr]

Hire the Haitians as security guards.

[not guilty]

Wow. Haters gonna hate.

[bernard11]

Thanks, Vance. Thanks, Trump. Thanks to all the MAGA fools here who defended Vance's lies.

And no sanctimonious crap about how you disapprove of this sort of stuff. You're all for it.

[Michael P]

Your side is the one that normalizes assassination attempts. Your side is the one that has terrorized college students and subway passengers and more. Your side recklessly threw about the word "traitor".

Yes, death threats are still bad -- but to paraphrase the old anti-drug ad, they learned it from you.

[Sarcastr0]

That your first reaction to this is to complain about the other side is why you're part of the problem.

That your ideas of what the other side is doing are false and insane means I hope you aren't the one making threats like these.

Your side recklessly threw about the word “traitor”.
You think it's the DEMOCRATS who are facile with the accusations of treason?!!

[Michael P]

Your gaslighting is not going to work on me. Your guys tried to kill Donald Trump twice, and succeeded in hitting him in one of those attempts. That's not false or insane. Where were YOU when these accusations were made?

And, yes, Democrats are facile with accusations of treason.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/10/27/trump-betrayals-stand-out-even-next-to-benedict-arnold-column/6040603002/
https://wamu.org/story/20/11/20/is-donald-trump-a-traitor-a-new-book-says-yes/
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/jamie-raskin-impeachment-trump-traitor-mcconnell-1130348/

[David Nieporent]

1) Once again, that's not what gaslighting means.
2) How were either of the alleged attempted assassins "your guys"?

[Sarcastr0]

“Your guys tried to kill Donald Trump twice” is absolutely false and insane.

“Where were YOU when these accusations were made?” You are so brainworms you don’t seem to have specified what ‘these accusations’ are.

“Democrats are facile with accusations of treason.” ::only talks about Trump::
Well, that makes sense. You seem to only exist to post about Trumpy things.
Being a Trump tulpa would explain a lot about your worldview

Do you exist when Trump isn’t mentioned? Ever read a Somin thread? Gun threads? Did you live through the GWB era? The Tea Party?

The right are the ones that drape themselves as SuperPatriots chief. You’re not going to win this one.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Fuck off.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/09/16/trump-assassination-attempt-golf-course-shooting-violence-hypocrisy/75251537007/

Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, and so are his supporters.

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

Shit-take from shit-for-brains Jason. Go ahead and put your money where your mouth is, be attempt #3.

[Nelson]

"Your gaslighting is not going to work on me. Your guys tried to kill Donald Trump twice, and succeeded in hitting him in one of those attempts."

Both shooters were conservatives. One was even a Trump voter. I'm sure there are plenty of liberals who think about taking a shot at Trump, but it took a couple of conservatives to actually do it.

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

Act Blue conservatives. Totally. Yeah, stick with that.

[Sarcastr0]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

Finds qui tam actions unconstitutional:
"When the Constitution is clear, no amount of countervailing history overcomes what the States ratified."
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.364103/gov.uscourts.flmd.364103.346.0.pdf

Clearly!

[ReaderY]

The DOJ’s opinion on the Comstock law is nonsense.

Youngs Rubber concerned a trademark law. The case reasoned that just because you can’t send explosives through the mails doesn’t mean you can’t trademark them, because the prohibition on sendong explosives through the mails doesn’t make them inherently illegal for all purposes.

US v. One Package and subsequent cases concerned the Tarriff Act of 1930, which prohibited articles for causing an “unlawful” abortion, and the opinion was built around the meaning of this additional word. The Comstock Act contains no such qualifier.

If anything, these cases show that the exact opposite of the DOJ’s opinion is the correct interpretation. Youngs Rubber is particularly apt. The Comstock Act treats abortifacients just like explosives. Nobody suggests that the legality of sending explosives through the mails has anything to do with the legality of the purpose for which the recipient intends to use them.

[David Nieporent]

Well, no. Youngs Rubber was a case about condoms, not explosives. And One Package did exactly the opposite of what you said; it construed the statute as having an implied “unlawful” in there even when the word was not present in a particular provision.

