Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Judge Tanya Chutkan has harshly (and quite appropriately) called out Donald Trump's lawyers' ritualistic BMW (bitch, moan, whine) rhetoric in their court filings:

In addition to the assertions discussed above, Defendant’s opposition brief repeatedly accuses the Government of bad-faith partisan bias. See Def.’s Opp’n at 2, 5–6. These accusations, for which Defendant provides no support, continue a pattern of defense filings focusing on political rhetoric rather than addressing the legal issues at hand. See Oversized Brief Order at 2–3 (identifying two recent instances of this pattern). Not only is that focus unresponsive and unhelpful to the court, but it is also unbefitting of experienced defense counsel and undermining of the judicial proceedings in this case. Defendant has had an opportunity to make his case that his prosecution is improperly motivated. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss for Selective and Vindictive Prosecution, ECF No. 116. Future filings should be directed to the issues before the court

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.251.0_4.pdf

Good for her! A United States District Court is no place for electioneering.

[Don Nico]

what could anyone expect from the Orange Clown?

[Frank Drackman]

another 4 years in the Oval Orifice, if our Military-Industrial-Occupational-Government (MIOG)doesn't murder him first.

[Armchair]

"A United States District Court is no place for electioneering."

And yet Chutkan is doing exactly that....

[not guilty]

Supporting facts, Armchair?

[Armchair]

Same as your supporting facts.

[Sarcastr0]

Default 1: America's institutions, absent any other evidence, proceed in normal order according to their usual pace and protocols.

Default 2: Trump can do no wrong, this is all partisan. All countervailing evidence is fake news.

These are 2 axioms of different truth-quality, and of differing hostilities to America's civic institutions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Science bureaucrat: It's axiomatic that our institutions are functioning well!

Sarcastro, you should know that some asshole is signing your name to some really stupid comments.

[Sarcastr0]

It's actually a legal principle to assume rule of law is functioning absent evidence otherwise.

You didn't even notice where one default was rebuttable and the other was not.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Every won appeal is evidence the rule of law isn’t working.

[Nelson]

I'm pretty sure it's evidence of the exact opposite.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What an amazing tautology!

How neat.

A successful appeal demonstrates the rule of law failed and had to be corrected.

[Nelson]

The “correction” is part of the rule of law. Do you really think that the rule of law is only valid when the initial case is 100% successful?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rule-of-law/

“The procedural principles concern the processes by which these norms are administered, and the institutions—like courts and an independent judiciary that their administration requires.”

So yes, an appeal, successful or not, is evidence that the rule of law is working.

[OtisAH]

“Do you really think that the rule of law is only valid when the initial case is 100% successful?”

No, he thinks he’s being clever.

[Reallynotbob]

I'm not sure it's evidence of either. It's evidence the process is proceeding, which is part of the rule of law. But the outcome on appeal can be legitimate or corrupt.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe it’s all the D&D I play, but chaotic-lawful and good-evil are different axes.

Rule of law is necessary but not sufficient to a just society.

[Nelson]

"But the outcome on appeal can be legitimate or corrupt."

I think it's a bridge too far to go with "corrupt" if a wrong decision is made. Unless when you say "legitimate", you are including all results of the process regardless of whether it was correct or incorrect.

Incorrect and corrupt are not synonyms, especially when discussing the rule of law.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"It’s actually a legal principle to assume rule of law is functioning absent evidence otherwise."

The fact we have a gazillion guard rails tells you any particular stage in the rule of law when executed by human isn't trusted to function.

The existence of guard rails is evidence that you can't make that assumption.

Did the rule of law function without those guard rails?
What caused those guard rails to be created?
Are those guard rails sufficient? Are we done making new guard rails?

The actual legal principle is to assume that humans are so fallen, you can't trust them to execute "the rule of law", and thus you have to have all these other contraptions.

On how Earth can none of you clowns see this?

[Riva]

And the timing of this procedurally odd, massive filing before the defense even responds to Smith’s revised indictment, together with the public release a little more than a month before the presidential election (and right after the disastrous performance by Walz), is of course in no way political. And the obvious political use being made of this by President Trump’s political opponents, including Harris, in no way even hints at anything political. Because of course lawfare is in no way political.

[Armchair]

Bingo.
If Judge Tanya Chutkan wanted to not engage in "electioneering" as ng puts it, she could simply release the bare minimum.

As opposed to being verbose about "bad-faith partisan bias" in her opinions.

[Riva]

One of the worst examples of election interference by the DOJ in history. At least as bad as the Steele “dossier.” Whatever the party affiliation of the target, this is repulsive.

[Riva]

And if you like election interference on the federal level, you’ll love the state efforts. Not to be outdone, the PA Dept of State has scheduled maintenance of its voter registration website from 6pm to 12 am on the day President Trump is having a return rally in Butler County. Not 12am to 6am as would be more usual, no, they want to sabotage voter registration on the day of President Trump’s return to the place of the first assassination attempt. Well played Pennsylvania, Smith and Chutkan are likely envious.

[David Nieporent]

That is the most pathetic attempt to raise a fake issue that I've seen yet. But, then, bot doesn't have original ideas; it just reposts what is input to it from twitter.

"You scheduled website maintenance for a weekend evening. You should have rescheduled it when we decided to hold a rally."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's a stupid response. It's obviously scheduled against the rally. Just like the Biden WH and the Harris campaign schedule events at the same time as his rallies to limit his secret service.

[David Nieporent]

"Obviously." Except the maintenance was scheduled first.

[Riva]

And how do you know it was scheduled first? You don’t. You just made that up.

[David Nieporent]

As opposed to being verbose about “bad-faith partisan bias” in her opinions.

Um, it was Trump who used that term and raised that argument. She was responding to it, which is kind of her job.

And she was not "verbose" about it. She actually dispensed with that argument in one short paragraph.

[Armchair]

Please...she doesn't even have to address it, if she doesn't want to, with other than the bare minimum. "This argument is rejected".

This entire episode, "unsealing" the 150+ page indictment almost exactly one month before the election is the type of "electioneering" that ng is saying is bad. It's designed to drive news headlines.

[not guilty]

"This entire episode, 'unsealing' the 150+ page indictment almost exactly one month before the election is the type of 'electioneering' that ng is saying is bad. It’s designed to drive news headlines."

Uh, the (36 page) superseding indictment was filed on August 27, 2024, Armchair. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.226.0_38.pdf

The document unsealed yesterday is the Government's Motion for Immunity Determinations, pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions upon remand. The motion provides the framework for conducting the “necessarily factbound” immunity analysis required by the Supreme Court’s remand order. Trump v. United States, 144 S.Ct. 2312, 2340 (2024). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.252.0_1.pdf

I look forward to reading Trump's Response, which is currently due by October 17, 2024, and the Special Counsel’s reply, due October 29, 2024. It is fortunate that both sides' filings will be available to voters who care about such matters.

[Armchair]

"and the Special Counsel’s reply, due October 29, 2024. "

Conveniently just days before the election.....

And you bitch about "electioneering"....with court orders and dates like this, the hypocrisy must be amazing.

[EscherEnigma]

I mean, that looks like a two week spacing between each filing. What, you'd rather three?

[not guilty]

Judge Chutkan has extended the filing deadlines. Trump's combined Response and Renewed Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity is now due November 7, 2024 and may include up to 180 pages; the Government's combined Reply and Opposition is due November 21, 2024; and Trump may file a combined Reply and Sur-Reply by December 5, 2024.

[David Nieporent]

Now that their fake gripe has been mooted, my guess is that the MAGA chuds will now switch to, "It's not fair that Trump doesn't get to respond before the election."

(Note: I know he can file early if he wants to. But those people don't care about the facts.)

[David Nieporent]

Please…she doesn’t even have to address it, if she doesn’t want to, with other than the bare minimum. “This argument is rejected”.

That's what she did: the bare minimum.

[SRG2]

The reason that the case is so close to the election is that Trump made it so, with extended delays. He was - and is - trying to run out the clock so that there's no trial before the election and if he's elected he can get the charges dropped.

[not guilty]

The Trump Cult is kvetching because SCOTUS, at the behest of Team Trump, threw Jack Smith and his team into the briar patch.

"Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true!" Aesop's Fables (circa 260 BC).

[Reallynotbob]

Aesop Fable 144:
A camel was crossing a swiftly flowing river. He shat and immediately saw his own dung floating in front of him, carried by the rapidity of the current.
‘What is that there?’ he asked himself.
‘That which was behind me I now see pass in front of me.’

Best part of this fable (as I understand it) is that it offered a deniable way to throw shade at the rabble when commoners stood before the Ekklesia. "Ah, that which was behind us is now before us, tut tut."

[Riva]

I see, so President Trump forced Smith to rush file a superseding indictment on August 27. And then, President Trump demanded that he not be able to respond and instead insisted that Smith file a massive, procedurally odd (to see the least) motion that includes previously sealed grand jury material. And then President Trump forced Chutkan to publicly release this information a little over 30 days before the election because this was the best way not to interfere with the election, consistent with DOJ guidelines. And again because President Trump really didn’t care about objecting to or suppressing evidence before its public disclosure. Obviously because no one ever does that. And also President Trump clearly wanted to prejudice the jury pool with the release of this information before he could file any response.

I doubt even you believe your own nonsense SRG2, although TDS can cause brain damage so who knows?

[David Nieporent]

Shorter MAGA: When we previously said that it was illegitimate for the courts to take into account the timing of election in making scheduling decisions, we only meant if it was bad for Trump. If it might help Trump to factor in the election, then of course the courts should do that.

[Brian Thomas]

This "procedurally odd, massive filing" was only required because of SCOTUS's decision to grant immunity to Trump for "official acts." The Supreme Court created a completely new procedural requirement--but one only to be used when indicting former presidents for crimes--which requires that the trial court determine whether the indictment is based on the president's "official acts." The court needs to be briefed on the issue by the parties to decide it, the docket is a public record, and so obviously the prosecutor's brief will be made publicly available.

MAGA morons are mad cuz they think they're the victim of the same dirty trick and "Justice Department policy violation" that Comey used on Hillary to get Trump elected the first time, but this filing is a completely new procedural requirement that didn't exist in American law before SCOTUS's immunity decision. The DOJ policy that Comey broke in 2016 didn't address how the DOJ would handle these new procedural requirements for prosecution of a former president before a presidential election because the new requirements are brand-new inventions of SCOTUS for just this case.

You can't change the rules of a game then complain when it changes how the game is played. If SCOTUS didn't change the rules, this filing wouldn't have been needed in the first place and the trial likely would be over by now. But they did, and now Trump is getting what he asked for.

[Riva]

The timing of this lawfare disgrace was entirely dictated by Jack Smith. Smith could have brought this 2 years ago instead of attempting to time his initial filing for maximum electoral damage to President Trump. Smith did not have to rush his latest indictment in August and laughably call for a speedy trial. Smith did not have to go to lengths to preempt the defense’s response with his latest rushed massive filing and there was no reason for Chutkan to rush through a public release of this information. This disgrace is a gross political action and it would be a disgrace regardless of the political affiliation of the target. I would condemn this if Harris were the target.

[not guilty]

Southern folk wisdom holds that the hit dog hollers.

Donald Trump's response is by no means preempted. It is due two weeks from today.

[Riva]

Not sure about southern folk wisdom but normal practice in a federal criminal trial would be for the defendant to file a motion challenging the indictment before the prosecution files its response. But I guess I’m making the mistake of confusing lawfare with a real trial. Oh, and in addition to hating this gross perversion of the law, I despise mint juleps too.

[not guilty]

Uh, Riva, Team Trump's motion to dismiss indictment based on presidential immunity was filed on October 5, 2023. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.74.0_3.pdf

[Riva]

Uh, Smith filed his superseding indictment on August 27, 2024, at least I think I heard that from some southern folk.

[not guilty]

The October 5, 2023 motion to dismiss is still being litigated, Riva. Judge Chutkan initially denied the motion, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Trump successfully petitioned for certiorari, and SCOTUS on July 1, 2024 remanded the case with instructions for the District Court to conduct a “necessarily factbound analysis . . . to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial.” Trump v. United States, 144 S.Ct. 2312, 2340 (2024).

The Special Counsel’s September 26 filing (unsealed yesterday) is part and parcel of the continuing proceedings to adjudicate Trump’s October 5, 2023 motion.

[Riva]

President Trump filed a motion on Oct. 5, 2023 to dismiss the superseding indictment filed on August 27, 2024? Damn clever of them.

[not guilty]

The claim asserted by Team Trump in the October 5, 2023 motion to dismiss is that Trump enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. That claim applies to both the broader factual averments of the original indictment and the narrower averments of the superseding indictment.

SCOTUS ordered that on remand the District Court must determine in the first instance what conduct is official and what is unofficial. Pursuant to the Supreme Court mandate, Judge Chutkan ordered a briefing schedule following a status conference on September 5, with input from both parties. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.233.0_2.pdf

"This necessarily factbound analysis" by the District Court is mandated (literally) by the Supreme Court. A second motion to dismiss asserting the same legal theory would have been redundant and superflous.

[Riva]

And the prosecution rushed to file a superseding indictment that normally would entitle the defense to file a motion challenging that now superseding indictment, not the prosecution jumping ahead of the defendant to file a massive motion whose public purpose at this time was blatantly political. There was no need to rush any of this a little more than a month before the election. Democrats needed something in October and the fraud of the Steele “dossier” had served its purpose already.

[not guilty]

"And the prosecution rushed to file a superseding indictment that normally would entitle the defense to file a motion challenging that now superseding indictment, not the prosecution jumping ahead of the defendant to file a massive motion whose public purpose at this time was blatantly political. There was no need to rush any of this a little more than a month before the election."

Riva, have you read the original indictment and compared it to the superseding indictment? There were allegations in the original as to which SCOTUS opined that absolute immunity applied. These allegations were omitted from the superseding indictment.

The Supreme Court ordered Judge Chutkan to conduct a fact-based analysis of the official/non-official acts dichotomy, which she was obliged to do whether the prosecution obtained a superseding indictment or not. The net effect of the superseding indictment was to streamline and simplify the District Court's task. What the Special Counsel did in that regard is commendable, not nefarious.

You are kvetching for the sake of kvetching.

[Riva]

The sick abuse of the legal process to effectuate this election interference is not commendable. I think the word you’re looking for is detestable. Nothing issuing from the S. Court dictated this rushed process. Nothing issuing from the S. Court distorted the normal process in which the prosecution files massive motions to support its superseding indictment before the defense responds. Nothing issuing from the S. Court required Chutkan to release this “October surprise” whose only purpose at this time is to give democrats and their adjuncts some political talking points. Anymore absurd aphorisms to distract from this disgrace?

[Riva]

And of course it should be noted that the public release of all this material, before defendant had any opportunity to challenge or suppress it is not just reprehensible election interference, this conflicted hack Chutkan is helping that thug Smith prejudice the jury pool. Why anyone with the slightest respect for the rule of law, let alone a lawyer, would find this "commendable" is beyond shocking, but gives a glimpse into the "practice" of law in totalitarian hellholes.

[EscherEnigma]

"I would condemn this if Harris were the target."
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and treat this as true, that you in particular would condemn such action.

Republicans as a whole, on the other hand, very much did not condemn the DOJ's11th hour statement on Clinton in 2016. So I don't think it's unfair to say that Republicans as a whole would condemn this if Harris, in 2024, were the target.

[Riva]

Democrats "as a whole" cheer on Jack Smith. That does not validate his gross perversion of the law. You seem incapable of viewing this through anything but a political prism.

[Sarcastr0]

Rivabot should parse the second paragraph before it outputs, as this is more unresponsive than usual.

[Riva]

My point is that whether republicans or democrats “as a whole” cheer or condemn something is irrelevant, unless it is a political matter. Which is what lawfare is.

I understand the thoughtless obnoxious response is reflexive for you, but try to fight the impulse and think a little before posting something.

[Sarcastr0]

Your response to a fact regarding Republican double standards is to highlight an idiosyncratic partisan hot take.

And then accuse the other guy of being incapable of viewing this through anything but a political prism.

That's pretty funny, really.

[Riva]

You're not worth exerting the slight effort it takes to embarrass you, so I'll leave you to play with your little buddies.

[Sarcastr0]

If you've got nothing, the pro move is to not post.

This flounce just calls attention to the L.

[Tempe Jeff]

Tell us who was President in 2011. Hint: Not Trump

[Riva]

Really Sarcastr0? Then why did you post something in response? Remember that advice I gave about thinking? Just a friendly parting reminder. Now go away and do whatever you do. somewhere else.

[Magister]

Sarcastr0 continuing to call attention to Riva's L is understandable. But I am confused regarding the relevance of who the President was in 2011.

[EscherEnigma]

Who said anything bout validating?

I was just pointing out that even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, there is no reason to give it to Republicans at large. If you saw partisanship in that, that's on you bud.

[David Nieporent]

Jack Smith was not the special counsel two years ago, so he could not in fact have brought this then.

[John Rohan]

And yet in 2016 the left was screaming and calling for James Comey's head for announcing just a month before the election that due to new evidence, they were re-opening the Clinton email case.

[Sarcastr0]

Was that part of a trial timeline, or just a random act of electorally stupid PA?

[Dr. Ed 2]

That Delta Charlie ought to be impeached -- and likely will be.

He's not doing anything that any other lawyer isn't doing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That Delta Charlie ought to be impeached -- and likely will be.

He's not doing anything that any other lawyer isn't doing -- ALL trial lawyers are A-holes at times. It's genetic...

So why just pick on the MAGA ones?

[OtisAH]

Yeah, why did Chutkan limit her comments to the lawyers before her who regularly and consistently submit irrelevant documents and unsupported legal claims to her court? Something fishy going on, that’s for sure.

[hobie]

Ancient Orange's defense team know that they can act the fool, because the Harlan Thomas court will just engineer a workaround

[David Nieporent]

One bizarre comment from Chutkan, though:

As noted in the next
section, the redactions make it more difficult to confirm witness identities, reducing the likelihood of their harassment or intimidation, but they do not extend beyond the names and non-public sources essential to that interest.

Every single one of the redacted witnesses was identified within a few hours at most. Some of them are obvious because they're redacted in previously public statements or tweets. Trump's argument, that she rejected, that the redactions were insufficient for that purpose was correct. (I didn't read Trump's brief so it's quite possible he did a bad job of making the argument.)

[Brett Bellmore]

The redactions were absurd in some cases. For example, on page 17, "the defendant called Arizona Governor [P16] to ask him what was happening..."

Was it somehow a secret who was the governor of Arizona?

[Kazinski]

When I listened to the debate last night, I honestly didn’t think Walz did that badly. I mean sure he got Israel and Iran mixed up in the first question, so obviously he was a little nervous, but, ive heard worse in debates, like last June for instance.

Then again I wasn’t watching, i was actually picking someone up at the airport, driving in traffic, calling intermittently to see if my brother had landed his progress to backage claim etc, so I did miss at least half of it, and wasn't concentrating that hard on what I did hear

But then some of the post debate 2nd guessing seemed a little unnecessarily cruel, after all why shouldn’t school shooters have friends? Everyone should have a friend.

And if a school shooter is going to have a friend, then who better than Tim Walz?

[not guilty]

I didn't watch the debate, so please bear with me if I am missing something obvious. What do school shooters have to do with it?

[Kazinski]

Well here is Tim Walz’s full “answer” to a question:

TW: Yeah. I sat in that office with those Sandy Hook parents. I’ve become friends with school shooters. I’ve seen it. Look, the NRA. I was the NRA guy for a long time. They used to teach gun safety. I’m of an age where my shotgun was in my car so I could pheasant hunt after football practice. That’s not where we live today. And several things I want to mention on this is talking about cities and where it’s at. The number one, where the most firearm deaths happen in Minnesota are rural suicides. And we have an epidemic of children getting guns and shooting themselves. And so we have, and we should look at all of the issues, making sure folks have healthcare and all that. But I want to be very careful. This idea of stigmatizing mental health, just because you have a mental health issue doesn’t mean you’re violent. And I think what we end up doing is we start looking for a scapegoat. Sometimes it just is the guns. It’s just the guns. And there are things that you can do about it. But I do think that this is one, and I think this is a healthy conversation. I think there’s a capacity to find solutions on this that work, protect Second Amendment, protect our children. That’s our priority.”

I put answer in quotes because here is the question, and it doesn’t seem like an answer:
“NO: Senator, thank you. Governor, you previously opposed an assault weapons ban, but only later in your political career did you change your position. Why?”

But whether or not he actually answered the question, I am not questioning that Tim Walz would be, and has been, a good friend to school shooters.

I’m not one of those who goes around calling people liars without any evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord this is sweaty.

No one did great both did fine for who they were appealing to.

I like how your OP pretended no one cared and you were making was a joke and then moments later uncork all these useless efforts.

[Michael P]

I think Althouse assessed it well: For people who didn't watch, they probably sounded more or less even, but Walz had much worse visuals than Vance.

[Frank Drackman]

Loved how Sergeant Pepper would turn a full 90 degrees towards JD, showing that huge pumpkin head in profile, while JD did the 1/2 head turn/Belushi one Eyebrow raise

[BadLib]

That was one moment that my wife and I looked at each other and laughed a bit.

Of course it's irrelevant to Walz's politics (which are pretty irrelevant as Harris, if elected, is young enough she's unlikely to die in office -- unlike Trump which makes Vance's positions more relevant) and certainly in no way will affect either of our votes.

Walz can't do a lot about being a frumpy balding late middle age guy who hasn't aged very well. Although, I have to give him some credit for owning his baldness as opposed to another individual we've all seen a lot of recently. However perhaps that's just because he couldn't afford various hair "restoration" procedures and ongoing structural engineering consultants to vainly attempt to make three or four hairs appear to be a full head of hair (except in a stiff breeze of course - he's probably fired a lot of these structural engineering consultants over the years).

[Riva]

Walz is not just weird looking. He’s dangerously stupid. If you like free expression. As Professor Turley noted on X: “Asked about the largest censorship system in our history, Walz suggests that the Internet should be treated as a giant crowded theater where opposing views are a cry of fire…”

[Magister]

JD Vance is weird.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course you think that. You're an obligate partisan.

I said Vance did fine.

You would *never* say Walz was the equal of Vance.