And when you say that “Nobody suggests that the legality of sending explosives through the mails has anything to do with the legality of the purpose for which the recipient intends to use them,” you are correct but completely misunderstand the issue. The whole point of the caselaw is that it’s the intent of the sender, not the intent of the recipient, that matters. And that as long as there are legitimate uses, then the sender can’t be held to have intended an unlawful use.

[ReaderY]

This is below your usual level. You can do better. As I’ll show below, the nit you picked this time makes no difference at all

Youngs Rubber was a trademark case which dealt with whether you could trademark condoms. The opinion’s argument that you could was based on an analogy to explosives, Explosives can’t be sent through the mail at all, regardless of purpose or intended use. Yet they are not illegal outright, as they have legal uses. So the fact they can’t be sent through the mail doesn’t make them non-trademarkable.

The Youngs Rubber opinion said that condoms work the same way. Just like explosives, they can’t be sent through the mail. But when the federal government says things can’t be sent through the mail, it doesn’t by doing that make them illegal for all purposes, so it doesn’t prevent them from being trademarked. Contraceptives, the Youngs Rubber court said, should work the same way.

So under Youngs Rubber, intent doesn’t matter so far as federal prohibitions on sending things through the mails are concerned. And intent only mattered in the later cases because they were construing a completely different law that used the adjective “unlawful,” and their opinions are based on construing that word. But the Comstock Act does not prohibiting sending “unlawful” abortifacients through the mail. It prohibits mailing abortifacients period, unqualified. It no more limits its prohibition to “unlawful” abortifacients than the prohibition on sending explosives through the mail is limited to “unlawful” explosives.

Indeed, people who want to challenge the DOJ on this might want to consider a suit saying they want to send explosives through mail and asking for a declaratory judgment that, based on the DOJ’s interpretation of Youngs Rubber and its progeny, the prohibition on sending explosives through the mail is limited to only explosives that the SENDER (not the recipient, as David Nieporent points out) intends to be used for unlawful purposes. There! I’ve just corrected the nit David Nieporent has picked. And, as you can see, it clearly makes no meaningful difference to my argument.

[ReaderY]

And as to One Package, please read the opinion. It’s very important. The opinion is very clear. It quotes section 305(a) of the Tarriff Act of 1930 as saying “All persons are prohibited from importing into the United States from any foreign country…any article whatever for the prevention of conception or for causing unlawful abortion.” (Elipses in orignal)

Far from being read into the statute by the court implicitly as you (and the DOJ opinion) incorrectly state, the qualifier “unlawful” is right there in the text of the statute. It’s a different statute, covering importation, a different subject, and Congress chose to use different and less restrictive language.

The opinion’s close reliance and dependence on its construction of the word “unlawful,” far from supporting the DOJ’s interpretation of the Comstock Act, is in fact strong evidence that the Comstock Act, which does not contain this word, should NOT get the same construction.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/86/737/1567252/

[David Nieporent]

You didn't understand what you read. The court in One Package acknowledged that some provisions of the law said "unlawful" and some didn't, but that the best reading of the statute was that "unlawful" was implied in the other provisions also.

As for Youngs Rubber, the part about explosives was simply an example of how an illegal use of a product does not make the product inherently unlawful. The point of the Youngs Rubber cite was in the paragraph before the one about the explosives example, about how to construe the statute. It was dicta in Youngs Rubber, but was later adopted by the courts as the correct interpretation of the statute.

Moreover, not only did you mistakenly think Youngs Rubber was about explosives — which probably means you shouldn't condescendingly criticize other people's understanding of a law — but you didn't even get the facts of the hypothetical correct. You mistakenly thought that it said that "Explosives can’t be sent through the mail at all," but it didn't say that. It said, "in one instance shipped the goods to a purchaser by common carrier without marking them as explosives, as required by federal statute.

[ReaderY]

I think the basic problem with your argument is that the provision the defendant was prosecuted under was the provision that said “unlawful.” I think that was why the court said that when some provisions say “unlawful” and others don’t, the best reading of the provisions that say “unlawful” is to imply a more lenient meaning. I think this very straightforward interpretation is much better than the straws of reasons that you’ve been desparately grasping at. It seems odd, in a prosecution under Section 305(a) of the Tarriff Act of 1930, to argue that the court was somehow reading the word “unlawful” into that section by implication when the word is right there in the text. I also think it’s a much more straightforward reading to interpret the comparison to other provisions without the word as an effort to distinguish this provision and justify this one’s specially lenient interpretation, and not as implying that construction should be identical in provisions without the word.