We're both partisans, but pretty different in how we go about it.

[Michael P]

Of course you think that, because you ignore the things that I wrote plainly on order to argue against a straw man.

[Sarcastr0]

Michel, you said it was a tie on audio, and a win for Vance on video.
That's a net win for Vance.

Come on man, it’s right up there.

[Michael P]

I'm not obliged to call it an overall tie when it wasn't. Take it up with the NYT if you think it was.

[Sarcastr0]

So I was right about your position.

Do you know what a straw man is?

Or an appeal to authority?

[Kazinski]

It wasn't a tie on audio, but it was closer. And over 90% who listened or saw it did watch.

Sarcastro, The Noble Partisan, that's amusing.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m a partisan, but not a partisan tool. I can criticize my own side, and have some heterodox views (guns, trans in sports, conservatives in academia).

Michael is the other one.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You would *never* say Walz was the equal of Vance."

I'm pretty sure nobody said that.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't get out much.
Feel free to search it on twitter.

Plenty of Dems pointing to Vance saying abortion was good one time and dodging the 2020 election question.

But that's just the mirror of the effort y'all are putting in.

[David Nieporent]

I said Vance did fine.

Vance had two bad items:
1) Petulantly whining that he was promised he wouldn't be called on his lies.
2) Refusing to admit Trump lost in 2020.

The rest, he actually came across as a normal human being (or at least a normal politician), not playacting as being MAGA.

[Sarcastr0]

I was quoting myself. The full take is: "both did fine for who they were appealing to."

[David Nieporent]

I can't directly assess that, as I only listened rather than watching. But post debate polls do not support the idea that either candidate appeared "much worse" overall.

[Armchair]

Maybe Walz is Harris's safety blanket?

"Well, we can't get rid of Harris, Walz is even worse!"

[Frank Drackman]

didn't work for JFK or Lincoln

[Armchair]

No, I'm talking about legally getting rid of people. Like how Democrats conveniently got rid of Biden.

[Reallynotbob]

Well Vance is Trump's toady. So there's my name-calling quota for the day.

[Michael P]

Walz elaborated on being friends with school shooters in a later interview: "David Hogg is a good friend of mine."

[Brett Bellmore]

Hogg may be an asshole, but he's not a school shooter. It was just a really bad gaffe.

[Michael P]

Walz is a gaffe machine, following to the school shooter gaffe with one about being friends with Hogg.

I am inclined to believe the meme that captions Barack Obama thinking "I need a VP dumber than me" above a picture of Joe Biden thinking "I need a VP dumber than me" above a picture of Kamala Harris thinking "I need a VP dumber than me" above a picture of a bug-eyed Tim Walz.

[Sarcastr0]

Such effort.

[Michael P]

Unlike you.

[Sarcastr0]

I will proudly not spend a lot of effort trying to spin the freaking Vice Presidential debate.

You're proud of your effort to try and get partisan blood from this stone?

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "I will proudly not spend a lot of effort trying to spin the freaking Vice Presidential debate."

And that would be one of the 12 comments you posted to this thread that's devoted to spinning the Vice Presidential debate.

I'll agree that your effort appears to be minimal, and might be as much a source of pride for you as any of your other efforts.

[Sarcastr0]

Unless you want to argue it's a good use of time to spin the Vice Presidential debate, you seem to agree with me.

But still want to whine about me.

Speaking of wastes of time...

[David Nieporent]

It was not in fact a gaffe. It was a slip of the tongue. Those aren't the same thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Gaffe

"
1
: a social or diplomatic blunder
committed an embarrassing gaffe when he mispronounced her name
2
: a noticeable mistake
Kwan did not fall today, as she had in Friday's short program, a gaffe that left her in fourth place.—
Christopher Clarey"

Slips of the tongue are perfectly capable of being gaffes, if they embarrass. If you say that you're friends with school shooters, when you really meant with people who were present at school shootings?

Yeah, that's a gaffe.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not the meaning of gaffe as applied to the context of political debates.

But y'all got nothing (and for some reason are compelled to try and turn the debate into something) so here you are.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not a Kinsey gaffe, I'll give you that much. But if all I've got is the dictionary definition of the word I used, that's a hell of a lot more than "nothing".

[Sarcastr0]

And that kind of gaffe is the only one people talk about wrt politicians.

Which is why calling it a gaffe is kinda disingenuous.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, really?

Remember when Quayle made the mistake of believing that spelling card he'd been handed? "Potatoe"? That sure got talked about, and it certainly wasn't a Kinsey gaffe.

[Sarcastr0]

I, uh, don't remember that.

But it is absolutely possible people back then used gaffe differently.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "That’s not the meaning of gaffe as applied to the context of political debates."

You do know that you just make this shit up as you go, don't you?

Oh. Wait. I take it back. I just looked it up in "Sarcastr0's Dictionary of the English Language in the Context of Political Debates." You were correct.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't even believe you disagree with me on this. You just want to disagree with me.

[Bwaaah]

Correction: we apparently *do* disagree about the meaning of the word "gaffe." Brett and Michael P's usage were quite in accordance with my understanding of the word. Your "political debate context" exception is utter nonsense to me.

You seem to have trouble remembering, or believing, that I don't pretend. (There are quite a few people around here who strike me as being similar in that regard.) Where I am not explicitly facetious, I am sincere. That's probably an unfamiliar way of being to you.

You can count on me to be this way. To be otherwise would be deceitful, and as such, strikes me as inherently wrong.

[David Nieporent]

Slips of the tongue are perfectly capable of being gaffes, if they embarrass.

No, a slip of the tongue is not embarrassing, so this wasn't a gaffe; every person knew what he intended to convey. Asking a woman you just met, "When is the baby due?" when the woman is just fat, not pregnant, is an example of a gaffe.

[Bwaaah]

It was a gaffe. Let it go.

[Frank Drackman]

That’s creepy as fuck. I’m a 62 year old married man, you know how many 24 yr old guys are “Good Friends of Mine”??? OK, bad example, there aren’t any 34, 44, 54, 64, yr old guys who are friends of mine, don’t even really understand the concept, can’t wait for the real “October Surprise”, one of the “Coach’s” victims to pull a Ballsy-Ford, except he'll have some evidence to back up his allegations

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I have younger guys who I'm friends with, (At 65, most guys are younger, after all!) though none as young as 24.

Ok, to be honest, they're all married to my wife's friends... I'm terrible at making friends myself.

[windycityattorney]

Given he was a teacher and coach for years and also in the nat'l guard for 20 (or whatever)...i could see him making friends with younger people he met in any of those capacities and simply keeping in touch. Its not creepy or weird.

I run into old teachers or similar in public (or sometimes social media) and they want to catch up on my life, kids, etc... and hope I am doing well. There is nothing wrong with that. The key, of course, is not being a huge asshole. In contrast to me, I am sure nobody in appalachia gives a single toothed fuck about how well JD Vance did in his venture capital gig on the west coast.

[verochkax]

Anyone who supports an "assault weapons ban" is either dishonest or ignorant. Which is it for Walz?

[Brett Bellmore]

As Glenn Reynolds famously says, "Embrace the healing power of "and"."

[Krayt]

Sounds like typical politician rambling.

[EscherEnigma]

I mean, seeing as he said that right after saying he sat down with Sandy Hook parents, I don't think it's unfairly generous to guess he meant the families/survivors of school shooters.

[Kazinski]

I also want to praise Walz for being very honest about his failings, for instance this answer to a question about an apparent lie or exaggeration:

Governor Walz. You said you were in Hong Kong during the deadly Tiananmen Square protest in the spring of 1989. But Minnesota Public Radio and other media outlets are reporting that you actually didn't travel to Asia until August of that year. Can you explain that discrepancy? You have two minutes.

Walz gets right to the point:

TW: Yeah. Well, and to the folks out there who didn't get at the top of this, look, I grew up in small, rural Nebraska, town of 400. Town that you rode your bike with your buddies till the streetlights come on, and I'm proud of that service.

We are all proud of your service Tim, and I too used to ride my bike with my buddies until even after the streetlights came on, even if it was in the suburbs, and not the wilds of Nebraska.

[Armchair]

'I'm a knucklehead at times': - Walz during the debate.

Exactly what we're looking for in a vice President. A Knucklehead.

[Moderation4ever]

You seem to accept a senile, adjudicated sex abuser, and felon for President. I think a knucklehead for VP is far better than that.

[Frank Drackman]

who has 24 yr old men he says are "Good Friends" of his, lied about serving in Combat, his rank, approved a law mandating Tampons in Boy's restrooms, denying treatment to babies that survive 3rd Trimester Abortions, and you're bringing up some bullshit, piss-ant, "Felony"(I thought it was 34?) that will be thrown further out of court on appeal than a Shohei Ohtani "Tater",
and you might as well call "45" a confirmed Homo Sapiens, your post has more evidence of Senility than anything "45" has done

Frank

[Armchair]

Ah yes, a "felon"....Like Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi.

[SRG2]

No. A felon different from Mandela and Gandhi.

[Moderation4ever]

Thinking felon more like Bernie Madoff or Harvey Weinstein.

[Armchair]

You mean Mandela and Gandhi weren't both persecuted with charges by the government in power, specifically designed to keep them from taking power?

Oh wait...they were. In fact, it's exactly like it is with Trump... charges that "aren't applied" to other people...just Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Why didn't you just go whole hog and compare Trump to Jesus Christ?

[Armchair]

Oh look...Sarcastr0's edging right to blood libel type territory. Again.

[Sarcastr0]

You should stop using that term if you don’t know what it means.

And don't pretend you're offended. No one buys that shit from you.

[David Nieporent]

I'd rather have someone who lied about where he was during the Chinese government's massacre at Tiananmen Square, as Vance's opponent did, than someone who praised the Chinese government's massacre at Tiananmen Square, as Vance's running mate did.

[Krayt]

It's refreshing a politician admits it.

[Drewski]

Legend has it that there was once a guy who wasn't a knucklehead at times, but he got killed then moved to a new neighborhood and nobody's seen him since.

[Michael P]

Some other high points from Walz:

TW: You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. That's the test. That's the Supreme court test.

(Of course, that has never been the Supreme Court test.)

And later in his answer to lying about Tiananmen Square: I've tried to do the best I can, but I've not been perfect. And I'm a knucklehead at times, but it's always been about that.

[Frank Drackman]

Sergeant-Major Pepper-Waltz did to many Oklahoma Drills without his Helmet

[Kazinski]

The other ridiculous thing is him even saying he was in Hong Kong when Tiananmen Square happened.

That's like saying he was in Taiwan or Tokyo, which is thousands of miles away and safely in another country where rights and freedoms are repected and pretending he's in the shit.

[Brett Bellmore]

It actually seems to make sense that he'd be lying about major parts of his life; Harris is used to that sort of thing, having spent so much time around Biden, who was the same way. So it probably didn't strike her as unusual or disqualifying.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Damn it, "fire in a crowded theater" had a very different meaning in 1924 than today.

Back then, movie film was made out of nitrocellulose, also known as "gun cotton" and it was explosive and flammable -- unlike the "safety film" made from rayon that we used before digital. There were no fire alarms or smoke detectors or sprinkler systems or modern fire trucks -- the alarm WAS people shouting 'fire."

[Brett Bellmore]

And it was still "falsely cry fire in a crowded theater"; If there was a fire, you were in the clear.

The issue at the time was that theaters weren't just fire traps, they were fire traps. They had inadequate emergency exits, if you provoked a panic people would get hurt, maybe die, trying to get out.

So FALSELY crying fire in a crowded theater was subject to an exception similar to fighting words.

But even in the case where the Court used the phrase, the situation wasn't remotely similar to an actual theater. It was just an excuse for censorship, then and now.

But, geeze, at least don't forget the "falsely"!

[David Nieporent]

Actually, it was "falsely cry 'fire' in a theatre and causing a panic." The word "crowded" was not in the opinion, and the implication was that the person could be punished for causing harm by saying it, not merely for saying it.

Of course, the whole thing was a bad analogy for opposing the draft, and it has been repudiated as an opinion anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

Right - the main thing of the phrase now is that it betrays that those who use it aren't really up on free speech stuff.

It wasn't a good analogy then, it's rarely a good analogy now, and has a history of being deployed to excuse impositions on freedom of speech. But it's also evocative even to plenty with a legal education (I didn't learn the specifics of the phrase until I took First Amendment law, not the 1L Constitutional law)

[David Nieporent]

As Ken White has pointed out, the argument as employed today is utterly empty; translated, all it says is "There are some limits on free speech." Now, that claim is true, but it tells us absolutely nothing about what those limits are or how to decide whether the thing someone is trying to censor falls inside or outside the, so it's useless. The person saying that never explains how the thing he wants to ban is analogous to the yell of 'fire.' (To be fair, Holmes didn't, either.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

What bothered me the most about the debate was the open bias.

For example, Jan 6th was the worst attack on the US Capitol since 1814? Bullshyte. How about the PR Nationalists who shot five Congressmen -- actually put bullets into five Congressmen, nearly killing one? (They also killed a cop in an attempt to kill then-President Truman.)

Or the bombs that have actually gone "bang" inside the building -- the Weathermen in the '70s, some other A-Holes in the '80s -- you know, bombs can kill people who are standing near them...

Anyway, school shooters are statistically as common as being hit by lightning, yet we aren't building Fariday Cages in our backyards.

A school shooting -- while horrific -- has a death toll of 16, this past hurricane has a death toll of 160 (so far, and it will rise). And how many hurricane drills do we do? And those children are just as dead...

And hurricanes are as common as school shootings...

[windycityattorney]

Just so were clear; you are evaluating 'worst attack on the capitol" and your comparison points are school shootings not at the capitol and hurricanes also not at the capitol?

Interesting choice. It is somewhat surprising that you can actually spell words and type at all. Your medical team must be so proud of you.

[Drewski]

"Sometimes people die so there's no point in outlawing murder." - Dr. Ed 2 (paraphrased)

[Brett Bellmore]

More like, why the hell are you proposing to go to great (And destructive to civil liberties!) lengths to make the safest place for children infinitesimally safer, rather than saving many more lives by cheaper interventions that don't impact civil liberties?

Well, we know why: Destroying the civil liberty is the goal, any lives hypothetically saved are just an excuse.

[Sarcastr0]

Destroying the civil liberty is the goal, any lives hypothetically saved are just an excuse.

What kind of twisted person reaches this conclusion?

No, Brett, people are sincerely mad about kids getting shot and killed.

They are not making it up so they can destroy your liberty.

I know it's hard for you to disagree with someone and think they're coming in good faith, but look where it has put you - demonizing people mad at dead kids.

How's that going for you?

[Brett Bellmore]

The kind of untwisted person who notices you've picked an utterly ineffectual way to 'save lives' that just sort of incidentally damages a civil liberty you don't like, instead of doing something more effective at saving lives, and that doesn't attack civil liberties.

It's like if you break the speed limit to get to the hospital, but you deliberately pick a distant hospital to speed to, instead of the one right in front of you, it's just an excuse to speed. And nobody's going to buy it when you complain that they just want to to reach the hospital too late.

[Sarcastr0]

Your take is it's ineffectual. That's debatable, but you've never thought anyone disagreed with you in good faith in your life.

So the usual thing is to think people are wrong, Not that they're plotting against you.

Did you notice how your take on the Constitution, and the state of the law, and the best policies, are all way over on one side?
What are the odds they all align like that?

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw - The Nation has a bizarre take on the debate

"Tim Walz’s Long Game Will Pay Off"
"JD Vance is a skillful liar, but the vice-presidential debate produced enough bad clips to damage Trump’s campaign."

Walz is a pathological liar and not a very good one as compared to Clinton. Strangely, the Nation could not point to a single lie told by Vance while accusing him of lies, yet nary a mention of the multitude of lies told by walz.

[santamonica811]

Joe,
Is it your point that Vance did not lie (either directly or by omission) during the debate? That would be a bizarre take on what he really said.

I was on the phone with clients during much of the debate, so I saw only about 15 minutes (split between the two candidates). I heard Vance say that Trump saved the ACA (ObamaCare). You and I would agree that that is a bald-faced lie. Trump did absolutely nothing to "save" it. He tried REPEATEDLY to kill it, and came within *One Fucking Vote* in the Senate of actually succeeding in destroying the ACA.

Vance could have said, "ObamaCare is bad for X, Y, Z reasons, and here's why it's a good thing that Trump tried to end it." Nope, you got the massive whopper that Trump did a great job of preserving it. (Which also ignores the other things Trump did to hurt ObamaCare as much as possible, like decimating the advertising and outreach for the ACA.)

Vance tried to emphasize how great Trump was for peacefully transferring power on Jan 20. Untrue, but probably not a full-on lie (if you ignore Trump's "I'm a fucking pussy and a fucking baby" move to not show up at Biden's swearing in, as every departing president has done during my lifetime.

But to specify Jan 20 as the only date to look at, while asking all of America to ignore what happened on Jan 6 . . . um, you gotta admire the size of the balls on Vance. Not a lie, but an attempt to be massively and intentionally deceptive.

I wonder how you would react to Harris and Walz using the Vance Technique (trademark!!) in response to questions.
Reporter: "VP Harris, tell us why illegal border crossings went way up until earlier this this.
Harris: 'We're looking forward, not backwards.'
Reporter: "Gov. Walz, why did you suggest in statements that you had done military service in active hostile locations?
Walz: 'I'm looking forward, not backwards.'

I think you'd be annoyed (at best) or outraged (more likely) at such pathetic avoidance of pretty straightforward questions.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"You and I would agree that that is a bald-faced lie."

Have you met the pathological liar known as Joe_dallas? He's been caught blatantly distorting news stories to fit his partisan agenda multiple times, and not once has he ever acknowledged being caught red-handed doing so, or suggested any kind of remorse over it.

Perhaps you haven't noticed yet, but you are one of the only Republicans around here anymore that has any sense of morality.

[David Nieporent]

Is it your point that Vance did not lie (either directly or by omission) during the debate? That would be a bizarre take on what he really said.

How about the fact that Vance doesn't actually know who the president of the United States is?

Vance: "But when did Iran and Hamas and their proxies attack Israel? It was during the administration of Kamala Harris."

During the what now?

Vance: "The only thing that she did when she became the Vice President, when she became the appointed border czar, was to undo 94 Donald Trump executive actions that opened the border."

Who did what, exactly? Do Vice Presidents get to undo executive orders?

[Stephen Lathrop]

During the debate, I kept hoping for Walz to ask Vance if he were elected vice-president, what would he do first on day 1 to implement his agenda.

[not guilty]

In the D.C. prosecution of Donald Trump the Special Counsel's initial brief filed on September 26 has now been made public with redaction of names of various persons. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.252.0_1.pdf It is quite an impressive piece of work.

This filing indicates the wisdom of the decision to seek a superseding indictment in the wake of the SCOTUS decision in Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___, 144 S. Ct. 2312 (2024). The brief hews closely to the distinction between when Trump was acting in his official capacity or instead was acting “in his capacity as a candidate for re-election.” Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1, 17 (D.C. Cir. 2023). Where Trump was acting “as office-seeker, not office-holder,” no immunity attaches. Id. (Italics in original).

Trump is now seeking extension of the deadline to file his response until November 21, 2024, after the presidential election. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.253.0_1.pdf The response is currently due by October 17, 2024, with the Special Counsel’s reply due
October 29, 2024.

Is anyone surprised that Trump is running away like a scalded dog from giving an account for his conduct? It seems to me that an innocent defendant would welcome the opportunity to tell his side of the story sooner rather than later.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not even Shady Vance would want to pick up that gauntlet.

[Krayt]

Didn’t Dershowitz stand on the floor of the Senate and document Lincoln sending troops back to vote for him so he could win, under the idea that he needed to win to continue successful prosecution of the Civil War?

That always seemed strained, but if it’s accepted…

[Stephen Lathrop]

A nuance—neither Lincoln nor anyone else knew in advance how the troops would vote. Democrats were on record that the troops would vote against Lincoln. Lincoln himself was intermittently pessimistic. It went the other way, including Lincoln among those surprised.

[Frank Drackman]

So if you’re not guilty just talk to the Cops? So was it Count Chockula, Frank N’ Berry? or maybe Trix? You know, where you got your Law Degree

[Riva]

As sickening as it is to see the gleeful political use the media and Harris are making of this lawfare abuse. The same media that fell over themselves to censor factually true accounts of Hunter Biden’s laptop. It is all the more disgusting to see those who profess legal backgrounds to join in on this perversion of the law for politics. Gross election interference on display and some legal professionals do nothing but cheer. Shameful.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"It seems to me that an innocent defendant would welcome the opportunity to tell his side of the story sooner rather than later."

The Klu Klux Klan had a similar attitude when they were lynching Black men 70 years ago.

[Riva]

[Josh R]

Commenter_XY had predicted Harris would fall in the polls as Americans were increasingly exposed to her. But, that hasn’t happened. The polls have been stable since the presidential debate, indicating a tossup.

[Kazinski]

Well he did win his bet didn't he?

Or are you saying he wouldn't have covered the spread if he took the points?

[Josh R]

Our bet was whether Harris would go down in the polls leading up to the debate (I lost, she dropped about 1%-point). We made no further bets, but he said she will continue to drop (after she gained after the debate).

[Frank Drackman]

Dropping 1 point isn’t “Going Down”? and isn’t Cums-a-lot’s natural state of nature “Going Down”??? Still don’t get the relevance of polling the National vote, doesn’t matter or we’d have Presidential Libraries for AlGore and Hillary Rodman

[Reallynotbob]

Polling the national vote is helpful to illustrate how anti-democratic the electoral college has become.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't really expect her to drop much with exposure, for the simple reason that her support isn't support for her. It's actually opposition to Trump.

The Democrats could have run a department store manikin, and it would be polling about as well as Harris right now.

At this point it's been conclusively demonstrated that, actually, you CAN beat something with nothing, if you just put enough effort into demonizing the something. That's one of the reasons I thought Trump was a bad choice this year: They'd have had to start from scratch if we'd switched candidates on them.

[Sarcastr0]

Counterpoint – Biden.

Dems are a fractious lot and not to be generalized about like that,

The GOP though is pretty much unified around Trump the anti-liberal. Only question person to person is if it’s victory at any cost convenience or stupid zealotry that drives them,

[Z Crazy]

Another counterpoint is that poll of Teamsters members taken just last week.

How can the race be a tossup if Harris is losing ground relative to Brandon among Democratic-leaning constituencies like Teamsters members?

Also see here.

https://x.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1840775213274763665

[David Nieporent]

How can the race be a tossup if Harris is losing ground relative to Brandon among Democratic-leaning constituencies like Teamsters members?

Who said she is? You know that the thing the Teamsters president cited was just an informal survey, not a scientific poll, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, apparently having dementia is actually worse than being a department store manikin, but if you look at the polls, it wasn't much worse.

Trump has a cast iron ceiling, which translates to a floor for whoever his opponent is.

"Only question person to person is if it’s victory at any cost convenience or stupid zealotry that drives them,"

It's the impulse to rally behind somebody on your own side you see being unfairly persecuted. I think without all the lawfare Trump might have retired, and the COP nominated DeSantis; DeSantis was gaining on him until Bragg announced the indictment.

[Z Crazy]

The cast iron ceiling was raised.

A majority of Teamsters voted for Brandon in 2020.

[Sarcastr0]

Dementia is not established, you know this. And I see even trying to save yourself with refuge in making things up you concede my point.
Before you ignore that concession and bull on repeating yourself.

More and more you're doing the Riva talking points thing and not even pretending to engage.

Trump has a cast iron ceiling, which translates to a floor for whoever his opponent is.
Literally the opposite of a reality *that you yourself demonstrate*

You declare often that Dems are so bad you would never, ever, vote for anyone but the GOP nominee. And also Trump is innocent of everything ever.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, it's true that Biden hasn't been subject to an autopsy yet. And that's about the only way dementia hasn't been established at this point.

You don't get that sort of angry refusal to take a cognitive assessment in people who aren't aware on some level something is wrong. People who don't think they have dementia just laugh at the demand, they don't get mad about it.

[Sarcastr0]

Fill in the blanks with your wishes like you do.

That's really a side show.
The point is that both you and Biden counterexamples to your 'Dems are the party that is unified in negative partisanship' thesis.

[John F. Carr]

“The Democrats could have run a department store manikin”

That was Biden in 2020. Biden in 2024 is not even up to the standards of a simulacrum.

[Frank Drackman]

That Zombie in the opening scene of "Night of the Living Dead" wasn't as stiff.

[verochkax]

If that's the case, why was Trump doing so much better than Biden before he dropped out? Sure, he was senile, but he was not Trump.

[David Nieporent]

I didn’t really expect her to drop much with exposure, for the simple reason that her support isn’t support for her. It’s actually opposition to Trump.

The Democrats could have run a department store manikin, and it would be polling about as well as Harris right now.

But we know that's not true, because Harris is polling much better than Biden was before he withdrew from the race.

[Michael P]

Robert Reich disagree with you about the polls: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/01/trump-gaining-on-harris-polls-theories

Polymarket also shows Trump with a very slight lead, improving on his recent position.

[Z Crazy]

I'ts hard to imagine Harris losing ground among Democratic constitutencies while at the same time gaining ground among Republican constituencies.

[Frank Drackman]

You know how many MI, WI, PA truck drivers are Dick Chaney fans. And anyone who's actually served in the military knows that the Generals/Admirals are the biggest Cock Suckers of all, that's how they get to be Generals/Admirals, almost as bad are the Senior Career Enlisted, which is what Sergeant-Major Pepper was, JD was a one enlistment Marine, who have the lowest re-enlistment rate (by design, they also have the largest proportion of E3 and below) who actually did serve in Combat.
Seriously, if Hulk Hogan switches his support to Cums-a-lot, then I'll worry about endorsements

Frank

[Joe_dallas]

MP - one observation on the polls in the battle ground states is where there is also a Senate race or a governor race, the Dem candidate in the undercard race is polling 4-5 points better than kamala. Its rare that the final vote will have that large of a difference between the Presidential race and the undercard races. Based on the above, my speculation is kamala is doing better than the polls indicate in the battleground states.

[Frank Drackman]

Which is 5-6% worse than Cadaverous Joe was doing in 2020(That's her problem, she comes out of her coffin too often) And seeing how Cadaverous Joe won every swing state by only a few points at most, (you'd think after 16' and 20' the Polls would have about as much credibility as Dick Chaney accusing "45" of being "unfit") But hey, She'll carry Minn-a-Sod-a (Will she? and even if she does, pretty gutless of her to give in to her Moose-lum supporters and Blackball Shapiro)

Frank

[verochkax]

Assuming your premise is true, isn't it just as likely that the Dem undercard is doing worse?

[Joe_dallas]

vero - possible that the Dem undercard is doing worse than the polling would indicate, though the undercard is polling better in all the battleground states.

[Lee Stillman]

When the top of the ticket is doing poorly, the voters who would support the undercard but not the main event tend to just stay home and note vote at all. This results in the winning candidate having coattails.

[Joe_dallas]

Lee , Kaz , Vero - all your points are valid, just my observation that there is a large spread between the top of the ticket and the undercard.

[Kazinski]

No, its not that rare to have wide spreads between the under card and the top of the ticket. Especially when the undercard is an incumbent.

It also illustrates how unpopular Kamala Harris was until suddenly she's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[Nelson]

I would be stunned if most people planning to vote for Harris thinks she's great. They just know Trump's awful.

[Josh R]

Riech bases his claim on one pollster. Across all, the race is stable.

Polymarket also shows a stable race (Harris and Trump stable between 48% amd 52%).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Polls really mean nothing today.

*I* am not going to tell some random stranger (who isn't going to get my phone number anyway) that I'm voting for Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, I expect the orderlies all know already.

[verochkax]

A knee slapper!

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Orderlies", Gaslighto?

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R...VP Harris is falling in the polls, just not outside MoE (yet). 🙂

I believe VP Harris has now lost PA, but gained NC. I maintain the election will come down to AZ, GA and WI; those three states specifically (I have said this for some time). There are idiosyncratic issues to each state making it a wild card.

The stats are that it is a tied race.

The election is VP Harris' to lose. The more she talks, the more votes she loses.

[KBeckman]

I wish the nationalists would stop pretending to be anything related to liberty.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2006/12/libertarianism-one-country-john-derbyshire/

[Michael P]

Can Kamala Harris pick them, or what?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13898791/Kamala-Harris-husband-Doug-Emhoff-accused-ex-girlfriend-slap.html

[Frank Drackman]

You should have seen the guy she didn't marry, Doug's cousin, Jack Mehoff

[David Nieporent]

That's nothing; did you hear that Harris's opponent raped a woman?

[Reallynotbob]

I heard there were girls, too. Is that true?

[not guilty]

Judge Aileen Cannon has put the trial of Ryan Wesley Routh on a fast track, setting the jury trial to begin to begin at Fort Pierce during the two-week period commencing November 18, 2024. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.675703/gov.uscourts.flsd.675703.29.0.pdf

Isn't that peculiar?

[John F. Carr]

The Speedy Trial Act says 70 days from criminal complaint or arraignment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't it defense motions that cause trial delays -- i.e. either outright motions or appeals of rulings or other stuff?

IANAA but as I understand it, the speedy trial act applies to the government -- the DEFENSE can extend that if IT wants to, but the government can't.

And isn't there a very different set of facts between a convicted felon caught with a gun with a defaced serial number and whatever they are trying to charge Trump with?

[John F. Carr]

The Speedy Trial Act does not ordinarily result in speedy trials. If the defendant files a motion the clock stops. It can stop for other reasons too. The real timing of the trial is up to the judge as long as she makes proper findings on the record to excuse delay. She does have to pretend that the 70 day rule exists.

[Drewski]

Most defendants waive their speedy trial rights regardless. But yeah, delays from the state or court usually count against the clock and delays from the defense or circumstance do not.

[Frank Drackman]

Leon F. Czolgosz was executed 53 days after assassinating President McKinley, The Lincoln Conspirators were hanged less than 3 months after the assassination, Giuseppe Zangara was electrocuted 33 days after shooting at FDR (and killing Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak instead) what’s taking them so long?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Isn’t that peculiar?

No, it’s not peculiar at all: in fact, I’d guess she enters a similar order in every criminal case. You can see an example of one in case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC, ECF no. 28.

[John F. Carr]

The UK has agreed to give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius on the condition that the US and UK keep the military base on Diego Garcia. Several toothless international organizations had demanded this act. Negotiations went on for years under the Tory government. It is not clear if the Labour government made new concessions to get the deal done or if the timing is coincidental.

Possibly this means the refugees imprisoned on Diego Garcia will become somebody else's problem.

The agreement will be formalized in a treaty.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

See also, "The Last Colony: A Tale of Exile, Justice and Courage," by Philippe Sands.

[Armchair]

In other news, JD Vance backed up his points in the debate that immigration...like the "illegal" immigration that Biden-Harris are allowing....drives up housing costs as well as state and local government spending, in excess of any additional revenue gains.

https://x.com/JDVance/status/1841338117506109762

I like a politician who has such a firm grasp of facts.

[Frank Drackman]

Me to

[Sarcastr0]

A moment's thought about socioeconomic class might lead you to realize this is nonsense.
That claim has been debunked by economists and housing experts, who say that other forces have played a much bigger role in driving up prices and that illegal immigration is not a top reason prices are high. Immigration may be helping to keep rents elevated in some areas, though.
...
housing options for new immigrants, including many undocumented workers in lower-wage jobs, are often distinct from the broader market that native-born workers deal with. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, noted that many new immigrants come to the United States with few financial resources and little income. They often double- or triple-up with friends or family in a single home. They are also far less likely to be able to buy a home, which can require a sizable down payment and enough credit history to get a mortgage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/02/vance-immigration-housing/

Apart from the housing economy not working like that, why did you put illegal in quotes?

Increasingly, the fig leaf of 'my nativism is only about illegal immigrants' is wearing thin.

[Armchair]

Hmm... who you gonna trust?

The non-peer reviewed Washington Post, or the peer reviewed scientific literature that Vance cites.

Well, the Post would NEVER lie.

[Sarcastr0]

I provided an argument. I cited the WaPo not to lean on it's authority, but because I took it from them.

And peer review doesn't work like that; don't cargo cult peer review so you can appeal to authority.

A peer reviewed paper is the second hand on the clock of scientific progress; it's not nothing, but by itself it tells you little. Hold out for the survey papers and longitudinal studies.

[Armchair]

And watch Sarcastr0 conveniently throw the peer reviewed scientific literature under the bus when convenient.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sadly, peer review is a joke -- look at the lies we were told during COVID.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And Gaslight0 has just conceded that Global Warming is a hoax.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, no survey papers or longitudinal studies there.

[Michael P]

The Washington Post's argument -- which you adopted -- is that Vance is wrong because technically he's right but "illegal immigration is not a top reason prices are high" (for some unspecified definition of "top") and apparently we can only deal with one cause at a time.

Is that really the best you have?

[Sarcastr0]

LOL pedantry.

‘Well he’s technically correct, even if the result is attenuated by rending and multiple people per house. And countered by the rise in housing supply from the growth in the labor pool. And swamped by a number of other factors.’

Actually, that counts as wrong in anything that has to do with the real world.

[Ed Grinberg]

why did you put illegal in quotes?
Increasingly, the fig leaf of ‘my nativism is only about illegal immigrants’ is wearing thin.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nearly-530000-migrants-came-us-legally-paroled-us-under-controversial-biden-program-cbp
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/09/21/msnbcs-ruhle-dems-cant-just-dismiss-springfield-issue-by-saying-theyre-here-legally/

[verochkax]

I'll come out and say it. I don't care about legal versus illegal. I care about a combination of skills, education and race, the last of which is directly correlated with ability to assimilate.

[Brett Bellmore]

I care about that AND legal vs illegal, because you can't VET illegal immigrants. Instead they're sort of anti-vetted: The one thing you know for sure of them is that they're willing to violate your laws.

But, yeah, the whole idea that you can solve illegal immigration by just legalizing all immigration is like thinking you solve bank robbery by having banks just hand money to anybody who asked for it, whether or not they have any on deposit. It ignores WHY you want to have an immigration policy!

[verochkax]

You're right, I shouldn't have said I don't care about illegal versus legal.

But I'm much less concerned if a rich German tourist overstays his visa than I am if a Libyan or Venezuelan "migrant" does.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm less concerned about people who over-stay visas, than about people who never had 'em to begin with, because the former have at least been subject to SOME sort of review. A member of Badder-Meinhof wouldn't be able to get a tourist visa, but they'd still be capable of walking across an monitored border.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Everyone already knew you were a racist piece of shit, but thank you for stating anyway.

[verochkax]

There's nothing racist about caring about your national identity and peoplehood.

[Kazinski]

I guess you missed that these are two additional studies he cited.

The first was from the Fed. Sure there are always dueling peer reviewed papers, especially in the dismal.science, but think a federal reserve study should break the tie.

Sarcastro schools the Fed on the economy:
"Apart from the housing economy not working like that..."

I'll tell you how the housing economy works, on supply and demand like everything else does, and letting in 10 million "migrants" when the housing supply is already constrained definitely will increase the demand, and increase prices, especially at the lower end of the market.

Then of course interest rates also increase prices in all segments of the market, and that was the Biden-Harris administrations fault too.

[Bwaaah]

"I’ll tell you how the housing economy works, on supply and demand like everything else does, and letting in 10 million “migrants” when the housing supply is already constrained definitely will increase the demand, and increase prices, especially at the lower end of the market."

So you're going with obviously sound basics of economics to explain housing price trends instead of Gaslight0's obfuscated machinations intended to marginalize the significance of basic economics?

I'm with you.

[Bwaaah]

Correction: Sarc's not trying to marginalize the significance of basic economics. He's just trying to promote continued tolerance of an incompetent, out-of-control immigration system.

Maybe if Trump would just declare himself to be in favor of an open, uncontrolled border, Democrats could find a slightly more intelligent immigration policy?

[Sarcastr0]

Don't make assumptions. I don't like our immigration system either.

I just don't think immigrants are anything but a marginal driver of housing prices, under any timeline.

And most economists agree with me.

[Armchair]

"And most economists agree with me."

Evidence not presented (and won't be, knowing Sarcastr0)

[Kazinski]

No most economists do not agree with you.

"If all the economists were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion."

- George Bernard Shaw

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes the two most common knee-jerk right-wing answers.

'You presented no sources (I will neglect your reply to my OP 11 hours ago that says "That claim has been debunked by economists and housing experts")'

And 'the experts are all shit. I studied it out for myself.'

Way to go you two.

[Kazinski]

I hardly said the experts are all shit, I said the experts will never all reach a concensus (conclusion).

I hope thats not controversial, its a fact.

[BrotherMovesOn]

The fact that "the experts will never all not reach a consensus (conclusion)"
doesn't help us much; of course there are always doctrinaire disagreements amongst experts. The notions of tactical trade wars/tariffs/protectionism (for internal political gain) are antithetical to modern economic theory.
They are sand in the gears for economic growth.
Your concerns are misplaced.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Given the evidence cited in Jack Smith’s just-released brief—assume allegations about Trump’s activities to mobilize, promote, and direct violence on J6 are proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and Trump is found guilty:

Question 1: Should Trump be sentenced to prison, and, if so, for how long?;

Question 2. A different defendant with Trump’s record of attempt’s to incite violence, not only against those involved in the election process, but also contemptuously to intimidate participants in the legal process, would arguably not be left at liberty to do it again while awaiting trial. In the interest only of judicial impartiality—and disregarding all political considerations—should judge Chutkan jail Trump now?;

Question 3. Does anyone suppose that this Supreme Court majority will permit legal process against Trump to continue without further meddling from the Court?

[Z Crazy]

I'm aware of the allegations that he conspired to commit perjury and forgery.

What exactly is he alleged to have done to cause the riot?

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's the allegations. (I'm puzzled at the redactions, most of which seem utterly pointless.)

"and when all else had failed, on January 6, 2021, directing an angry crowd of supporters to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification."

If that could be proven, I'm curious why Smith hasn't secured an indictment for insurrection. I can't actually find anything plausibly backing up this allegation, especially in light of the fact that we know the break in was actually pre-planned by the Proud Boys, not a spontaneous result of Trump's speech on the Mall, which Smith tries to turn into legal incitement. And if you look at the timeline, the assault on the Capitol began while Trump was still speaking at the Mall.

[Z Crazy]

The pipe bombs were planted well before the speech.

Things'd be a lot different now if there was even a semi-plausible link between Trump and the pipe bomber.

Besides, it doesn;t look like directing an angry crowd of supporters to protest a certification is a crime, nor could be a crime.

That's why smith should've narrowed the indictment to the forgery and perjury conspiracy charges, since he hasn't found the pipe bomber yet.

[Kazinski]

What's crazy about the pipe bomb (and it wasn't a bombing, because it couldn't, and didn't go off), is the FBI has destroyed the video of the person that planted the bomb, they degraded the video they did release before they released it and the DNC won't say if they still have and won't release their original video if they do.

https://revolver.news/2024/09/fbi-letter-to-dhs-ig-confirms-agency-deleted-j6-pipe-bomb-footage-by-early-march-2022/

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, lots of things are crazy about the pipe bombs. The timers using kitchen timers, alligator clips, and paperclips? No sign of any battery, even! Even if those things were actually capable of exploding, they'd have to have been set to do so a very short time before hand. I personally think they were just bad props. Maybe the sort of thing FBI informant/provocateurs teach idiots to build, to make sure nobody gets hurt. But probably just props never intended to explode, just to be reported at the right moment to distract Capitol police.

[Sarcastr0]

b. Tweets
i. Tweets, as candidate, casting doubt on election integrity
ii. Tweets making false claims of election fraud.
iii. Tweets and re-Tweets attacking those speaking truth about the election
iv. Tweets exhorting individuals to travel to Washington DC for the Save America Rally
v. Tweets regarding Pence's role in January 06

2.b. The defendant's use of Twitter and television on January 06.

[Brett Bellmore]

None of which legally constitutes incitement, so why is that accusation in a legal document? It's insertion makes the filing look more like a partisan PR release.

[Sarcastr0]

Is anyone charging Trump with incitement?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, so why is Smith accusing him of it in a court filing?

[Sarcastr0]

Is he?

[Brett Bellmore]

I literally quoted him from the court filing doing that, so stop playing dumb, people might start thinking it's not a pretense.

[Sarcastr0]

'directing an angry crowd of supporters to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification' is factual.

Does it legally reach incitement?
As you note, it's a high bar.

And not one you need to bother with either.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's not goddam factual. If he could actually be proven to have done anything of the sort, he could have been prosecuted for it.

[Sarcastr0]

He is.

Just not for incitement.

Which I am not sure the facts support.

They do support other crimes. (Trial pending of course)

This is not hard, and has been explained to you many times.

[Kazinski]

Well the technical term for someone accused of a crime but not charged is "innocent".

[Sarcastr0]

As the practitioners on here point out all the time, that's just not true, except as a pure matter of law.

That is not how common parlance works - people get to make their own evaluation based on the facts presented.

[Frank Drackman]

Since we’re going all Legal-like, I’ll respond to your imbecility Seriatim (that means, in order)
i. What Erection “Integrity”?
ii. “False” is doing alot of work there
iii. since you don’t say what Statute was violated I know there wasn’t one
iv. Ibid
v. Pence’s “Role” I have a doormat that hasn’t been stepped on as much
2.b. Oh, where he encouraged everyone to be peaceful?

you left out where 45 “Said McCain wasn’t a hero", when in fact, he said the exact opposite
You know how I know you know you know you’re gonna lose, you’re fixated on this January 6th Bullshit,

Frank

[Michael Ejercito]

These describe conduct protected by the First Amendment.

[Sarcastr0]

Only if conspiracy to defraud is so protected.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can't turn a campaign speech into illegal conduct just by alleging a conspiracy to defraud.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course you also need to prove the conspiracy in addition to the overt act.

As you well know. But yet again neglected to note.

Even if you disagree with something, if you're arguing what the law and facts are, you can't pretend it doesn't exist.

[Michael Ejercito]

Fraud has never been interpreted to include lying for political gain.

[Sarcastr0]

" The fraud covered by the statute reaches any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful functions of any department of Government by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.

The scheme may be designed to deprive the United States of money or property, but it need not be so; a plot calculated to frustrate the functions of a governmental entity will suffice"

(Obstruction of Congress: An Abridged Overview of Federal Criminal Laws Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities
Updated November 5, 2010)
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22784

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not obstructing the function of Congress to politically intimidate members of Congress to vote in a particular way. That's just politics.

This is, in fact, WHY he's accusing trump of inciting a physical attack. You can encourage people to protest in front of Congress all day long, and it can't be a predicate act of the sort he wants.

But the fact remains that if he had any evidence that Trump had, legally, incited that attack, he'd be charging Trump with that, not conspiracy.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, Brett.
It’s all fiction, if you don’t want to believe it.

Except the stuff you do want to believe, and then all speculation is true.

You're not making an argument, you're weaving a tale.

[not guilty]

“If that could be proven, I’m curious why Smith hasn’t secured an indictment for insurrection.”

Donald Trump is charged with four felonies, three of which carry penalties equivalent to or harsher than insurrection or rebellion under 18 U.S.C. § 2383. Trump’s ginning up outrage in the crowd on the Ellipse is a small part of a larger mosaic of corruption, but charging it as a stand alone offense would inject additional issues before the jury, and for no good reason.

[David Nieporent]

especially in light of the fact that we know the break in was actually pre-planned by the Proud Boys, not a spontaneous result of Trump’s speech on the Mall,

Only Brett could think that Trump's allies attacking the Capitol just as he wanted them to somehow exonerates Trump.

[Frank Drackman]

Pleeze doan' trow ole foaty-five in dee Briar Pay-atch Massah! I'm more into the Medieval School of Justice, I'll settle for Jack Smith, Merrick Garfield, and Alvin Brag (you think Eric Edams has done some shit?) being Hung, Drawn, and Quartered, their entrails shown to them, and then I'd really get serious with the torture.

Frank

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bad edit. "attempts," not "attempt's."

[Z Crazy]

Was Trump even accused of sending hired thugs to intimidate witnesses?