If you think you can claim otherwise, I suggest you try a more elaborate exposition with quotes to back your position up, rather than continue to assert I’m an idiot on your own say-so.

Look, you know how to do the swagger bit, how to hrummph pretensiously, how to say your interlocutor is an idiot who doesn’t know what he or she is talking about. You’re good at it. If only your ability to actually construe legal opinions was even a tenth as good, you’d be doing very well.

[David Nieporent]

I also think it’s a much more straightforward reading to interpret the comparison to other provisions without the word as an effort to distinguish this provision and justify this one’s specially lenient interpretation, and not as implying that construction should be identical in provisions without the word.

You can think whatever you want about the best way to interpret the statute. But the topic here was what the courts think, because that's what the OLC based its opinion on.

[ReaderY]

I notice you declined my invitation to continue the conversation by backing up your claim that this is what the court thinks with specific references and quotes.

Oh well. So it be. I hope the swagger, the hrrumph, the pretension, the “you’re an idiot” demeanor, and the other rhetorical tools you seem to have mastered work for you.

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

Dave's really going downhill lately. Are you as old as Biden and Trump, perhaps?

[Nelson]

Damn. Even Vinni acknowledges that Trump is in mental decline. Who'da thunk it?

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

I wouldn't hold my breath for you to think anything at all.

[John F. Carr]

Happy 100th birthday to Jimmy Carter, our best ex-president.

[Sarcastr0]

Now officially too old to play with legos.

Ages 4-99 only.

May he survive to vote for and see Harris be elected President. I think that would please him.

[not guilty]

Jimmy Carter was not a very effective president, but he is probably the most decent human being to have held the office during my lifetime.

[David Nieporent]

He's history's greatest monster!

[Nelson]

I'd argue he could go toe-to-toe with all the best Presidents in history. He is a truly moral human being.

[M L]

Nine Questions CBS News Should Ask Tim Walz During Debate

1. Why did you do almost nothing as Minneapolis burned during the 2020 riots? Do you take any issue with your running mate fundraising for rioters and freeing murderer Shawn Michael Tillman?
2. Why have you visited China so many times, including on Chinese government-funded trips? House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) just presented evidence that DHS staffers have “serious concerns” about your China ties. Have you ever taken direction from the Chinese government?
3. Why did you falsely claim you carried a weapon in war?
4. Some men who served with you in the National Guard say you abandoned your unit. Why did you abandon them before the deployment to Iraq?
5. Do you still support single-payer healthcare? Why should Americans have to lose their private health insurance plan?
6. You supported “alternatives to policing.” Do you agree police should be defunded, as Vice President Kamala Harris previously stated she supported?
7. Why do you think that boys’ bathrooms should have tampons?
8. You have given free college tuition to illegal immigrants in Minnesota. Do you think illegal aliens nationwide should get free college?
9. You have said there is “no guarantee to free speech.” Why don’t you support the First Amendment?

https://www.breitbart.com/2024-election/2024/10/01/nine-questions-cbs-news-should-ask-tim-walz-during-debate/

[apedad]

Fair questions and I'd like to see him say he may disagree with VP Harris on issues, e.g., Do you agree police should be defunded, as Vice President Kamala Harris previously stated she supported?, but that he would work with her to provide the best solutions for Americans.

Unlike your slave-boy who will suck up to Trump every chance he can get.

[David Nieporent]

1. Why did you do almost nothing as Minneapolis burned during the 2020 riots?

Wouldn't the obvious response be, "If that's true, then why did Donald Trump praise my handling of the riots?"

Do you take any issue with your running mate fundraising for rioters and freeing murderer Shawn Michael Tillman?

Since both of those are lies, that would be a pretty weird thing for CBS to ask.

The rest of this is pretty much Gish Gallop — it takes one sentence for each lie, but multiple sentences to explain why each is a lie. Not worth responding to.

Of course, you got this from Breitbart. You would double your IQ — maybe reaching as high as 85 — if you would just stop reading those lying idiots.