[Frank Drackman]

Even if he did "45" is a amateur compared to Hillary Rodman, lets see, Vince Foster, Edward Willey (Kathleen's husband), Ron Brown, Jim McDougal, JFK Jr (who was planning to run for the Senate seat she eventually "won"), Seth Rich, Jeff Epstein, Kobe Bryant were way more than "Intimidated"

[EscherEnigma]

In order for him to be found guilty, he has to not be president (if he gets elected, charges will be dropped on day 1 even before his revenge tour starts).

So let's assume Harris has been elected. I'm going to posit that she would very carefully stay out of things until after sentencing. And if the sentence involves jail time, then she would use her presidential powers to let him live out his sentence at his resort in Florida. The legalities may be muddled, and there may be some talk about the difficulty of providing Secret Service protection in a prison, but the end result will be the same: he gets to live out the remainder of his years in comfort and luxury. Though possibly they may take away his smart phone (but probably not).

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe they could rent him a villa on St. Helena.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why don't the Democrats put their white robes back on and simply lynch him?

[Z Crazy]

I wish one of the moderators in the VP debate mentioned Operation: Ceasefire.

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives/80445/

[Frank Drackman]

I would have liked to see them make out, that's about all they're good for.

[Z Crazy]

Operation: Ceasefire was a government program that actually worked as advertised.

[Brett Bellmore]

It couldn't be mentioned because the NRA favored it.

[Z Crazy]

But it reduced criminal homicides, as mentioned in the article!

[Brett Bellmore]

That's even worse from the perspective of gun controllers: Anything that reduces the homicide rate reduces the pressure to ban guns, after all.

They NEED high homicide rates. The worse the better.

[Michael Ejercito]

For rank-and-file supporters and sympathizers of gun control laws, it is about street crime.

Sadly and tragically, too many of them have compelling reasons to fear street crime.

This is not true among the leadership and spokesholes.

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/10/02/gun-control-more-racial-disparities-than-the-drug-war/

Most socially liberal gun control champions don’t see themselves as pushing policies that would abet racial profiling or worsen the problem of mass incarceration. They see themselves as going after their political enemies—socially conservative white men in red states. And it may in fact be possible to craft narrow gun policies—like requiring more background checks at gun shows—that would mostly affect people in this demographic. But few intelligent observers are under any illusions that this type of symbolic half-measure on gun control would meaningfully cut into America’s gun violence statistics. Meaningfully reducing gun violence in a nation with 300 million guns would probably require the type of confiscatory gun regulations enacted in Australia and some European countries. And the mechanics of enacting such policies could well contradict the vision for police and prison reform that has been gaining momentum on the left and right alike over the past year.

[verochkax]

That's exactly right. They support these laws because white, conservative men oppose them. It's that simple. That's why, for example, they support stupid bans on "assault weapons." They know it pisses us off, and that's enough reason to do it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

LOL.

Even allowing for the expanded definition of 'man' and 'woman' that the left likes to put forth, you still aren't anywhere close to being a man.

You are racist slime that should be scraped off America's boots.

[verochkax]

Do you let your BF finish in you?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I’m not going to support your desire to live vicariously through others. You’ll have to earn yourself a boyfriend for that fantasy.

(I’m also not going to date you, sorry.)

Other than the homophobic insults and racism with which Eugene takes no umbrage, great retort!

[Michael P]

The DHS OIG has issued a report that basically confirms what Republicans have been saying about the Harris-Biden administration's lack of border security: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2024-10/OIG-24-65-Sep24-Redacted.pdf

Title: "CBP, ICE, and TSA Did Not Fully Assess Risks Associated
with Releasing Noncitizens without Identification into
the United States and Allowing Them to Travel on
Domestic Flights (REDACTED)"

[Moderation4ever]

I noted that the people where subject to additional security checks to determine they were not a threat. Not sure what the problem is here? I little more worried about a drunk passenger than having a noncitizen in the seat next to me.

[Michael P]

Were those additional checks effective? (Answer: "Under current processes, CBP and ICE cannot ensure they are keeping high-risk noncitizens without identification from entering the country.")

Why do you have trouble understanding why it's problematic to let people enter the country when we don't know who they really are?

The opening paragraph of the report notes that federal law requires such people to be detained, not put on a commercial flight to Middletown USA.

[Michael P]

Besides which, you focused on the "boarding domestic flights" part, and on the most benign aspect of the person sitting next to you. The bigger concern is what a high-risk foreigner does while wandering the country unsupervised, rather than after going through a travel-focused security screening.

Also, why is it easier for these illegal immigrants to board a domestic flight without trustworthy ID than it is for US citizens?

[Moderation4ever]

Where do you get it is easier? These people are going through additional screening, not just be by passed.

[Michael P]

Unless they need to arrive three hours early for an identity verification rigamarole, and risk being turned away if their identity can’t be verified (spoiler: this is all about people whose identity cannot be verified), it is easier: https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification

[Bwaaah]

“These people are going through additional screening”

Additional screening, i.e. verification that they have been identified by CBP as people without verified identities?

That’s good enough for you? Passenger drunkenness is the concern?

That’s some serious sidestepping there. I thought TSA security was intended to provide much more than that.

[EscherEnigma]

What's with all the sudden love for the TSA?

TSA is a joke, security theater, nothing more. What improved plane security since 9/11 is not the TSA screening for nail clippers, but locking cabin doors.

We could do away with TSA and all the "security" at airports tomorrow and I wouldn't feel one bit less safe on board a plane.

[Bwaaah]

Sure. Just lock the cabin door, and let the passenger crew cope with the gunman.

The whole law enforcement enterprise is just a worthless charade, in the air, on the ground, at the border, wherever, eh?

I'm looking for better.

[EscherEnigma]

"Sure. Just lock the cabin door, and let the passenger crew cope with the gunman."
In the case of a terrorist getting into the cabin, that is literally the plan, yes. The lives of the passengers and crew is considered worth not putting the plane itself into terrorist hands, and the possibility of another 9/11.

Complying with terrorist demands, under the logic that the passengers and crew would be safe if you did so, was one of the reasons the 9/11 hijackings worked. Passenger and crew fighting back is one of the reasons the Pentagon was not hit.

And in case of TSA failures since it was created, yes, it has been passenger and crew that have taken down the terrorist.

"The whole law enforcement enterprise is just a worthless charade, in the air, on the ground, at the border, wherever, eh?"
that's a whole other sentence dude.

Seriously, where did this trust in the TSA come from?

[Bwaaah]

I didn't express trust in the TSA. But I suspect their screening processes substantially deter weapons getting onto plains, and being used. I certainly don't recall passenger weapons having been a significantly problem since screening. I give TSA much credit for that, not luck.

I'm not actually trying to defend nor attack the particulars of security practices. But I do defend the presence of security practices, and competent execution of them. So, for example, though I don't defend the so-called No-Fly List, it seems that the inability to properly identify passengers, as described here, would undermine the competent use of the list.

Your allegation of my "sudden love for the TSA" is your own fabrication. If not, I must've missed the memo.

[EscherEnigma]

"I certainly don’t recall passenger weapons having been a significantly problem since screening."
Wasn't a significant problem before the TSA either dude.

And yeah, with the well known incompetence and pointlessness of the TSA, suddenly hiding behind their skirts is something I'm going to mock you for.

[Drewski]

A lot of what the TSA does is worthless but I think the Air Marshals have done more good than harm, despite a handful of scandals.

[Z Crazy]

What's with all these return-to-office mandates?

https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1fuwta2/leaked_whole_foods_ceo_tells_staff_he_wants_to/

It's like a cult or something at this point!

[Armchair]

Those silly CEOs. Wanting their office employees to actually work more efficiently

[Z Crazy]

Is commuting really more efficient?

[Armchair]

This may surprise you, but there are many, many interactions which are more efficient and effective in person, rather than over e-mail/zoom/phone.

This has long been understood.

[Frank Drackman]

I never trust my Urologists Tele-Prostrate Exams, I’m afraid she’ll miss something, I always go in for the in-person version

[Armchair]

That's a good idea.

(Seriously though, in person doctor visits are more effective than tele-medicine. Tele-medicine can't be avoided sometimes, but in person is better for a variety of reasons)

[Brett Bellmore]

You should get the digital exam, they can do that by computer, right? (I got a real laugh over explaining to my wife why guys might object to digital exams.)

[Frank Drackman]

You gotta get a Chick Urologist, who are rare, (not sure why after 4 years of Pre-Med, MCAT, 4 Years of Med Screw-el, USMLE, Docs voluntarily go into a Specialty where you deal with Dicks, Balls, and Ani every day) also rare are Male OB/GYN’s, oh you have the old ones, from the times when it was a 95% male specialty, now the All-XX OB/GYN Residency Programs are the norm (it does allow the Resident’s menstrual cycles to synchronize) Mine’s in her early 40’s, but her Index finger has to be 8 inches long…

[Brett Bellmore]

I HAVE a chick urologist now. But since I had my prostate out over a decade ago, all she does is test my PSA and confirm it's zero.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Productivity is not the sole goal. Work-life balance of employees ain't nothing.
2. Some people, and some office environments, due to the commute time, will be more effective at home.

In my office, I go in 3 days a week. Personally, I'm a lot more productive in the office. Though oddly the quality of my product has a slight edge when I'm at home.
Except the other 2 days are my meeting days, which can happen anywhere.

There are a lot of talented people in my office who would not work for us if they were not remote. It gives is a competitive edge when hiring.

[Armchair]

Unsurprisingly, the employee wants more "life balance" and to be in the office less.

But, the CEOs clearly think differently.

(Oh, and especially meetings are far better in person. Just my opinion, of course. That whole interpersonal interaction thing.).

[OtisAH]

Aww, look at you stepping up to defend the downtrodden and put upon CEO, a position that has all the work-life balance the person desires.

[Sarcastr0]

Some meetings are better in person. But large and 1-on-1's are fine remote.

CEOs are a bad authority to appeal to; they're not smarter because they're rich, and they're too high up to see nuance.

Maximizing productivity can include taking employee satisfaction into account. Both because happier employees work better (and more creatively), and because it'll expand your talent pool come hiring time.

[Jmaie]

I would hate the remote environment if I was a young’un just starting out. From a learning/mentee standpoint and also being recognized for my accomplishments, much more difficult. As a well established employee with long tenure, I think I probably retire if I had to go back to the office full-time.

[Sarcastr0]

Great point.

I have mentorship meetings all the time, and always in person. Usually over food or drink.

[Armchair]

"Usually over food or drink"
Oh Jesus....

[Armchair]

"but 1-on-1’s are fine remote."
Wow.... Just wow,....

"CEOs are a bad authority to appeal to; they’re not smarter because they’re rich, "

It's not because they're "rich" dumbass....it's because they are running the damn companies. They can see the productivity numbers nosedive.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/american-worker-productivity-declining-fastest-181131658.html

[Sarcastr0]

Man those CEOs are doing a shitty job. Dunno why you're listen to them.

[bernard11]

Could we not engage in silly generalizationS?

I'm involved in the management of a 50 or so person software firm. Our developers are all over the country, maybe 20% of our employees are at the home office.

Works just fine. The employees like it - no commute, etc. - we save a barrel on rent, it's easier to recruit, and productivity is at least as good as it was when everyone came in to the office.

Of course that's one small company in one industry with an almost entirely professional staff. Others may have different experiences.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If I have a reservation, it's that I wish the author had paid more attention to the argument that government control and/or funding of education is needed to increase voters' political knowledge. Voter knowledge of government and public policy is a public good that the market is likely to underprovide. This is an important standard rationale for state intervention in education. "

I just wanted to point this out, since that comment seems to have been largely ignored.

Ilya is possibly the only 'libertarian' I have ever encountered in my entire life who thinks government control of schools is a way to INCREASE political knowledge on the part of the electorate. Libertarians of my acquaintance generally think that government run schools are inevitably indoctrination camps, and that government should actually be kept as far from education as humanly possible.

[Armchair]

Ilya's not really a libertarian.

[Sarcastr0]

You have evinced no philosophy other than anti-Democrat since you got here.

Since Prof. Somin has some views that align with Dems and some which do not, of course you're going to attack him.

That you attack him as though you know what a libertarian is just shows your hubris.

[Ed Grinberg]

Your comment is completely substance-free (as usual).
(A substantive response would point to Prof. Somin’s positions that can be fairly described as libertarian. I wonder why you chose to attack Armchair instead…)

[Sarcastr0]

Interesting you didn't go after Armchair's ipse dixit but chose mine instead.

[Bwaaah]

Unsurprisingly, it's your incessantly idiotic remarks, here as almost everywhere, that draws the fire. Did you think you were being singled out for being a Democrat?

[Sarcastr0]

You know me, always claiming to be persecuted for my party affiliation!

You increasingly seem to be on here only to insult your Posting Enemies, and less and less for any kind of substantive engagement. IMO, that is a vice to be resisted.

[Armchair]

Nah, you're persecuted for your antisemitism

[Bwaaah]

"You increasingly seem to be on here only to insult your Posting Enemies"

No. Mainly, just you.

[Sarcastr0]

Helluva thig to admit, that you're just here to be an asshole.

[Bwaaah]

Nope. Each time, it is specifically to address you for the remarks you make. But I don't waste my time pretending they are remarks that are substantively responsive to the people whom you purport to be addressing. They are remarks, but no, they are not substantive. That's what pisses me off.

What's *your* excuse?

[Sarcastr0]

You're wrong.
My comments are engaged, engaging, and enlightened.

Sorry for your bad taste.

Maybe you shouldn't follow me around as much if it makes you so mad.

[Armchair]

"You have evinced no philosophy other than anti-Democrat since you got here."

Nah, Just the other day I was agreeing with Krychek.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/10/01/5-years-in-prison-for-concealing-material-support-to-hamas/?comments=true#comments

[Sarcastr0]

Agreeing with someone who is liberal once does not show that you have a philosophy other than being anti-Democrat.

[Brett Bellmore]

You really ARE determined to make all of your claims unfalsifiable, aren't you?

[Sarcastr0]

You know how you have some crazy theories you keep coming back to, and an idiosycnratic view of the Constitution?

Armchair has none of that.

His posts are always about how Democrats are bad, and sometimes about how Trump (or Vance)'s twitter made a good point.

When he's not calling me an antisemite.

[Bwaaah]

I believe he has accused you of "blood libel."

[Commenter_XY]

That is correct, and Armchair helpfully provided receipts when I called out Gaslight0 for slandering Israel with the false accusation that they were indiscriminately bombing civilians in gaza.

It was a lie, and a blood libel then. It remains a lie and blood libel today.

For Gaslight0, he cannot help himself, he is drawn to anti-Israel posts like a moth to a flame.

[Bwaaah]

"You really ARE determined to make all of your claims unfalsifiable, aren’t you?"

That's just what he's left with after he's exhausted the bits of falsifiable stuff he's got.

You're a reasonable and able discussion warrior, Brett. Don't let up.

[Sarcastr0]

Plenty of libertarians recognize public goods.

How do you think the private market will increase public knowledge?

Neither the demand signal nor the RoI seem aligned with that goal.

Libertarians of my acquaintance generally think that government run schools are inevitably indoctrination camps
As many on here have pointed out, your current camp is not libertarian in any way but choice of appellation.

[Brett Bellmore]

I kind of link the LP is a good place to go for an idea of what libertarians think about something.

From the 2000 platform, for instance:

"We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended. We call for the repeal of the guarantees of tax-funded, government-provided education, which are found in most state constitutions."

You'd have to have practically no acquaintance with libertarian thinking about education AT ALL to think that Somin's position on education was remotely libertarian.

[apedad]

At least you could link to their current platform - not something from 24 years ago.

Libertarians advocate free-market education where parents, teachers, and students, not the government, should make their own choices on education.

One-size-fits-all education, as mandated by the Department of Education, is holding America’s children back.

Every child is different. Every community is different.

Education should be chosen to fit the needs of each child and situation and teachers, parents, and students should be able to make their own choices. They are far better able to assess the needs of a particular child than an agency far off in Washington.

https://www.lp.org/issues/education/

Much different than the, "We advocate the complete separation of education and State," from over two decades ago.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I linked to the LP platform from back when the LP was still somewhat serious and their platform still accurately reflected libertarian thinking.

[bernard11]

You left off the last sentence:

"We are batshit crazy, and operate on the level of a fifteen-year-old."

[David Nieporent]

I kind of link the LP is a good place to go for an idea of what libertarians think about something.

Unless it's immigration, in which case you think that something you misremember from 40 years ago outweighs the party's actual position.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Plenty of libertarians recognize public goods."

Education isn't a pubic good. If you're going to uses these terms, you should learn what they mean.

[Sarcastr0]

Not in the strict economist sense, but I would point you to Prof. Somin's language ('Voter knowledge of government and public policy is a public good that the market is likely to underprovide.')

[Ed Grinberg]

So, let’s see: TIP, Brett, the Libertarian Party (as of 2000) all agree that “education isn’t a pubic good” and “getting government out of higher ed” (I’d add: all ed) is a good idea. On the other hand, you and Prof. Somin think it is a public good. Hmmm… Could it be that Armchair got it exactly right when he said that “Ilya’s not really a libertarian” (and, of course, neither are you)?

[Sarcastr0]

TiP and Brett aren't libertarians. They don't like Prof. Somin because he says all these non-MAGA things.

And now here you are, purity testing for heresy based on the 2000 Libertarian Platform.

[Bwaaah]

“And now here you are, purity testing for heresy based on the 2000 Libertarian Platform.”

Nope. Just drawing a consensus judgement, regarding education policy, based on expressed or implied opinions of TIP, Brett, Libertarian Party, Grinberg, and Armchair’s opinions. Understandably, none of that passes through the Gaslight0 test of Nearly Universal Truth.

[Sarcastr0]

Bwaah’s libertarian brain trust:

TIP,
Brett,
Libertarian Party platform from 2000
Ed Grinberg,
Armchair

Does he know what an absolutely savage point he just made?

[Bwaaah]

Libertarian brain trust? Get your head out of the clouds. They were just the actual viewpoints represented in this thread that oppose your lame argument.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Big government border
2. Big government social media regulation
3. Big government Trump attacking anyone he wants (including our democracy) and being literally above the law
4. Abortion regulation is fine, if it’s at the state level no higher
5. Academic mandates are fine, if they’re at the state level no lower
6. Muscular foreign policy
7. Marriage, but not gay marriage
8. Big use of police and the criminal justice system to maintain law and order
9. You reliably circle the wagons for Republicans and attack Democrats in all events.
10. Redbaiting and approval of McCarthyist tactics.

Economically conservative, socially conservative, lover of the status quo whenever it benefits you but want radical changes where it benefits anyone outside that sphere.

You’re nothing but a conservative with cosmetic concerns about calling yourself that.

[Brett Bellmore]

1. I’m a libertarian nationalist. Which is to say that in a non-libertarian world, I think we need to have border controls in order to have any hope of being libertarian internally. Or maybe “would have to have had, in order to have had any such hope” would be more accurate at this point.
2. Nope. Just ordinary tort law for defamation or breach of contract.
3. Not beneath the law, anyway.
4. Murder regulation at the state level is fine, abortion regulation is just a subset of this.
5. Academic mandates for the government’s own schools, which ideally I think shouldn’t exist, but as long as they do it’s no violation of libertarianism for the government to be in control of its own schools.
6. Huh?
7. Gay marriage by democratic means, not judicial fiat. It’s hardly anti-libertarian to say judges aren’t entitled to redefine words in order to impose their own preferred policies on a country that doesn’t want them.
8. I’m literally in favor of abolishing all victimless crime laws. Laws against rioting are not victimless crime laws.
9. I fail to circle the wagons for Democrats in all events, anyway.
10. Opposition to a totalitarian ideology is hardly contrary to libertarianism.

[Krayt]

Open borders, It’s empirical data. In an economically free country, the more the better. People are his Ultimate Resource.

My beef is those pushing open borders do so to win elections and thus continue regular increases to burdens on that economy. And the Republicans stand against it, instead of making inroads to Latino populations, you know, the way southern state (R) governors and presidential candidates do. But no, a cynical xenophobe currently uses that sentiment, and it latches. Hell, he may not even believe it, and just cynically uses it because it’s known to work historically.

[Brett Bellmore]

Great, and when the US becomes an economically free country again, that might have some relevance for us.

[OtisAH]

“Libertarian nationalist”

So, “clown.”

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2006/12/libertarianism-one-country-john-derbyshire/

[Sarcastr0]

Derbyshire is more known for being a racist than a libertarian.

I mean, there is some overlap, but he's managed to top the first with the second.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, just because his "The Talk" wasn't the same one Barry Husein had in mind? I know people who know BHO more for being a race-ist than anything he did as POTUS (remember how he called Afghanistan the "Good War", and he had the Balls to say Sleepy Joe fucked shit up)

Frank

[OtisAH]

Yeah, see? Like I said. “Clown.”

[Sarcastr0]

Libertarian nationalist fun with labels aside, didja see how many conservative social issues you support, either through double standards or fully deploying the government to enforce?

[Brett Bellmore]

Why would you expect a libertarian to disagree with conservatives about everything?

[Sarcastr0]

My point is you *agree* with conservatives on everything.
Your fidelity is to conservativism, regardless of your label.

To the point that you have a whole conspiracy about the GOP politicians not really being conservative.

That's what a conservative whinges about, not a libertarian.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, really?

Do I agree with conservatives about abolishing victimless crime laws, for instance?

Wikipedia: Right-libertarianism

"Right-libertarianism is the dominant form and better known version of libertarianism in the United States, especially when compared with left-libertarianism."

[Ed Grinberg]

This (what you're trying to explain to him) is really obvious stuff. Like I said: he's either really ignorant ... or is gaslighting.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, such a partisan excluded middle is how a right-winger would see things.

It’s not a very libertarian way to see things, though.

But yes, there is a group of conservatives that would prefer to call themselves libertarians because they are embarrassed.
That doesn't change their utter fidelity to the right in all things in a way that makes them otherwise indistinguishable from full MAGA.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But yes, there is a group of conservatives that would prefer to call themselves libertarians because they are embarrassed."

There are a group of conservative libertarians who are most of the libertarians in this country.

[Sarcastr0]

At best, it's most of the people who call themselves libertarian.

If you're exactly the same as conservatives in every policy position, but wanna call yourself something else, you're still a conservative.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great job shaming him! Everyone knows that in polite company "conservative" = "Nazi"!

Surely he will amend his ways to gain your approval!

[Brett Bellmore]

If you're going to no true Libertarian me, who was active in Libertarian politics for 20 years, and even ran for state Rep, you ought to at least BE a libertarian.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm saying one specific and pretty narrow thing: if your positions are indistinguishable from a conservative, you're a conservative.

[Brett Bellmore]

And how are they indistinguishable from a conservative, when I have long advocated legalizing all victimless crimes? Full restoration of rights to felons after the sentences are served? A legal requirement to make anybody prosecuted for a crime whole if they are not convicted?

They overlap the views of conservatives, that's all.

[Sarcastr0]

I’ve not seen you champion any of those policies but the last one, and then in the context of complaining the judicial system is biased against conservatives.

I don’t know what goes on in your head, but in the end if you don’t say it, hard to argue it counts.
I can tell you as a commenter here (on the VC, not reason) your positions are indistinguishable from a bog-standard conservative.

Right down to your pinched view of rights jurisprudence, with one notable exception.

[OtisAH]

Ah yes, the ol’ “I’m a libertarian because I support legal weed and prostitution, and I only advocate the boot of government be on the necks of the weak and powerless” bit. A classic.

[Ed Grinberg]

OtisAH wrote:

Ah yes, the ol’ “I’m a libertarian because I support legal weed and prostitution, and I only advocate the boot of government be on the necks of the weak and powerless” bit. A classic.

I want "the weak and powerless" held accountable for their actions, just like everyone else. If you're willing to let (some) people riot / steal / rob / assault / rape / murder because they're, supposedly, "weak and powerless," you are not libertarian -- you are a typical "woke" "progressive" (i.e., leftist).

[Sarcastr0]

Ed G...do you call yourself a libertarian?

[David Nieporent]

Do I agree with conservatives about abolishing victimless crime laws, for instance?

Sure. For instance, immigration laws.

[Roger S]

No country can be Libertarian with open borders. So advocating open borders is a way to destroy Libertarianism.

[SimonP]

Brett – this comment makes clear that you’re not really a libertarian. The basic problem is that, while you share a broadly “libertarian” interest in limited government, this interest isn’t clearly motivated by or tied to any clear view on our fundamental liberty interests. We thus end up with a strange hodge podge of ideological commitments whose only real theme is, “I want the government to let me live the kind of life I want to live, while others are also permitted to live the kind of life I want to live.”

1. I’m a libertarian nationalist.

Why is the use of state power necessary to preserve a “libertarian” order within national borders? Would the benefit of using state power to control movement of people, goods, and services across national borders similarly justify the use of state power to control movement of people, goods, and services across internal borders, even local jurisdictional lines?

2. Nope. Just ordinary tort law for defamation or breach of contract.

Unless your point is to say that conservatives complaining about Facebook censorship have no right to expect fair treatment, given the user agreements they’ve entered into, this is a puzzling response.

3. Not beneath the law, anyway.

I think we can all agree that anyone who has behaved like Trump has should be subject to the same degree of legal jeopardy as he has been.

4. Murder regulation at the state level is fine, abortion regulation is just a subset of this.

This is where your lack of a firm grasp on underlying liberty interests starts to get you into trouble.

You say, “murder regulation at the state level is fine.” So suppose a state, concerned by the way that gun owners are using fatal force in their “self defense,” decided to outlaw the defense (to a criminal homicide charge) that the person was acting in order to defend themselves or others. Is that a problem?

Set aside the Constitution for a moment. Yes, that’ll be a relevant consideration for your “libertarian nationalism” in this country, in reality, but the point I am making is not about fitting your ideological commitments into our legal structure but about those ideological commitments themselves. In a world without the Second Amendment, without federal protection of liberty and personal autonomy, where the only question is how far a state may go in regulating “murder,” how would you know whether the state has gone too far, in outlawing acting in one’s self-defense?

You must have a basic ideological commitment there, right? Would I be wrong in expecting you to believe that every human has a fundamental right to use fatal force to defend themselves from injury or death?

If so, then what is the libertarian justification for not extending that basic human right to self-preservation to other fundamental decisions about one’s body, such as the medical procedures one may be required to undergo, assisted suicide, what kinds of sex to engage in, and whether to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy? Aren’t our bodies the one thing in the whole world over which we ought to be entitled total autonomy?

5. Academic mandates for the government’s own schools,…

Again – it is a strange “libertarianism” where the commitment to fundamental liberties goes out the window once we’re talking about a world where the government actually exists and does things that the libertarian would prefer it didn’t. Allowing that the government should be permitted to “mandate” whatever it may like in its schools, liberty be damned, means that it should similarly be permitted to “mandate” whatever it may like for its employees, its media stations, its public parks, its buildings, etc….

Brett – people who value liberty do not simply throw up their hands when the government exists and cede the territory to uncontrolled authoritarianism within the government’s ambit. They focus on ways that we can still be free even within the realm of government.

6. Huh?

What foreign policy and military posture is required to maintain a “libertarian nationalism” at home, do you think?

7. Gay marriage by democratic means, not judicial fiat.

As with abortion, it seems obvious that you would agree that we have a fundamental liberty interest in who we marry and how we organize our lives. So it’s strange that you feign indifference over whether a state may impose upon that liberty interest or not.

A state that can outlaw same-sex marriage is a state that can outlaw any marriage; a state that can outlaw sodomy can outlaw any kind of sex. How is that compatible with “libertarianism”?

8. I’m literally in favor of abolishing all victimless crime laws.

“Literally.” As with defining abortion as simply a kind of “murder,” above – to avoid having to explain why the state has legitimate authority in telling a woman whether to continue a pregnancy – the word “victimless” is doing a lot of work here. Whether a given “crime” should remain a “crime,” I’m sure, will come down to some kind of convoluted argument about “victims.”

For instance: “victimless crimes” like… accepting foreign campaign contributions? Insider trading? Frauds where no one loses any money? Inchoate crimes like, say, planning a presidential assassination to the point of being on-site, but never getting a shot off?

10. Opposition to a totalitarian ideology is hardly contrary to libertarianism.

But embracing authoritarianism is.

[Brett Bellmore]

1. “Why is the use of state power necessary to preserve a “libertarian” order within national borders?”

Why does a boat need a hull? To keep the water on the outside!

“Which is to say that in a non-libertarian world, I think we need to have border controls in order to have any hope of being libertarian internally.” That’s what I said, and what I meant.

Now, if we were already a libertarian night-watchman state, perhaps you could have open borders, because who would come here who didn’t want to live in a libertarian society?

But we’re not. We’re a welfare state. People come here to live in a welfare state, and people who immigrate to be in a welfare state don’t vote to abolish the welfare state.

That’s why the Libertarian movement I joined back in the late 70’s advocated for open borders only as the last thing we did before turning out the lights. Not as the first thing that would prevent anything else on the list from happening. Because we understood path dependence.

We are further today from libertarianism than we have been in decades, and massive immigration from far less libertarian societies is a good deal of the reason for that.

[SimonP]

Maybe you can help clarify something for me - you approve of the use of state power to limit the migration of people across borders, in order to create and sustain an ideological consensus within this country that furthers a political mission you don't think could survive without that kind of support.

Is that not essentially a totalitarian way of thinking?

What would you do with the welfare state-preferring people who are already here? Why can't you persuade them to favor what you call "libertarianism?"

[Brett Bellmore]

I have no great problem with the use of state power, if states are going to exist, to limit migration INTO state territory. Never out. Right of departure and right of entry are dramatically different concepts, I do not commit false imprisonment against the population of the world every time I lock my door.

Distinct organizations can not sustainably exist if they can not control who is able to join them. And as I point out every time Somin starts going on and on about foot voting, foot voting presupposes that there's some place different to walk to! Throw the world in a blender and hit frappe, and foot voting becomes futile.

I'm not at all enthusiastic about government, I'd prefer something less intrusive. But distinct societies are both valuable, and incapable of sustained existence without borders.

[SimonP]

One pushes the button, one gets the response.

What you’re having a hard time holding together, Brett, is the nationalist reasoning you’re employing here – which stands with no apparent philosophical support of its own – with the “libertarian” beliefs you also claim to hold (but haven’t been very specific about).

Hypothetical: I live in New York. I am irritated when people come to this city and try to infect it with their “conservative” politics and “anti-woke” nonsense. So I endeavor with my fellow citizens to restrict migration into NYC so that only people who share the pro-social views of a majority of its citizens – again, to be determined at our discretion – are allowed to rent or buy property here.

It is good that cities exist and have distinct characters, so your “nationalist” reasoning would seem to say that what I am attempting to do – enforcing a kind of ideological conformity via immigration controls – is perfectly fine. Good, even.

But it’s not very libertarian, is it? It’s kind of totalitarian, isn’t it?

You also try to reserve a “right of departure” that isn’t derived from your nationalist argument, at all. It seems to me that your nationalist argument – founded as it is on the inherent worth of distinct nations – need not imply any particular restriction on out-migration or even expulsion of citizens who don’t “belong” to the nation in the requisite ways. If it is good that nations have distinct national characters, and if controlling migration across national borders is a legitimate way for them to maintain those national characters, then why wouldn’t a nation be perfectly free to prohibit out-migration (say, of fertile Christian women) or expel those who do not share the nationalist identity (say, LGBT people and Black people)?

So where does the “right of departure” come from? Oh, is it a libertarian principle? Why would that apply in the nationalist context?

You can’t just pick and choose philosophical principles, Brett. This isn’t the Bible; things should cohere. In another thread, you try to lay claim to being part of a “serious” libertarian movement dating back to the 70s. But this is amateurish at best. Could be repeated verbatim by any modern, 20-something incel.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Imagine being so bad at arguing that Brett Bellmore wins by default.

Ouch. Distinctly ouch.

[SimonP]

I am open to constructive criticism, if you have any. I'm not going to credit or be the slightest bit perturbed by passing snark.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>A state that can outlaw same-sex marriage is a state that can outlaw any marriage; a state that can outlaw sodomy can outlaw any kind of sex. How is that compatible with “libertarianism”?

Those are simply untrue statements. First "outlaw gay marriage" isn't even a real concept.

There was never any law proposed that criminalized two homosexuals going to a gay church, then having a gay wedding cake and declaring to the world they were gay married.

It was only the State refusing to license and provide legal conveniences their relationship.

Secondly,

If an activity between people causes social harm, it isn't unfair to regulate it. Sodomy laws weren't just for homosexuals. Sodomy is a filthy activity that spreads diseases and creates harm outside of the two or more participants. Protected sodomy mitigates much of the harm, but apparently that's too much of a burden on some people and the rest of society has to needlessly suffer.

[SimonP]

"There was never any law that prohibited gays from play-acting at marriage. We used to let thugs take care of that. We just made it illegal for them to have any kind of sexual intercourse."

Genius.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why do you think marriage doesn't exist without the State?

[SimonP]

Why do you think a “marriage” requires going to church, having a wedding cake, and declaring anything “to the world”?

I realize that this is a hopeless game to play with you, but what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for something’s being a “marriage”? What is it that you think you are talking about?

Does marriage require publicity? Does it require ceremony? Does it require legal acknowledgment? Does it require committed monogamy?

I’ve been with my partner now for ten years. We’ve never formally married. But we’ve lived together for much of that time, present ourselves as a “couple” to friends and family even though we consider ourselves "open." Are we “married?” Can you answer that question without some reference to what the law would say about it?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I gave you an example. If you and you’re partner believe you’re gay married, feel free to continue to introduce yourselves as “life partners” or whatever.

Marriage doesn’t require laws, nor even social proclamation, although it’s typically included it. Marriage has been around as long as Man. It’s a fundamental building block to the biologically intact natural family, which is the best environment to raise children in. Great children lead to great societies.

> family even though we consider ourselves “open.”

Of course you do...

[SimonP]

I knew that it was a hopeless game to play with you. I am responding only to note that you haven't answered the actual question.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What part of your question do you think I missed?

You: "Why do you think a “marriage” requires going to church, having a wedding cake, and declaring anything “to the world”?"

Me:
"I gave you an example... Marriage doesn’t require laws, nor even social proclamation, although it’s typically included it. "

You:
"I realize that this is a hopeless game to play with you, but what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for something’s being a “marriage”? What is it that you think you are talking about?"

Me:
"It’s (Marriage) a fundamental building block to the biologically intact natural family, which is the best environment to raise children in. Great children lead to great societies."

You:
"Does marriage require publicity? Does it require ceremony? Does it require legal acknowledgment? Does it require committed monogamy?"

Already answered above.

You: "I’ve been with my partner now for ten years. We’ve never formally married. But we’ve lived together for much of that time, present ourselves as a “couple” to friends and family even though we consider ourselves “open.” Are we “married?” Can you answer that question without some reference to what the law would say about it?"

Me:
"If you and you’re partner believe you’re gay married, feel free to continue to introduce yourselves as “life partners” or whatever."

I addressed everything in your comment. I'm sorry if my truthful and factual answers hurt your feelings.

[SimonP]

Jésus, I appreciate your unnecessarily lengthy response, because it demonstrates neatly that you totally lack reading comprehension.

There was only one actual "question" in my comment to you. The rest were rhetorical. That was:

[W]hat are the necessary and sufficient conditions for something’s being a “marriage”? What is it that you think you are talking about?

This was what you claim to have been your "response":

It’s (Marriage) a fundamental building block to the biologically intact natural family, which is the best environment to raise children in. Great children lead to great societies.

This is not even in the neighborhood of being responsive. It's like you have no idea what a "necessary" or "sufficient" condition is.

Above, you deny that state acknowledgment is a "necessary" condition for something's being a "marriage" - while citing several features of weddings as having something to do with something's being a "marriage." So my question, to you, was just to cut to the chase - what must be the case about a "marriage"? What conditions, if established, are sufficient to make something a "marriage"?

English. DO YOU SPEAK IT?

It's no response at all to say something ideological and incoherent about the significance of marriage.

[Nelson]

"Marriage doesn’t require laws, nor even social proclamation, although it’s typically included it."

So gay marriage is the same as straight marriage. Glad we agree.

"It’s (Marriage) a fundamental building block to the biologically intact natural family"

A biologically intact natural family is not only a minority these days, it's not the "best environment to raise children in".

Children with an abusive father are better without him. Children of a loveless, adversarial marriage are better off without it. Adopted children are better off with a family, not without one.

The factor that repeatedly indicates a higher level of success for a child is two *involved* parents. Gay/straight? Not really important. Biological? Completely irrelevant. Married? Not really important.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3020099/

Those who tout the "married nuclear family is better" claim like to use studies that involve biased sorting methodology. A child of a parent who comes out as gay late in life who ends up with the heterosexual parent in a second marriage is considered to have "married parents" if they are "successful" or "happy", but not if they aren't.

Studies that select for involvement find that two involved parents, whether co-parents, adoptive parents, gay parents, married parents, biological, nonbiological, surrogacy, etc., provide the best environment for success. Biology and marital success of their parents aren't as relevant.

Which makes sense because having two (rather than one) involved parent doubles the available parenting time the child receives.

And that's not even taking into account the emotional damage of growing up in a household with two parents who resent and dislike each other, but are "staying together for the children".

If you ignore factors that don't support your thesis, you can find almost any result you want to. This is the case with "married, biological parents are best" folks. As it turns out, a superior nurturing environment for children is one where they are supported by their parents, not whether their biological parents are still married to each other

"“If you and you’re partner believe you’re gay married, feel free to continue to introduce yourselves as “life partners” or whatever.”"

Leaving aside the fact that gay people who are married don't "believe" they are married, they are married, what about non-gay couples.

I've been in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship with the same woman for 25 years. Where does that fir on your restrictionist bingo card?

And no, there isn't some sociopolitical reason we haven't gotten married. We just see it as an empty social gesture that doesn't change our relationship one whit. The definition of form over substance.

[David Nieporent]

A biologically intact natural family is not only a minority these days, it’s not the “best environment to raise children in”.

Children with an abusive father are better without him. Children of a loveless, adversarial marriage are better off without it. Adopted children are better off with a family, not without one.

This is a dumb argument. "A habit of drinking 4 liters of water every day is not better than a habit of drinking 4 liters of vodka every day, because water that's laced with arsenic is harmful."

[Magister]

I think the argument is better understood as a biologically intact natural family is not automatically or naturally the best environment to raise children in. The same way the same way that neither tap water nor bottled water is necessarily better.

[David Nieporent]

I think the argument is better understood as a biologically intact natural family is not automatically or naturally the best environment to raise children in. The same way the same way that neither tap water nor bottled water is necessarily better.

But that's a straw man, in that nobody few would argue that an abusive intact household is superior to a safe alternative.

[Magister]

nobody few

Yes, you're not new to these open threads.

[Nelson]

"This is a dumb argument. “A habit of drinking 4 liters of water every day is not better than a habit of drinking 4 liters of vodka every day, because water that’s laced with arsenic is harmful.”"

That's not my argument. My point is that the biological part is irrelevant. The married-parent thing is irrelevant. It is the elements and events within the household that matter, not whether or not the child is living with two parents they are biologically related to.

The idea of the biologically-intact nuclear family being superior assumes that there is something inherently good in genes or in a decision made years ago.

Isn't it more likely that the lack of conflict and the happiness of a marriage leads to less stress and unhappiness in the child's life?

The idea that the environment in a marriage in which the parents remain together isn't the important part, but genetics are, is highly suspect.

[not guilty]

"If an activity between people causes social harm, it isn’t unfair to regulate it. Sodomy laws weren’t just for homosexuals. Sodomy is a filthy activity that spreads diseases and creates harm outside of the two or more participants. Protected sodomy mitigates much of the harm, but apparently that’s too much of a burden on some people and the rest of society has to needlessly suffer."

Some things are simply none of the government's damn business. For the first ten years of my married life, my then-wife and I committed a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than five (5) years nor more than fifteen (15) years, each time we engaged in oral sex.

What business of the State of Tennessee was that? (I have asked that question numerous times on these comment threads, and the haters have never given a coherent answer.)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What do you think has cost society more over the past 50 years? Mass shootings or high-risk unprotected sodomy?

[Nelson]

Mass shootings.

This has been another episode of "Easy Answers for Stupid Nazi-Guy Questions".

[David Nieporent]

If an activity between people causes social harm, it isn’t unfair to regulate it.

That may be a conservative argument, but it isn't a libertarian one. Libertarians require actual harm, not "social harm."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

People actually have died from AIDS, and people actually do suffer from Pride Pox, including children and pets. Plenty of people suffer from MRSA USA300, or super gonorrhea, or blinding syphilis, or getting tainted gay blood transfusions and catching some gay disease from it.

That's real, actual, material harm.

[Nelson]

And the fact that people catch various diseases that gay people also catch isn't a valid reason to make sex of any kind between consenting adults illegal, nor is it a valid reason to provide preferential status to only one type of long-term relationship.

The only difference between gay marriage and straight marriage is that in one there are two people of the same sex. Neither is inherently good or bad (although those with multiple failed marriages might say marriage itself is inherently bad).

[Brett Bellmore]

2. "Nope. Just ordinary tort law for defamation or breach of contract."

"Unless your point is to say that conservatives complaining about Facebook censorship have no right to expect fair treatment, given the user agreements they’ve entered into, this is a puzzling response."

Naive libertarian theory has trouble dealing with cases where nominally private sector firms achieve monopoly status due to network effects, becoming quasi-state entities in their own market. You can see a lot of philosophical discussions about freedom of travel where somebody buys all the property around your home, and prohibits you from trespassing in order to trap you there.

When firms achieve similar dominance over any area of life, they become quasi-states, and are properly treated as potential threats to liberty.

In the case of FB, of course, they don't even honestly admit to engaging in ideological censorship, because admitting to THAT might be enough to overcome the network effects sustaining their monopoly status. They lie about it, behavior which is properly sanctionable even in a libertarian state.

[SimonP]

So - just so we're keeping score - you are a "libertarian" who:

Favors controlling the movement of people, goods, and services across borders, in order to shore up the political power of an popular ideology.

Favors the exercise of state power over decisions that people make over their own bodies and lives, to either prohibit or not permit decisions they might like to make about their lives.

Acknowledges that private market actors in a libertarian environment can obtain so much power as to necessitate direct governmental regulation in order to ensure that people stuck doing business with monopolies enjoy "liberty."

I look forward to your other arguments, where you forget that I've challenged you to provide a coherent libertarian account for your views as a whole, and instead make isolated, silly counter-arguments to each point, considered in isolation, which just show how enamored with state power you actually are.

[Sarcastr0]

This is really far from anything I’ve heard from a libertarian, naiive or not.

This is just favoring deploying state power to go after enemy institutions as perceived by Brett. Through the lens of what Brett thinks is bad for liberty.

Which will, I expect, be indistinguishable from what a conservative would want.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Woah, that’s a double tap!

Great job contributing to the conversation! AlwaysContribut0! ????

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's because you don't spend a lot of time talking with real world libertarians, I expect. Still less with libertarians who were part of the libertarian movement back in the '70's, when it was philosophically serious.

It became a lot more frivolous once campaign 'reforms' rendered the LP an exercise in futility, and the serious people jumped ship.

I expect that libertarianism will become a serious movement again if space colonization takes off, permitting social experimentation. It's not going anywhere in already existing statist societies, governments are too good at suppressing it.

[Sarcastr0]

I spend my time *studying* real world libertarians, and hanging out around here.

You are literally advocating for turning sate power against institutions you don't like. You promise you don't like them because they are anti liberty.

How is that not you wanting to be a tyrant?

[bernard11]

7. Gay marriage by democratic means, not judicial fiat. It’s hardly anti-libertarian to say judges aren’t entitled to redefine words in order to impose their own preferred policies on a country that doesn’t want them.

What is being "imposed?" Did some judge force you into a SSM?

8. I’m literally in favor of abolishing all victimless crime laws.

Hard to square this with #7. I'd say SSM is victimless.

[Ed Grinberg]

"8. Big use of police and the criminal justice system to maintain law and order"
???
Are you really saying that it's somehow un-libertarian to maintain law & order? My God... You're so fucking ignorant...
(BTW, the fact that Reason Magazine routinely posts anti-police screeds on its website does not mean that serious / real libertarians oppose law & order.)