[M L]

I dunno. Few things are as IQ-lowering as the contorted, autistic political talking points you like to dream up all day. But against my better judgment, let's have it. What response have you cooked up for Kamala on this bailout fund thing?

Far more telling is her support for bailing out the 2020 George Floyd rioters, endorsing a bail fund that put violent repeat offenders back on the streets of Minneapolis.

“Chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota,” she tweeted as the city burned (and as Gov. Tim Walz dithered on the mayor’s request to send in the National Guard).

That endorsement helped the Minnesota Freedom Fund raise $40 million, cash it soon used to release accused murderers, rapists, and thieves.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/25/opinion/kamala-harris-support-for-bail-fund-that-freed-violent-criminals-shows-how-tough-on-crime-she-really-is/

[Nelson]

Your complaint is that Harris supported a fund to post bail for protesters? That's pretty crazy.

Unless you are trying to say that Harris made the decisions about who was bailed out by the fund? Because that's completely crazy.

[David Nieporent]

What response have you cooked up for Kamala on this bailout fund thing?

Kamala Harris advocated that people donate to a bail fund. As a matter of what she expressly advocated for, it was about assisting protesters, not rioters. Moreover, the bail fund, not Harris (nor the individual donors), decided who to bail out. And by definition a bail fund is for people who haven't been convicted of the crime for which they're in jail. (The entire purpose of bail — contrary to what authoritarian rightists think — is to get people out of jail, not to keep them in jail.)

And while it's true that the bail fund did provide bail for Shawn Michael Tillman, (1) Harris had nothing whatsoever to do with that decision; and (2) Shawn Michael Tillman was not a murderer. (He subsequently killed someone. But that was several years later, and given that the charge he had been facing for which he was bailed out was just indecent exposure, he would've certainly been out of jail by the time of the murder anyway.)

[David Nieporent]

And by definition a bail fund is for people who haven’t been convicted of the crime for which they’re in jail. (The entire purpose of bail — contrary to what authoritarian rightists think — is to get people out of jail, not to keep them in jail.)

Just want to elaborate on this. The NYP excerpt above talks about "release accused murderers, rapists, and thieves." The key word there is "accused." Bail by definition serves to release accused criminals. It's not some sort of gotcha that the person was accused of a crime. And if you think a particular person is too dangerous to be released, then your issue is not with the person who posts bail, but with the fact that bail was set at all. I just want to reiterate: the purpose of bail is to release those people.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Nice takedown, David. The only question remaining is whether (1) ML was too obtuse to understand these banal points that demonstrate the flaw of his question or (2) ML was just mendaciously posing lies as questions and then doubling down by asking for a specific rebuttal of this one.

I'm past giving charity that he was just that obtuse. I think he knew it was a dishonest lie to ask about freeing a murderer, but, presumably he'll be back to either admit he didn't think this through, which would surprisingly prove option (1), or he will continue to bloviate illogically in defense of his smear, thereby confirming (2).

Of course, he could also, as it appears he has done, slink off like the coward he is to post a similarly stupid, baseless set of lies.

[John F. Carr]

Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. Build a better sheep and federal prosecutors come calling. A Montana man has been sentenced to six months in prison for breeding and selling giant sheep with Kyrgyz ancestry, without the appropriate permits and customs declarations and contrary to state law, for use by Texas hunters. The government also has the right to neuter any remaining Frankensheep to prevent the spread of their genes.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/montana-man-sentenced-federal-wildlife-trafficking-charges-part-yearslong-effort-create

According to the plea agreement the fair market retail value of the forbidden sheep exceeded $250,000.

[Magister]

I'm pretty sure that, if your mousetrap violated federal laws, the federal prosecutors would show up at your door.

[John F. Carr]

In modern America the existing mousetrap manufacturers would probably send federal prosecutors after me. It doesn't have a label saying it contains small parts and is unsuitable for mice under three years old. It has not been certified to meet mouse trap standards which existing mouse trap manufacturers wrote to require use of their patents.

Anyway the sheep guy had a nice business plan and I appreciate that it violates the letter and probably the spirit of the law without considering him to be evil. Chaotic neutral, maybe.

[Magister]

Prosecutors are supposed to prosecute people for violating the law, not for being evil. And did so in this case.

[apedad]

Did not have "giant sheep with Kyrgyz ancestry" on my Bingo card today.