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not a libertarian, but I don't think a libertarian would we have the minimum police and criminal justice system needed to maintain law and order.

[Ed Grinberg]

“9. You reliably circle the wagons for Republicans and attack Democrats in all events.”
I guess this is supposed to prove that the person(s) you address is/are not really libertarian. Of course, if the Republican Party advances liberty (as it does), while the Democratic Party suppresses liberty (as it does), then one would expect a libertarian-minded person to support the former and oppose the latter.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, we are all aware you're so very partisan you think all goodness and light is on your side.

That's a kinda fucked up way to be, really.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great comment. Hopefully he will improve his attitude and finally earn your approval!

Always contributing, you are! That's your nickname: AlwaysContribut0!

[Ed Grinberg]

"10. Redbaiting"
Let me get this straight: according to you, having a problem with communists is proof that one isn't a libertarian?!
You're a joke.

[Sarcastr0]

Instantiating thoughtcrimes is not a libertarian way to be.

[EscherEnigma]

I'm only seeing half the responses in this thread, but from context clues this sounds hilarious.

We've got gatekeeping (who can call themselves libertarian or not)
We've got gaslighting (so much rewriting of history!)
We need some girl-bossing. While I fully enjoy a good sausage fest (Oktoberfest is just around the corner!) we need some women in here to girlboss this up.

Anyway, I'm reminded of that Simpsons meme about libertarians. You know, the one where the janitor lists off all the true enemies of libertarians, which ends with libertarians themselves being true enemies of libertarians.

[ducksalad]

I think both you and Sarcastr0 are misunderstanding Somin.
Here is the continuation of that quote:

This is an important standard rationale for state intervention in education. I offer some reservations about it in Chapter 7 of my book Democracy and Political Ignorance, and in a more recent book chapter.

I think he’s complaining that they didn’t put enough effort into raising and debunking a common misconception.

[Brett Bellmore]

You could be right about that. I don't have his book, so I can't check what he has to say in that chapter.

[SimonP]

Libertarians of my acquaintance generally think that government run schools are inevitably indoctrination camps,...

This is why no one takes the sort of "libertarians" you identify with very seriously.

You don't even bother to address the root of Ilya's argument, which is that "voter knowledge of government and public policy is a public good that the market is likely to underprovide." You simply reject it out of hand because of your ideologically-motivated commitments. While sending your kids to schools that lack books.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A dubious bullpen move and lack of offense led to the Mets (again) being the only team in the current Wild Card format (best of three) to have everything decided in the third game.

Congrats to the Tigers, Royals, and Padres.

[Frank Drackman]

Wouldn't have mattered, cause they didn't score anyway, but the Braves starting a mediocre Triple A pitcher with a whole 4 Major League innings this season, in Game 1 had me literally rending my Garment. (He gave up 3 ER in 1 and 1/3 innings), way to save your best pitchers for games you won't be playing.
Padres are good though

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Ace was hurt.

[Frank Drackman]

So you move every pitcher up 1 start, or even do a "Bullpen Game", starting a mediocre Triple A pitcher with 4 MLB innings this year? Idiotic, like bunting

[JoeFromtheBronx]

They had to get into the playoffs first, including a make-up doubleheader on Monday. They had a bullpen game on Monday.

I would suppose they had a reason to go with such a raw starter.

Reynaldo Lopez was just off the injury list. Fried did badly even on regular rest. Another pitcher is old. The bullpen has been heavily used lately. Oh well.

[Frank Drackman]

Went to a Brewers game once, the absolute nicest Fans (the “Ying” to Yankees/Mets/RedSox/Phillies/Dodgers “Yang”) No cursing, fistfights, fans who actually know the game (a “Tell” for typical Post Season Crowds, the huge cheer for a routine flyball to Centerfield, if you’ve never seen one before, every flyball to Centerfield looks like a homerun in person)
That being said, Mrs. Drackman is a Met fan from Long Goy-land (and Braves fan too, don’t get me started on dual loyalties) so pretty much makes me a Met fan, although their fans are loud, obnoxious, privileged, smelly, hmm, they almost remind me, of ummm,
“Me”

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A discussion about the "pager" incident:

"Israel’s Pager and Walkie-Talkie Strikes: Thinking through Convention on Conventional Weapons Claims"

https://verdict.justia.com/2024/10/03/israels-pager-and-walkie-talkie-strikes-thinking-through-convention-on-conventional-weapons-claims

The author has some expertise in international law. tl;dr -- it's complicated.

[John F. Carr]

“One important possibility that I have seen mentioned only in passing is that perhaps the cell phones and walkie-talkies are not designed, constructed, or adapted to kill or injure, but rather the explosives are designed, constructed, or adapted to destroy the pagers and walkie-talkies themselves.”

It is said that large caliber bullets are legally anti-materiel weapons and the shooter has to claim to be targeting the equipment worn by a soldier rather than the soldier himself. Of course, there is no difference in reality. (I don’t recall if this law is in fact the law.)

It is easier to make the pager self-destruct harmlessly. Use much less explosive. Israel wanted the amount of destruction it got.

[Zarniwoop]

I question that any amount of explosive is required to permanently brick a modern cellphone/pager/walkie-talkie. A destructive firmware update would do it for a lot of modern electronics, or dumping a voltage spike through a processor.

The international law aspects might be hard, but “they were just trying to disable the device” doesn’t pass a laugh test.

[David Nieporent]

I agree with this. They were definitely trying to injure Hezbollah members.

[Ed Grinberg]

Here’s something David Mamet said on the 10/24/23 Dennis Prager Show:

Biden just said again, and his [Press Secretary] said today: we will not condone this, we will not condone that, Israel has to obey the laws of war. What’s that all about?! What about Hamas obeying “the laws of war”?! Why are they castigating Israel?! As Abba Eban said: “[Israel] is the only country the world expects to act like Christians.”

[Joe_dallas]

Ed G -
Let me state That I am 100% in favor of an Israel Hamas ceasefire
Once all the Hamas are killed, then they will cease firing

[EscherEnigma]

I mean, the US isn't giving missiles to Hamas. The US just doesn't have either (A) the leverage or (B) the vested interest in Hamas that it has with Israel.

People acting like this is weird are either disingenuous or are unaware of how much material support the US gives Israel and the IDF, and have for decades.

Or, to put it another way... you expect your enemies to behave badly. But you expect your allies to behave better. When your allies behave badly, it's not improper to give them pushback.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I mean, the US isn’t giving missiles to Hamas."

Not directly, anyway. We laundered our donations to them through Iran.

"When your allies behave badly, it’s not improper to give them pushback."

I think, given our past behavior, we're in a piss poor position to give Israel "pushback". Maybe if we'd hauled Obama off to the Hague after some of his hellfire missile stunts, we'd have some claim to do that. As it is, it's proposed to hold Israel to a standard we don't follow ourselves.

The chief difference between us is that Israel is in an existential war, and has to fight seriously, while we haven't been in one of those since WWII, and can usually fight with restraint because nothing critical hinges on winning. And we STILL commit war crimes, with far less excuse than Israel has.

[Joe_dallas]

Brett Bellmore 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
“I mean, the US isn’t giving missiles to Hamas.”

“Not directly, anyway. We laundered our donations to them through Iran.” Even Neville Chamberlin wasnt that stupid

Quite frankly – a fact that the pro JCPOA adherents cant seem to grasp.

[David Nieporent]

Well, I guess we shouldn't ask playwrights about jus in bello, then. How Hamas behaves and how Israel behaves are separate things. You have to follow the underlying rules regardless of whether the other side does.

[John F. Carr]

Several years ago a man led New Hampshire police on a high speed chase. He was charged with reckless conduct with a deadly weapon (felony) and disobeying a police officer (misdemeanor). There is a twist to this routine story. The driver was a police officer and said the incident was just a prank. The prosecutor led him plead it down to simple speeding. Based on the underlying conduct his name was added to the "Exculpatory Evidence Schedule", a list of police officers whose conduct needs to be disclosed to defense attorneys. Getting on this list is a bad career move. He sued to have his name taken off the list.

A three judge panel of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire ruled that a ten year old speeding ticket was too trivial to get him on the list. It "does not reflect negatively on his character and credibility."

https://www.courts.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt471/files/documents/2024-10/2024054salempd.pdf

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sounds somewhat dubious. To toss it in, they also said the conduct is "stale" since it happened so long ago.

[Roger S]

A ten year old prank should not be relevant to anything.

[Brett Bellmore]

A ten year whoopie cushion wouldn't be.

A ten year old felony that got reduced to a misdemeanor because the guy was a cop? Yeah, that's pretty relevant.

[Roger S]

Not just because he was a cop. Also because it was some prank on a fellow cop, and may not have endangered anyone.

[Bwaaah]

“A ten year old prank should not be relevant to anything.”

But leading a dangerous high-speed chase is. We’re using two different phrases to describe the same incident. One of us, by his choice in phrasing, is obfuscating the facts of the case.

[John F. Carr]

Some Democrats, not officially the Democratic Party, filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that some Republicans, not officially the Republican Party, gathered signatures for Green Party candidate Jill Stein and did not report their effort as a campaign contribution and/or exceeded the permissible campaign contribution limit.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/03/nation/fec-complaint-jill-stein-new-hampshire/

[Brett Bellmore]

I’m not aware that collecting signatures, or any other sort of volunteer work for a candidate, has to be reported as a donation.

Maybe if you’re a professional canvasser, and you do it for free for a particular candidate.

If so, I missed filing an awful lot of financial disclosure forms when I was active in the LP.

[Frank Drackman]

Anyone check out the Video of the Palestinian in Jericho (well THAT's his problem, he should have stayed in Gaza) getting an Iranian Rocket dropped on him Wile E. Coyote style? Of course it's the Israeli's fault for shooting it down (or did they? looks like an expended Rocket Stage to me, they have to land somewhere) Dude's just walking along, looking at his Phone (Of course) when "SPLAT!!!"

Frank

[ThePublius]

link to video?

[Frank Drackman]

You don’t have AlGores Internets? it’s all over “X”, and I have to say, for a change, alot of the comments are funny.
The “Irish Sun” has the most complete coverage, with the (Late, and Flat) Palestinians ID

[John F. Carr]

(moved)

[ThePublius]

Could the abysmal federal and state response to the disaster in Western North Carolina be politically motivated?

"NC Gov Roy Cooper was scheduled to appear at the Mt Nebo Crossing Church in Marion, NC where FEMA has set up their headquarters.

He was a no show. "

"As of today the DOD has requested Title 10 Dual Status Command and it has not been approved by the state of North Carolina."

I think so. Biden/Harris, and the Gov. of NC are letting the predominantly red voting Western North Carolina languish.

If you disagree, please explain why the response has been so slow, and so poor.

Remember, this happened on Sept. 25, with plenty of advanced warning. When did Biden commit assets? Yesterday.

[ThePublius]

From another Publius (not me):

Cynical Publius
@CynicalPublius
At this point, the failure to put active duty military helicopters into rescue and relief operations in NC is almost impossible to comprehend.

So I thought long and hard and came up with what I believe is a full list of all possible explanations. I'm NOT saying that any of these are necessarily the actual answer or are true, but I believe that providing a comprehensive list of every, single possible explanation (no matter how unlikely) is useful in understanding what is going on.

With that in mind, here is the full list (in no particular order) of all POSSIBLE reasons why active duty military helicopters have not yet been deployed en masse to disaster relief in North Carolina:

1. The Harris/Biden Administration is grossly incompetent, both in terms of not pre-staging assets and in terms of not being able to cut through Title 10 red tape now to get the assets flying.

2. Units like the 101st Airborne (Air Assault), 82nd Airborne, XVIII Airborne Corps aviation and 2nd MARDIV are currently under classified deployment or standby orders to deploy to Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Taiwan or some other world hotspot, and they therefore cannot spare their rotary wing assets at this moment in time.

3. The classified readiness rates of America’s military helicopters and their crews are vastly worse than anyone outside the military understands.

4. Hurricane Helene damaged most military helicopters in NC, GA and TN, and that fact is being kept secret.

5. The military helicopter assets are not needed and everything is just peachy-keen, A-OK fine with the limited assets currently in use, and those limited assets are totally sufficient to do the job.

6. The conditions on the ground, the availability of aviation support units and/or the availability of aviation fuel make it impossible to establish forward bases for the helicopters to operate from.

7. The Harris/Biden Administration and/or the Democrat NC governor are maliciously and deliberately denying or delaying the use of these assets for nefarious reasons only they know.

______________________________

I’m pretty sure there are no other possible explanations for what we are seeing right now.

[Joe_dallas]

Reports that feds impeding disaster relief
Anyone with more accurate info?

EW - Federal Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has shut down aid flights into Western North Carolina.

A NOTAM has been issued by the FAA that won’t allow anyone not approved by the state to fly aid missions. They said they would give permission but they’re not being cooperative at all. At least six m pilots from Virginia are being prevented from getting their aid shipments into Asheville Regional Airport.

[Sarcastr0]

It appears you’re taking an Instapundit clickbait post and just running with it.
https://instapundit.com/675902/

You yearn for the Dems to be as evil as you have decided they are.

Did you look at past precedent, standard policy, anything at all? Nope, just outraged randos on twitter.

[ThePublius]

"If you disagree, please explain why the response has been so slow, and so poor."

Some substance would be nice.

[Sarcastr0]

"Did you look at past precedent, standard policy, anything at all? Nope, just outraged randos on twitter."

[ThePublius]

That's not so, at all. My original post in this thread doesn't quote anyone on twitter or anywhere else. It's an observation based on the facts of the situation. Go back and read it, and drop your bullshit deflection.

[Sarcastr0]

If you don't know how disaster responses usually go for similar examples, you can't even begin to pretend the Biden admin is slow-rolling the response for partisan reasons.

Even if you really really want to.

[ThePublius]

Well, then, why is he slow rolling the response? Why is the governor of NC doing about nothing, while the Lt. Gov. is trying to take up the slack? Why are private citizens using their own helicopters to rescue people being threatened with arrest?

[Sarcastr0]

Me: "If you don’t know how disaster responses usually go for similar examples, you can’t even begin to pretend the Biden admin is slow-rolling the response for partisan reasons."

You: "Well, then, why is he slow rolling the response?"

...

[OtisAH]

I love the way Pubis continues to push the idea that the Biden administration is slow-walking the Helene response for partisan advantage while giving no consideration at all to exactly what partisan advantage doing so brings the administration, democrats in NC and more broadly, or the Harris campaign.

[Michael P]

It looks like the Harris-Biden regime is trying to kill enough North Carolinians to swing the election there.

https://myfox8.com/news/public-safety/emergency/pilot-flying-supply-rescue-missions-in-western-north-carolina-ordered-out-under-arrest-threat/

[Sarcastr0]

Can you think of any reasons why civilians going into disaster zones on ad-hoc rescue missions might present more of a problem the government seeks to present than a solution to anything?

[Frank Drackman]

are you kidding? the Dead are one of their biggest voting blocks, or is that what you meant?

[Joe_dallas]

A guy capable of flying a helicopter loaded with relief supplies doesnt fit the profile of a looter. So no to your question.

[Joe_dallas]

compare and contrast the Katrina response.

Contrary to media reporting, Bush put together one of the most massive relief efforts immediately following the katrina.

The media has been exceptionally quiet regarding the lack of federal assistance following this hurricane.

[Frank Drackman]

Like in Palestine Ohio, it's just a bunch of toothless Crackers(BTW, where is Hobie-Stank??)

[Sarcastr0]

This is not a baseline, it's vibes.

You need numbers, timelines, damage estimates, etc.

You are providing none of it, because you have many times before, you got into this with feelings and confuse those for facts.

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.newsweek.com/fema-migrant-funding-hurricane-disaster-relief-1963336

Sacastro - lots of good information out there -

[Dr. Ed 2]

Past precedent was USCG rescue helos.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When faced with a similar situation after Hurricane Katrinia, GW Bush had the USCG send all its rescue helos to New Orleans -- I remember seeing one with Cape Cod markings on it on TV.

Rescuing people from water is what the USCG *does* -- it's what they are trained to do and what their helos are built & equipped to do.

WHY THE HELL ISN'T THE USCG IN SOUTH CAROLINA?!?!?

[ThePublius]

Yes! Good question!

[Zarniwoop]

Asheville is ~250 miles from the COAST that the USCG guards.

Note to Grampa Ed: NORTH Carolina, not South Carolina. Maybe get out of New England sometime.

River rescue =/= open ocean rescue; and the problems facing air crews are not “rescuing people from the water”. If you’re swept away in a flood, it’s time to cue “GAME OVER, MAN! GAME OVER!” (Pvt. Hudson, Aliens).

The reports I’m reading indicate that the airspace in NC/TN is saturated with National Guard helos and aircraft.

“Where is the Coast Guard??!?!” is a pretty weak deflection here.

[Magister]

OK, that would explain why the Coast Guard is not in South Carolina. And separately why they're not in North Carolina.

But ....

While I always encourage good movie references, mentioning Aliens creates too great a risk that Dr. Ed 2 will return to one of his favorite themes, nuking everyone he doesn't like (albeit not from orbit).

[Zarniwoop]

It is the only way to be sure.

[David Nieporent]

If you disagree, please explain why the response has been so slow, and so poor.

It hasn't been.

[OtisAH]

Giuliani text: “So I need you to pass a joint resolution from the Michigan legislature that states that, *the election is in dispute,* [and that] there’s an ongoing investigation…”

Response: “New phone who dis?”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/03/rudy-giuliani-michigan-fake-electors-text

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

On my mind: John Milton was blind because of cataracts (at least, his symptoms were consistent with this diagnosis; although other causes are not ruled out). How many times does the word “cataract” (or “cataracts”) occur in the text of Paradise Lost?

A: Twice. In Book 2 (“II”), during the conference of the devils, we get upward-spouting cataracts of fire: “What if all / Her stores were opened, and this firmament / Of Hell should spout her cataracts of fire,…”

And once in Book 11 (“XI”) we get downward-spouting cataracts of water, in anticipation of the Flood: “… all the cataracts / Of Heaven set open on the Earth shall pour / Rain, day and night; all fountains of the deep, …”

(I mentioned this to my ophthalmic surgeon, just before she replaced the lens in my left eye. From the look she gave me, I’m ready to bet she thought I was a case for the department of psychiatry.)

[Moderation4ever]

Not surprised. I am guessing that many of our most educated technical people have little experience with the liberal arts.

[Brett Bellmore]

The blindness of John Milton

"John Milton (1608-1674) has often been regarded as the greatest poet of his time, yet he did not compose his most famous work, Paradise Lost, until after he had become blind in both eyes. On the basis of clues in Milton's writings, several possible diagnoses have been advanced to explain his loss of vision. Herein the evidence for and against each theory is presented."

So, hardly way out there.

[Frank Drackman]

He should have just done it until he needed Glasses

[Moderation4ever]

To all those who frequently comment that they are good with legal immigrants and that their concern is with undocumented immigrants, Trump has now called for deporting people here legally.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-wants-deport-legal-migrants-ohio-back-haiti-new-interview-1963028

[ThePublius]

"Deportation and Immigration Law Like all citizens, green card holders must abide by U.S. laws. But for these residents, legal violations can lead to deportation depending on the circumstances of each case. According to U.S. law, any non-citizen may be subject to removal."

Yes, legal immigrants can be deported.

[Moderation4ever]

Yes, and I would agree for immigrants committing legal violations, but not the wholesale deportation of people here legally.

[ThePublius]

Yes, but why does TPS - Temporary Protective Status - emphasis on Temporary - apply to people here since 2011?

If he revokes TPS, those people can be returned to their countries - a.k.a. deported.

And, Trump was referring to people who were breaking the law. If it's criminals or even folks here on TPS, it's not "wholesale," which I take it you mean means 'everyone.'

[Zarniwoop]

If he revokes TPS, those people can be returned to their countries – a.k.a. deported.

So if it's such a good idea, why didn't Trump do it anytime during the 4 years of his presidency?

[Nelson]

The same reason he killed the border bill. He doesn't want to solve anything.

[Frank Drackman]

what part of Ill-legal do you not understand?

[Sarcastr0]

Legally can be, and it's a good idea to do so are two utterly different questions.

Amazing how often conservatives pretend otherwise.

[verochkax]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/03/business/economy-oil-strikes-hurricane-nightcap/index.html

"But all of them offer political ammunition to Republicans trying to cast the vice president as part of a failed administration that has left American consumers hobbled by years of high prices (while conveniently ignoring three-plus years of relentless job growth and consumer spending)."

CNN presents left wing opinion as "news." The three years of relentless job growth and consumer spending is because prices have gone up. What good are jobs and wage growth if people can't afford the basics? Services like rent, insurance, child care, and medical care have gone up by 50% in 3 years. No wonder people are unhappy.

But the Democrats just have to scream "But, but abortion!" and most stupid single women will vote for them.

[Moderation4ever]

The World Bank see good economic growth supported by the strong US economy.

https://apnews.com/article/economy-global-inflation-growth-china-world-bank-c7b22580a44579c418a1cb10b61c2402

[David Nieporent]

The Smith filing makes explicit something that was obvious to every single person other than Conspiracy Brett already: the J6 attack was not an unfortunate occurrence that put the final nail in Trump's election coffin, but a necessary and intended part of Trump's plan. If Brett wants to contend that Trump's team didn't expressly command the violence — but merely hoped for it — he could try to make a stand on that ground. Hell, he could even argue that it backfired. But the notion that it was unwelcome is completely untenable.

Trump's plans had multiple balls in the air at once, but all of them relied on the attack: to intimidate Congress/Pence, to cause delay that Trump's team could exploit, and to intimidate SCOTUS if necessary. There are express statements from core plotters like Ken Cheesbro to that effect.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't even argue that they hoped for it, since it actually ended their efforts, rather than advancing them.

Trump wanted to politically intimidate Congress, not physically intimidate them.

[Sarcastr0]

Stupid and criminal is still criminal.

[David Nieporent]

No. He wanted to physically intimidate them. It’s right in there. That’s what they hoped for.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, he's accused of it right in there, which is what I said.

And if they actually had any evidence of it, they could have charged him with a pretty straightforward crime, not conspiracy

[Roger S]

What page? What good would it do to physically intimidate Pence? Was Pence going to issue an order to the Senate with a knife to his throat?

[Brett Bellmore]

And if he had, what would happen five seconds after the knife was no longer at his throat?

It's absurdly obvious that if Congress on January 6th had voted under duress to find Trump had been elected, you'd have to maintain the duress at least until January 20th, because the moment it was lifted they'd vote by a supermajority repudiate the forced vote. In fact, even if you maintained the duress until the 20th, if at ANY time you lifted it, he'd be impeaches so fast his head would spin.

Dictators do pull crap like that, but they do it as the last step after securing control of the government, to rubber stamp that control. Not as a first step.

If Trump of all people had physically coerced Congress into anointing him President, all that would do is guarantee he'd NEVER be President, and probably get him a bullet. The whole supposed scheme is absurd!

[NOVA Lawyer]

the moment it was lifted they’d vote by a supermajority repudiate the forced vote

Are you kidding? What Republicans other than Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger would have voted to undo a vote so that Biden could be President? You imagine Republican congress people have more spine and don't realize it is harder to undo a thing once it's been done, because it wasn't going to be an actual knife to the throat.

They were clearly hoping the threat of violence and breaching the Capitol would halt the process at worst (giving time for other unconstitutional maneuvers) or convince enough Republicans to go along with not certifying Arizona, Georgia, and/or Pennsylvania. 147 Republicans voted not to certify the election results. If others had joined, it is not at all certain they would change their minds once they had their man.

he’d be impeaches so fast his head would spin

Yes, because Republicans showed after January 6 that they would have the courage to impeach when they felt relatively safe. After being coerced into installing Trump, they're going to go back on it?

But, again, the main point was to create confusion and delay. And all Trump thought he needed was Pence's thumbs down.

As Sarcastro said, a stupid criminal plan is still a criminal plan. Trump was grasping at any straw. He was desperate to stay in power. You pretend he was rational and had a good grasp of what was feasible. And would you have predicted 147 Republicans would vote not to accept duly certified electors? He came much closer than anyone should have reasonably expect.

But you'll carry water for him long after the shooting on Fifth Avenue he likes to brag about.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, if you think Republicans would continue to support Trump after he physically forced Congress to certify his election, you're clinically insane, and there's nothing I can do to help you.

[Sarcastr0]

Anyone who has observed the GOP these past 4 years knows that NOVA is correct, he'd be fine.

And you'd find a reason to support him for doing it.

[Magister]

They didn't impeach him for trying and failing, so why would they do anything more if he tried and succeeded? They continued to support him overwhelmingly (weeding out the few vertebrates in the Republican caucus along the way).

[NOVA Lawyer]

"why would they do anything more if he tried and succeeded?"

Exactly. They lacked the courage when he had lost all his power. They are going to be more courageous when, according to the Supreme Court, he can use Seal Team 6 or the IRS or the DOJ against them however he wants? To say nothing of them having to explain why they installed Trump as president (hooray say their constituents) but must now be removed (boo say their constituents).

And, Brett, I've read too many of yours and Bob's and ML's and Armchair's, etc., etc., comments to be gaslit into thinking the lot of you would want Trump removed from office no matter what he did to get there. You and others like you wouldn't care because, anyway, you'd say, the election was stolen so he just did what he had to in order to set things right. That's the sort of traitorous mindset you and your ilk project.

If him lying about a stolen election (before the election even happened and well after he and everyone but the most gullible knew he had lost), trying to pressure Pence into violating the constitution, and waiting to see if the violence would delay things before issuing a milquetoast tweet to stop the violence wasn't enough to lose you, I don't believe anything is.

[Nelson]

"Look, if you think Republicans would continue to support Trump after he physically forced Congress to certify his election, you’re clinically insane, and there’s nothing I can do to help you."

To this day a majority of Republicans believe that the 2020 election was stolen. That has been proved over and over and over again to be a lie.

Yes, I do think that Republicans would continue to support Trump if his followers physically forced Congress to certify Trump as winner.

They would justify it as "fixing" the "fraudulent" election results because reality isn't overly important to the Trumpist GOP.

But would they turn away from him? History and their stubborn refusal to accept reality says they wouldn't.

[David Nieporent]

Are you kidding? What Republicans other than Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger would have voted to undo a vote so that Biden could be President? You imagine Republican congress people have more spine and don’t realize it is harder to undo a thing once it’s been done, because it wasn’t going to be an actual knife to the throat.

And that assumes that one can actually legally undo it, which is not at all clear.

[Michael Ejercito]

Even if he did, so fucking what?

[verochkax]

Now idiots like Farrah Griffin and Collins are saying they support Harris because Trump is a threat to "democracy" and "the rule of law."

But apparently Harris/Biden buying votes with illegal student loan relief plans, sending federal agencies after conservatives, and having U.S. Attorneys bring political prosecutions against protesters is not a threat...

[David Nieporent]

I wouldn’t even argue that they hoped for it, since it actually ended their efforts, rather than advancing them.

Whoosh! You completely missed the point. Yes, they hoped for it. Whether it "ended their efforts" is something that could be determined only in hindsight; whether they hoped for it is determined before the fact. Also, it did not in fact end their efforts; it was the vote of Congress to certify the EC vote that ended their efforts. That was definitively going to happen if they did not do something, so they had to try something, and this was that.

[grb]

David Nieporent : “If Brett wants to contend…..”

Another of Brett’s go-to excuses is Trump “honestly” and “sincerely” believed his repeated election lies. This is very important to him (Brett) because it makes DJT’s actions a product of mental illiness, not criminal conspiracy – something he (Brett) finds comforting.

But that’s nonsense. Aside from the absurdity of finding a atom of honesty & sincerity in Trump’s body, it’s refuted by the facts. In a contentious Oval Office meeting on the night of Jan. 3, 2021, Trump tried to pressure the head of DOJ to tell some critical states the election was being investigated due to evidence of fraud.

But he was told there was no investigation, no evidence, and not a trace of fraud. Trump didn’t care. “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen,” he told a roomful of witnesses. There was no “sincere” belief; it was just another con like the huckster’s been running his entire life. He thought “his” congressmen, judges, and justices would overturn the election results if given enough background noise as cover.

Brett notwithstanding, there are more examples of this in the released filing. When one of his private lawyers repeatedly told Trump that he had lost and that the legal cases were not going to succeed, Trump replied that “the details don’t matter,” Smith wrote.

He also says Trump “made up figures out of whole cloth,” and provided Arizona as an example:

“The conspirators started with the allegation that 36,000 non-citizens voted in Arizona; five days later, it was ‘beyond credulity that a few hundred thousand didn’t vote,’” he wrote. “Three weeks later, ‘the bare minimum [was] 40 or 50,000. The reality is about 250,000’; days after that, the assertion was 32,000, and ultimately, the conspirators landed back where they started, at 36,000, a false figure that they never verified or corroborated.”

It was a scam, nothing more….

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Trump was promoted as someone who would upset the apple cart.

He promised that he could get big things accomplished by challenging the old rules. Just let him make good deals.

Some want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to argue Trump actually just follows the rules, honestly and above board, though maybe he was a bit gauche about it. He is supposedly better (not just the same) as others.

At some point, people bear more weight on their backs here than Atlas holding up the earth.

[Roger S]

Different people told Trump different things about the election. Trump could have a sincere belief that is contrary to what some told him.

Also, Trump could believe that the election was stolen even if he were advised that the court cases were losing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hell, I think it WAS stolen, figuratively speaking. Not legally.

But the case was always a loser, because you can't redo a Presidential election, and since when do the courts entertain cases where there is no remedy? He needed to challenge all the extra-legal election procedure changes BEFORE the election, not after. Which is why I keep saying he should have dropped it once the EC voted. That was the absolute last point at which there was any legal recourse.

Well, he did challenge them up front, and it mostly got rejected, and often afterwards there was some concession that they were illegitimate, but only when it was too late to matter.

[Sarcastr0]

Figurative theft is not a thing.

You're still a truther, just about how the law works and whether there were any hearings on the merits.

[Roger S]

Even after the court cases were lost, Trump had an argument that Congress could visit some of the election issues. Apparently there was some validity to the argument, as Congress amended the electoral count act in response.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “He needed to challenge all the extra-legal election procedure changes BEFORE the election, not after”

You never lay out the transition between first step & last. Of course no one – Supreme Court included – takes your “extra-legal” procedure crap seriously, but it’s the only Trump excuse you’re left with and our Brett “believes” what is useful any given moment.

But that’s only the first step. Like every election you’ve witnessed in your sixty-plus years, there were adjustments to election procedures by executive action or court order. Not needing an excuse (however lame), you probably didn’t notice that before and, to be fair, there were more adjustments because of covid.

But that’s still only the first step. You still need to explain HOW adjusting election rules to make it easier for voters during a pandemic “stole” the election from Trump.

You’ve never explained that. You’ve never even tried to explain that. You don’t seem to think an explanation is even necessary. You have your lame excuse nicely packaged. To you, whether it makes sense or not is totally irrelevant.

So how, Brett? Connect the dots for us. Are you going to go all Crazytown, and claim massive fraud numbers the Right never, ever, ever, is able to produce? Or was just making voting easier during covid inherently unfair to Trump? Spoiler Alert : Whatever excuse you produce to rescue your excuse will be total bullshit – we all know that. But you should man-up & try…..

[Brett Bellmore]

"Trump could have a sincere belief that is contrary to what some told him."

And I will fault him, HAVE faulted him, for being selectively dubious/credulous on that score.

Emotionally, he couldn't believe he could be beaten, and by Biden of all people. And he let that emotion dictate who he believed, and fell prey to a lot of people pulling con jobs on him.

[Sarcastr0]

This seems at odds with your your figurative theft post above as to Trump's subjective belief.

[Brett Bellmore]

Figurative theft is a thing, but it's not a thing in law.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Figurative theft is a thing, but it’s not a thing in law"

Can you please define "Figurative Theft"?
(I expect great entertainment in seeing that)

[NOVA Lawyer]

I've got my popcorn. Where's Brett? This "figurative theft" is a real thing should be fun!

[Brett Bellmore]

"Figurative" theft is where you do something that's technically not illegal, but only because the law can't cover everything, or because you had judicial complicity in doing it.

Like violating election laws, but getting a judge to rule the violation is OK. The ruling renders the violation technically "legal", but doesn't change the fact that you actually did violate the law.

[Sarcastr0]

You have described rule of law.

Sounds like the only thing violated is your wishes.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I've described the rule of judges.

The rule of law doesn't mean you "have" laws. Despots have laws.

It means you actually have to follow them.

[Sarcastr0]

No, rule of law is the rule of our judicial institutions. Which are, in fact, run by judges.

You're mixing that up with rule by Brett.

Criticize the opinions, but calling the 2020 election stolen because of Brett's hot take is as stupid as thinking Hugo Chavez did it.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Like violating election laws, but getting a judge to rule the violation is OK”

Once again, we’re missing the connecting piece. You – Brett – believe judges ruling on election procedures is fundementally wrong. It would be interesting to see evidence of that “belief” before it became a go-to Trump excuse, but never mind. And the SCOUS doesn’t accept your take, but we all know Brett-Law transcends the wisdom of mere mortal men (but never mind).

Yet you never explain how court rulings to make voting in a pandemic easier “stole” the election from Trump. What is the mechanism you propose? As noted above, I see two options: You can become another spittle-spraying right-wing loon and rant about non-existing numbers of fraud votes, or claim easier voting is by-itself inherently unfair to Trump. Even in a pandemic.

Both options are laughable. If you come up with a third or fourth, they’ll be lauable too. But you should go on the record…

[not guilty]

Brett seems to be incapable of regarding legal authorities which do not conform to his personal predilections as being authoritative. That is also true of several other commenters who have never tried to persuade a judge or jury of anything, but Brett is a particularly egregious offender.

Some judges are dumb as a box of rocks. Some are corrupt. Some are partisan hacks. But while these miscreants continue to sit as judges, their rulings are to be adhered to, whether we like them or not.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Criticize the opinions, but calling the 2020 election stolen because of Brett’s hot take is as stupid as thinking Hugo Chavez did it.

This, Brett.

They could appeal to the Supreme Court. The 6-3 Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court is in the tank too because Brett-law wasn’t applied? You beclown yourself.

I thought it would be hilarious. And it is watching you debase yourself yet again.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "And he let that emotion dictate who he believed, and fell prey to a lot of people pulling con jobs on him"

No, Brett. That doesn't fly. Trump treated his own statements about election fraud as a free-floating con. One number was good one day, an entirely different one another. When told there was no evidence, he didn't go off to find a different opinion. Instead, Trump told the person to just say otherwise, evidence or not.

His own words & actions were always that of a hucikster scam. Given he's been running huckster cons his entire life, why should we presume sincerity?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yes, this level of emotional instability (which I guess Brett finds preferable to the far more likely explanation that he is a venal liar who knew what happened but thinks he can bend reality to his will with enough salesmanship) is a great idea for a president. Just what we need: A president who denies reality because reality isn't what he wants it to be.

FFS, Brett. If you listen to yourself, you're making the best case against allowing him near the White House ever again.

[windycityattorney]

This is what i like about Trump supporters. They are ALWAYS willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The problem is in the details. His campaign lawyers and WH counsels are telling him “we need evidence to substantiate the claims being made by the elite strike force and we aren’t finding it” AND TRUMP STILL LIED REPEATEDLY and while on speaker phone with Sydney Powell who is feeding him what he wants to hear (ghost of hugo chavez stole the election! hurr durr) he is actively making fun of her saying she is unhinged and crazy AND THEN goes and repeats her claims on twitter and in public appearances.

He knew she was lying and repeated the lies. His surrogates went on Fox or any media channel that would have them (and online) or had Fox hosts repeat the lies and they paid 800million to settle a lawsuit because of it!

At some point there is no benefit of the doubt left to be given. Trump to this very day repeats the lies and promises retribution to those who cheated him and his own VP candidate all these years later in a recent debate won’t even answer the question of whether Trump won that election. Its pathetic.

The dude is selling his supporters a shit stock (truth social) bibles, watches, shoes, worthless NFTs, an upcoming shit-coin crypto, pieces of his own clothes... and should by all rights be laughed at by EVERYBODY and shunned as a grifter fool but no. He is the victim in all this. Its beyond pathetic how much water his rubes will carry for him. He could sell his turds from prison and someone will pay $1,000 for each. "But its not a cult." It is 1000% a cult of personality and when he's gone the MAGA-GOP is capital F fucked. And will deserve every bit of it.

[grb]

windycityattorney : "They are ALWAYS willing to give him the benefit of the doubt"

Someone like Brett should explain this : If Trump actually believed his election fraud scam, and it was caused by (a) the unexpected shock of losing to Biden, and (b) fury over last-minute changes to election procedures, then why was Trump prepping the chumps with fraud talk nine months before Election Day?

Of course I know the reason. Everybody who isn't a bootlicking cultist knows the reason. Trump was getting the dupes ready to scam after he lost. That's obvious to anyone not peddling Bellmorian-grade B.S.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This. This. And more this.

It's embarrassing for any grown person not to realize Trump is a huckster through and through.

Brett pretending Trump genuinely believed his lies is cute. To what extent won't Brett debase himself for Trump?

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't seem to understand that I have a generally low opinion of politicians, so that telling me that Trump lies doesn't particularly faze me. I know he lies. I also know he doesn't lie about everything.

I just prefer politicians who lie to me but do what I want, (Or mostly just refrain from doing what I don't want.) to politicians who lie and set out to screw me over.

[Sarcastr0]

This is the weakest defense of Trump's attack on our democracy I've ever seen.

'all politicians are bad, so Trump's fine.'

Yelling about election fraud 9 months before the election isn't normal.

And he's doing it again right now.

Your rhetoric may be that you don't like him, but it is clear that there is no line he will cross that would make you lose your devotion to him and apologizing for him.

[Brett Bellmore]

Give me a chance to vote for an honest politician who generally agrees with me, or at the very least doesn't seem determined to erase civil liberties I treasure, and I'll be ecstatic. I don't expect to ever enjoy that experience. Rand Paul tanked in the primaries, which is a ugly commentary on the Republican party. If the Democrats had nominated Tulsi Gabbard I might have voted Democratic for the Presidency for the first time in my life; I don't agree with her on everything, but she has demonstrated a tendency to change her mind in response to evidence, something to treasure in a politician. You can see how far that got her in the Democratic party.

So I settle for voting for the scum who will largely leave me alone, instead of the scum who will be actively attacking me.

Did you expect a libertarian who gave up and started voting major party to have a different view of what they were doing? I didn't start voting Republican because I LIKE the Republican party. I did it because I loathed them less than I did the Democrats. I vote defensively, not because I LIKE the people I'm voting for.

[NOVA Lawyer]

No true Scotsman argument is as fallacious when you do it as when anyone else does it.

All politicians are human. That doesn’t mean you are forced to vote for the most amoral, depraved, narcissistic candidate we’ve ever seen. “But other people sometimes do bad things” doesn’t work for your average teen and shouldn’t work for you.

Like I have said several times, you humiliate yourself every time you spout this drivel, whether you realize it or not.

You pretend everyone else is happy with the choices and that you are just constrained to vote for policies that are less bad. You aren't unique in voting for major parties with whom you have deep disagreements. Most of us don't then become so partisan that we'll excuse any conduct of the party we actually don't even like that much. The fact that you so claim to loathe Trump is belied by the fact that you excuse everything he does except maybe for some window-dressing policies you don't like so much and, the always classic, you wish his tone was nicer.

You're a joke, Brett. A bad, unfunny joke.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump. Is. Not. A. Normal. Politician.

Yelling about election fraud 9 months before the election isn’t normal.

And as we have discussed, even for a librarian worried only about negative rights (except as applied to noncitizens), your civil liberties are bad - they are specific to comfy rich hetero dudes. And the rest you don't care about (you don't like the CRAs is a great example of your pinched sense of liberty).

You're passionately worried about things that haven't happened, just as you were for Obama and again for Biden. They will continue not to happen and you will continue to use your paranoia to justify voting for authoritarians and supporting authoritarian policies.

You like to complain how you're being forced to vote exactly like a conservative would, and defend every policy a conservative would, and be slavishly devoted to defending everything Trump does.

But no one but you buys that rot.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump is a hell of a lot more normal than you want to admit.

I'll say it again: I don't expect much out of a politician, that they not be determined to screw me over is enough to cross the bar. I know I'm not going to be voting for candidates I actually LIKE, the GOP and Dems got together and rendered 3rd parties an utter exercise in futility, and candidates I like demonstrably have no chance in the primaries.

So long as the Democratic party keeps puking up candidates determined to violate civil liberties I treasure, and the Republican party pukes up candidates who are not nearly so determined, I will continue to vote for Republicans. Their personal failings scarcely even register on that scale.

So, go ahead and tell me Trump lies. I know that, so does Harris. Go ahead and tell me his personal morals stink. I know that, so does Harris'. I don't freaking CARE, so long as he'll largely leave me alone, and you keep nominating rat bastards who won't.

Because I'm not voting for a national moral exemplar, I'm voting for a President. And I have NO good choices available, the major parties got together on making sure that would be the case.

[Sarcastr0]

Yelling about election fraud 9 months before the election isn’t normal.

Yelling about election fraud 9 months before the election isn’t normal.

Yelling about election fraud 9 months before the election isn’t normal.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "... telling me that Trump lies doesn’t particularly faze me."

You're being a bit disingenuous here, dude. If you're really sanguine about Trump's pathological lying, you would be saying he doesn't lie more than other pols - something obviously false to any non-cultist. And you wouldn't be claiming he doesn't lie about substantive issues vs personal "bluster".

Because that claim is laughable too.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “You don’t seem to understand…”

Another more relevant point : You being fine with Trump’s lying is all well & good (if true). But it doesn’t address the issue. You claim Trump was shocked by losing to Biden and could deal with it. You claim Trump listened to the wrong people and came to believe his election fraud bullshit.

But none of that jibes with Trump prepping the cult with election fraud talk nine months before the vote. That was my argument above. Saying you’re fine with Trump lying ducks it.

Trump’s actions contradict your explanations & excuses.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I claim that Trump is a serious narcissist who simply can't believe he could lose an honest election. That's not exactly a positive evaluation.

[NOVA Lawyer]

But one you're comfortable with as the next President!

Out of touch with reality and in rapid mental decline? That's a yes for Brett.

[Sarcastr0]

It's defend Trump to the hilt or the Liberal Camps Brett has made up in his head but are sure will happen.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Yes, I claim that Trump is a serious narcissist who simply can’t believe he could lose an honest election”

I’m still trying to grasp how you understand Trump’s actions. With me, it’s pretty clear cut. He saw he’d likely lose long before Election Day and began getting the cult ready for an attempt to sieze power despite the loss.

That involved prepping his gullible dupe supporters with talk of fraud before the vote. Afterwards he lied about transparently false “examples” of voting fraud, changed his story on how the election was “stolen” daily, asked people to lie when they told him there was no evidence, made-up evidence and numbers out of whole cloth, pressured states to change their vote count, pressured Pence to ignore his constitional duty, pressured the head of DOJ to lie to states about a nonexistent voting fraud investigation, and told that DOJ head the lack of evidence or investigation didn’t matter. All he had to do was put the false story out, and GOP congressmen would change the election result, lack of evidence regardless. (This was said before a roomful of witnesses)

So here’s my question, Brett : Where does your “honestly believes” and “sincerely believes” come into play when everything Trump did was a corrupt lying scam, from nine months before the election until two months after (and continuing on until today)?

I know how William of Ockham would answer that. He’d say Trump’s “honesty” is an extraneous factor when everything DJT has claimed, said, and done has been a sleazy lying huckster con. He’d say that even without knowing Trump has been a sleazy lying huckster his entire life, unable to forgo petty scams like his phony university and fake charity even when gifted all Daddy’s millions.

So where do you find place for Trump’s “honesty”. Where do you find room for it to be operative when everything he has said & done is dishonest?

[David Nieporent]

No, Brett. If you actually advocated the position you pretend to hold when challenged — "Trump sucks but he's slightly better on the issues I care about" — you'd be wrong but consistent. But you keep defending Trump, such as by pretending that he actually believed the election was stolen, or pretending that he didn't want the attack on the Capitol. That says that you support Trump.

[not guilty]

Brett hasn't been the same since Donald Trump farted and blew Brett's brains out.

[Michael Ejercito]

Read this.

https://reason.com/2023/05/16/for-6-5-million-durham-report-finds-fbi-didnt-have-solid-dirt-on-trump-and-russia/?comments=true#comments

I do not give a fuck if Trump lied about the 2020 election, and neither should you.

[grb]

I read it. Per the article, Durham claimed the FBI didn’t have grounds to open an investigation. That opening statement apparently earned a Michael Ejercito link, because the remaining article is a litany of Durham’s overpromises & humilating failure. Did you bother to read the whole thing ?!?

1. And even that opening statement is nonsense. Because Durham has repeatedly admitted the FBI had grounds to investigate Trump, but it should have been a “partial” investigation, not “full”. And that’s a much more nebulous allegation.

2. And it’s directly refuted by the DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who came to the opposite conclusion. Given what a partisan clown-show Durham was, who ya gonna believe?

3. And it ignores everything that came later, such as Mueller finding the head of Trump’s election campaign was giving secret briefing to a Russian spy. Or Trump was hiding covert meetings with Kremlin officials on a massive Moscow business deal throughout the ’16 campaign. Or Trump had Michael Cohen and a Georgian-American associate negotiate with Russian criminals to surppress a sex tape supposedly dating from the 2013 Moscow Miss Universe contest. (note : Per Mueller, the tape was faked).

You see, Michael Ejercito, the more Trump was investigated, the more was found. Flynn lying to Veep Pence about his contacts with Russians. Son-in-law Kushner asking the Russkies if he could use their embassy secure line to talk to the Kremlin (which amazed even them). Trump Jr. saying (in writing) he’d be thrilled if Putin’s government secetly helped daddy’s campaign.

And one of my favorites: Mueller found Russian Intelligence hacked Clinton asscociate John Podesta & stole a massive amount of email. They then sat on their hoard over five months. And when did the Russians finally start leaking? Per Mueller, it was less than an hour after the Access Hollywood story broke, rocking the Trump campaign back on its heels.

Their boy was in trouble. They rushed to help.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I know right? Everyone knows that prosecutors always layout the whole, fair, objective truth!

So what they say in an indictment represents reality with high fidelity!

[windycityattorney]

This recent release isn't an indictment. The new indictment dropped many weeks ago (incorporating edits required by the US SUP CT immunity decision). All this evidence is a summary/redacted version of what the jury is going to hear and see from hundreds of live witnesses and thousands of: exhibits, recorded phone calls, screenshots of tweets, text messages, emails, live video recordings, capitol security cameras, news broadcasts, etc... Its going to be laid out on a silver platter.

[hobie]

People may forget this, but Chesebro (The Architect) is now a state's witness

[Dr. Ed 2]

Problem is that violence started BEFORE Trump finished speaking.

[Bwaaah]

David Nieporent: "The Smith filing makes explicit something that was obvious to every single person other than Conspiracy Brett already: the J6 attack was not an unfortunate occurrence that put the final nail in Trump’s election coffin, but a necessary and intended part of Trump’s plan."

Can you point me to the particular part of which filing that establishes that as one of Donald Trump's facts? (i.e. link/page#) I'll read if you'll point me there, not to argue with you, but just to enlighten my understanding.

Too many times, I have been astounded by your certainty despite an obvious context of ambiguity.

[not guilty]

I suspect that drafting of the superseding indictment included significant information furnished by Kenneth Chesebro. I surmise that his plea agreement in Georgia required his cooperation with prosecutors and investigators in other jurisdictions.

[Krayt]

[Placeholder for all those “great ideas” I’ve had for an upcoming TOT (or now, MOT) that, when the day rolled around, I could no longer remember, so great was it.]

[EllaWilson]

Walz's mission was to reinforce Harris' policies.
He did: "I’ve become friends with school shooters."

[Krayt]

Skipping what he “really meant”, the time to befriend shooters was before they became shooters, not after.

Unless you're like the guys in Mindhunter.

[Joe_dallas]

https://amgreatness.com/2024/10/02/life-in-kamalas-california/

Life in Kamala's california - Typical democrat's understanding of economics

[David Nieporent]

Of course, it's pure clickbait, since nothing in that article has anything to do with Kamala Harris.

[Nelson]

C'mon, David. If he didn't have far-right clickbait news sources, how would he know which lies to tell?

[Sarcastr0]

Joe_dallas used to be like a right-wing hipster, linking to esoteric blogs or at least zero-edge fringey stuff.

Nowadays he just passes along the NY-Post level brainless clickbait.

I think it's election related brainworms. Be interested to see where he goes come 2025.

[John F. Carr]

The Massachusetts legislature passed a new gun control law with the usual blue state post-Bruen provisions. See Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024. The law was signed by the governor on July 25 and per the constitution was to take effect 90 days later. Opponents started gathering signatures. On collection of a sufficient number of signatures a law is suspended and does not become effective unless voters approve it at the next general election. Apparently the signature gathering was going too well. Yesterday Governor Healey declared the law to be an emergency law. This has two effects. First, the law goes into effect immediately. Second, the law may not be suspended by initiative petition. It may still be voted on in 2026 if enough signatures are collected.

My gut feeling says Massachusetts voters will approve anything described as a gun control law despite a vocal minority getting it on the ballot. In 2018 a culture war law was approved by a 68-32 liberal majority after enough signatures were turned in to put it to the people.

[apedad]

Sounds like a healthy, functioning democracy!

[Frank Drackman]

Governor Healey has signed her law, lets see her enforce it.

[OtisAH]

You think a state governor lacks resources to enforce state laws, piece of shit?

[Frank Drackman]

Yes

[hobie]

Aw, this is already boring the hell out of me. Kill him!

[Bwaaah]

apedad: “Sounds like a healthy, functioning democracy!”

That sounds pretty cynical to me. Maybe if Trump gets elected, he can invoke some emergency authority as President to do something about it? We could call such an action a sign of “a healthy, functioning democracy!”

Sheesh. (I hope you were kidding. I'm certainly not serious about the Trump solution.)

[John F. Carr]

The Secretary General of the United Nations is persona non grata in Israel after his statement in response to Iran's missile attack:

I condemn the broadening of the Middle East conflict, with escalation after escalation. This must stop. We absolutely need a ceasefire.

I see this in local school districts. It is not enough to want peace in the Middle East. You have to hate the right people. Not just disapprove or dislike. Hate.

[Ed Grinberg]

Let’s see:
– Country A, unprovoked, perpetrates a missile attack against Country B.
– A “neutral observer” thereupon demands “an immediate ceasefire” (thus preventing just retribution by Country B).
John F. Carr doesn’t get why the people of Country B have a problem with the “neutral observer.” They must be really hateful people! Hey, maybe Country A was right to attack them!
(I’d say Mr. Carr’s morally-confused view is typical of many “liberals.”)

[EscherEnigma]

Unprovoked? Do you not understand what "allies" are? Attacking someone's allies provokes them. We had a whole world war because of this.

Think whatever you want about whether or not Israel is justified, but don't deceive yourself that they aren't provoking further conflicts.

[Don Nico]

EE,
Seems like you go for that old "She was looking for it" defense.

[EscherEnigma]

Nope. I'm saying if two people are buddy-buddy, and you punch one of them, it doesn't matter how "justified" you are, you provoked both.

Confuse that for value judgement at your own risk.

[OtisAH]

Without getting into 70+ years of “you hit me! You hit me first! Because you kicked me! Only after you knocked my hat off,” and irrespective of actions against Iran’s allies, it’s relevant for you to know that Israel very recently tried to assassinate the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon.

[OtisAH]

“So what?”

- Former president Convicted Felon Donald Trump when informed the safety of then-VP Mike Pence was at risk from the CFDT-inspired mob threatening Pence’s life.

I still want to hear or read in Pence’s own words why he refused to enter the limo.

[Krychek_2]

Because he wanted to remain at the Capitol and was afraid once he was in the limo it would take him away against his will. He said so in his book.

[OtisAH]

I should have been more clear. I want to hear the reason he gave while being deposed or in his testimony.

[Michael Ejercito]

So what?

Trump did not cause the riot.

[OtisAH]

Loser.

[Michael Ejercito]

He did not cause the riot.

[windycityattorney]

Once the riot had commenced mysteriously on its own and it was made known to Trump his own VP was being hunted like a dog… does the sitting President and commander in chief have a duty to protect his own fucking vice president?? Is it even conceivable that Trump’s own tweet bitching about Pence’s ‘lack of courage to do what needed done” could have played a role in WHY the mob was calling to hang Pence and he might have an obligation (moral if not legal) to at least attempt to help the no 2 official in the US Govt …just a lil bit?

"Fuck it" might be what works for your insane moral compass but to most people what Trump actually did in the moment is considered a 'dick move.'

[Michael Ejercito]

does the sitting President and commander in chief have a duty to protect his own fucking vice president??
No, he does not.

[David Nieporent]

So he didn't summon his delusional loser followers to Washington D.C. on January 6 with lies about a stolen election? Seems like revisionist history on your part.

[Michael Ejercito]

That does not mean he caused the riot, any more than Patrice Cullors, Nikole Hannah-Jones, and Charles M. Blow caused the 1619 riots in Minneapolis, Portland, Kenosha, and the White House.

[hobie]

There is a subset of tort law called prenatal tort cases. Including actions where an abortion was botched or an abortion was not given when needed resulting in injury or death. There is also a thing called 'wrongful life actions' where a disabled child that the mother wished to abort but wasn't allowed to do so, is born and sues for the lifetime treatment expenses he or she will have to endure.

I don't think these abortion ban laws provide cover for doctors or hospitals if they fail to provide necessary care even though the law prohibits it. What say you? It's a shame legislatures cannot be sued for practicing medicine without a license

[NOVA Lawyer]

I don’t think these abortion ban laws provide cover for doctors or hospitals if they fail to provide necessary care even though the law prohibits it.

I’m pretty sure you cannot win a judgment against a doctor for not doing something they were prohibited by law from doing. The law supersedes the standard of care. But it is an interesting concept. I can’t, right off hand, think of a good, non-medical analogy where a person has to choose between committing a crime and exercising the appropriate standard of care.

It does put me in mind of the case of the Mignonette, which is not a good analogy, but presented a similarly ethically thorny situation. Crew members killed a fellow shipwreck survivor while adrift at sea so they could stay alive. They were found guilty, thus establishing that the legal defense of necessity does not defeat a murder charge, but their sentences of death were commuted by the queen.

I think, similarly, if the proposed medical procedure is a felony, most courts would find the physician cannot be liable for failing to provide it solely to allow the patient to avoid economic/emotion damage (e.g., wrongful birth).

Not providing an abortion where the pregnant woman’s life is endangered seems a much closer case, it still may be a crime to do what the law forbids. And, if so, the duty to obey the law would supersede the legal duty to provide life-saving care or face a civil penalty. Of course, unlike the sailors in the case of the Mignonette, the physician would be saving a life, not taking one, so courts may look at it differently if the physician went ahead and saved the patient’s life. However, if the physician didn’t, I cannot see any court saying they should have risked a felony charge to provide care.

An ambulance is restricted by law to no greater than X mph, but needs to go well in excess of that to get to the hospital in time. Would the ambulance driver be sacked if she broke the law to save the patient? Actually, probably she would be. Could the patient sue the ambulance driver for not going faster if, instead, she chose to only drive the maximum allowed speed? I doubt it.

Of course, all of this points out how stupid the anti-abortion laws are, perhaps especially when they have an exception for the life of the mother. As much as some would like, myself included, life isn’t a math problem and, in any given case, any three people will have at least four opinions regarding whether the procedure is necessary to save the life. At best, it’s a probabilistic world, so does the likelihood of death absent the procedure have to be 99%, 90%, 67%, 50%, 10%? And specifying the percentage chance won’t help much as the assigned percentage is just a guess, hopefully an educated one.

These is reason 1,568,137 why medical decisions regarding the reproductive health should be made by the patients and their physicians. Legislatures, prosecutors, and voters should leave their big government noses out of it except in extreme cases.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Isn't it just amazing how the Democrats/FEMA can scramble up billions for illegals and foreigners, but when Americans need help they are suddenly broke?

I vote for America First. Not America Last.

[hobie]

So far as I can see, all you hayseeds have a far greater allegiance to Israel than the USA. Hell, we're not even a democracy anymore, instead were some dumb thing called a constitutional republic: which has, of course, long been part of the 'southern strategy' where you weaken the federal government, make states supreme and !voila! slavery is back in business!

TLDR: you try to destroy the United States, not support it

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Can you point to when, historically, we were a democracy?

[Don Nico]

Who are you calling a hayseed? And why?

[hobie]

Anyone who still supports a man who tried to steal an national election and who stole top secret files and showed them off to his pals. Thems the hayseeds. My reasons should be obvious

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-Stank

[EscherEnigma]

Why you gotta insult hayseeds like that?

Use insults that aren't based on denigrating someone over their economic class and roots.

[hobie]

I'm basing my pejoratives on their mentality and not socio-economic status. Any group of people stupid enough to believe a bunch of lies for 5 years straight deserves all our derision

[Bwaaah]

You’re a pretty consistently nasty bigot. Lots of people used to talk about other people like you do. Much fewer do these days.

You’re like Frank Drackman, but without any of the humor or self awareness.

No offense intended, Frank.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It has come to my attention that Eugene Volokh is a more thin-skinned man than I realized. He is a man who will allow any and all racist and personal attacks in the comments directed towards others, but bans people (or at least a person) if they say unkind things about him. Eugene clearly aspires to be a leading free speech scholar and advocate, but cannot abide insults to himself while allowing far worse insults to others on the blog he moderates. It's not a good look, Eugene.

Yes, of course, as the proprietor of a private blog he is absolutely entitled to engage in viewpoint discrimination and to settle petty personal scores with his powers of moderation. It's not the temperature of the rhetoric to which Eugene objects, but the partisan direction and the fact that he doesn't wish to be subjected to the sorts of insults he routinely allows commenters to hurl at their peers. As the moderator, he can set himself above and apart. But it strikes me as a small, petty man who would do that.

The thing that makes me happy is that he did hear the complaints and it bothered him. He will never hear a certain name again without thinking of his nemesis who he was reduced to silencing. You think you won by ridding yourself of a critic, but you lost by making yourself smaller, Eugene.

In the words of the still kicking (I recently, very happily learned) and only departed from this blog, Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland*: Carry on, clingers!

*Also known as a man of his word who contacted me with the promised reward (I would attach a picture of the North Country Brewing Co. hat he so generously provided, if that were possible) for winning a contest in these threads. Cheers, my friend!

[Roger S]

You are saying that KIrkland was banned? He added nothing, but personal attacks.

[hobie]

Happy news indeed! Thank goodness. I had already posted two small eulogies of sorts here.

So the racist hayseeds here couldn't abide the irksome Rev, so they went and told daddy. Quelle surprise!

[Sarcastr0]

1. Glad to hear he’s OK.

2. Over the past…about 6 years he has sucked as a commenter, and I’m glad he’s gone.

3. He was sui generis in his suckiness; plenty of reasons to ban him that are not viewpoint based.

4. Different in kind but similar in magnitude of suckiness, there are others too.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes

[Don Nico]

S_0,
I have to agree with you on all points in your comment.

[NOVA Lawyer]

3. He was sui generis in his suckiness; plenty of reasons to ban him that are not viewpoint based.

Nope. He was repetitive, but far worse have survived and comment here. They are all on the right espousing anti-black, anti-gay, anti-trans, or anti-immigrant hate though, so I think it is fair to link it either to viewpoint or the professor's own feelings were hurt. It couldn't have been the insults because others are often here saying far worse.

He wasn't kind to the racists and homophobes, but that's not much of a strike in my book. He typically took the side of the scorned minority or out group. That alone made his presence welcome in these xenophobic, racist, and homophobic comment threads.

[Bwaaah]

"He wasn’t kind to the racists and homophobes"

And I found him to be quite unkind to people who weren't racists or homophobes too. And to people of religious faith. And to pretty much anybody who wasn't straight in line with Arthur's Book of Correctness.

If he was indeed on the side of the angels, then that must have been before he fell from such a superstitious pagan notion (fitting of right-wingers and other gutter people).

[Commenter_XY]

I am glad Rev. Arthur is Ok, alive and well. I enjoyed my back and forth with him.

As for VC, Professor Volokh makes the call; the blog bears his name. Thin skinned, my ass. I see Professor Volokh out there in the trenches defending free speech. Professor Volokh no doubt gave many chances to Rev Arthur, and then decisively dealt with a major pain in the ass (Arthur).

I would offer this. It is the High Holiday season, perhaps some soul searching, forgiveness, and repentance could help here.

Arthur could contribute a lot, constructively, if he chose to.

[Bwaaah]

Welcome back, and a happy and healthy day to you, C_XY. I wasn't going to let you go unaware of the resurrection of Arthur; I figured you could find some cause to rejoice in that.

And I share your sentiment about EV being "thin skinned." As the proprietor of an "alt-right MAGA-shilling" blog, he's steadfastly pursued his course with sound disregard for the shifting winds of the day. Many who see individuals as having shifted their positions have missed their own drift along with so many others that it makes the still look like they're moving.

GO, EUGENE, GO!!! (or HOLD, EUGUENE, HOLD!!!)

[David Nieporent]

He was repetitive, but far worse have survived and comment here. They are all on the right espousing anti-black, anti-gay, anti-trans, or anti-immigrant hate though

Um, they keep getting banned. Why do you think that new usernames keep showing up with the same message?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The message is so popular and common that more than one person shares it?

[David Nieporent]

Nope. Try again. New usernames keep showing up in place of, not in addition to, the old ones. Using the exact same words, displaying the exact same sexual excitement about gay sex.

[Sarcastr0]

This poster is also a retread as well, of that ThreeNamesGuy, so he's just lying to you.

[Estragon]

It’s the voltage guy. I don’t think the accounts are being banned— rather, engagement reaches such a low level due to organic grey-boxing that he starts a new handle. Classic trolling.

[Life of Brian]

It has come to my attention

Ah, the useful murkiness of the passive voice. Hopefully your source of all this hot gossip is more reliable than Artie himself, who as you know has (without the least shred of irony) racked up posts in the thousands whining about supposed censorship.

I mean, in the true spirit of a defiant child searching for boundaries, he did seem determined to ratchet things up to a whole new level over the past several months with his shtick about the circumstances of Eugene's departure from UCLA (and implying he somehow had a hand in it), but I'm sure you weren't including that sort of reprehensible and perhaps even actionable bile in your references to "insults," "complaints" from a "critic," and so on.

All that aside, I'm glad to hear he's still on this side of the soil. Not that he's super old, but certainly up there enough that the sudden silence was enough to make me wonder.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I don't know what Arthur would want me to say. I may have already taken liberties.

But I know plenty of people wondered and actually cared if he was well. So, happy as I was to discover that he was fine, I did feel the community and decent people within it would like to know.

Thanks, though, for the random spurious insinuations of not being "reliable." You wouldn't be you if you didn't get an insult in there.

[Life of Brian]

Thanks, though, for the random spurious insinuations of not being “reliable.”

Taking you at your word, I made no insinuations about you at all. You said it "came to your attention" -- thus of course my direct (not insinuated) question was about the reliability of your source.

Given your level of coy defensiveness, it sounds like you are indeed just uncritically channeling Artie. Party on: you're a big boy, and it's a free country. But it's just a bit interesting you're so touchy about it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Touchy? lol.

my direct (not insinuated) question was about the reliability of your source.

"Hopefully your source of all this hot gossip is more reliable than Artie himself," Is not a question.

Revisionist history is another of your things though.

Given your level of coy defensiveness

Defensive about what?

I just pointed out that you couldn't help but get in an insult.

[Bwaaah]

Like LoB, I find your ambiguity challenging, unhelpful, and probably unnecessary. Still, for having accomplished what strikes me like the resurrection of Arthur, I thank you. (sincerely)

[NOVA Lawyer]

You want me to just put out there everything I know about someone else's business? Ambiguity is, sometimes, in service of civility, politeness, and consideration. You guys are making a pretty big deal out of me just trying to be respectful.

"having accomplished what strikes me like the resurrection of Arthur, I thank you"

You're welcome. That's how I felt. And I'm happy I was right that others were equally pleased with the news. That's all I was trying to do.

[Life of Brian]

You want me to just put out there everything I know about someone else’s business?

Oh, stop. You put out the selective nuggets you wanted to in order to convey the message you wanted to. Scurrying behind the skirts of "someone else's business" when someone doesn't just uncritically accept and cheer on your sculpted narrative is really pretty lame.

[Sarcastr0]

He volunteered information he didn't need to.

And you're all up in his business about it.

For apparently no other reason than wanting to be a pest.

Go the fuck away.

[Life of Brian]

He volunteered information he didn’t need to.

Well, we agree on the “didn’t need to” part, anyway. “I heard from Artie and he’s still alive” (the bit we all agree was positive and welcome news) was really just an aside buried in the fourth paragraph of his rumor-mongering broadside on Eugene.

Go the fuck away.

You’re the one that just randomly tagged into this thread, our dear self-proclaimed hall monitor.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I call out people who are being dicks.

That has always seemed to get your goat for...some reason.

[Life of Brian]

Uh huh. The only reason you parachuted into this exchange was to try to serve as a distraction and provide cover for one of your ideological buddies. Pretty sad stuff.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Scurrying behind the skirts of “someone else’s business” when someone doesn’t just uncritically accept and cheer on your sculpted narrative is really pretty lame.

You're boring. I'm not hiding anything regarding my views of Eugene. The only relevance Arthur has to that is he is an example of Eugene's rather uneven enforcement of decorum.

There is no secret information beyond that. You can read Eugene's posts, see what he chooses to comment on and what he doesn't, see who is still around and who apparently got banned and make your own choice. I didn't imply there was any information beyond what is in front of your face and that Arthur is alive and well (with the obvious implications of that fact).

You were never terribly good at reading comprehension, but this was pretty bad. I didn't ask anyone to uncritically accept my opinions, nitwit. If you can't tell what's opinion (Eugene is thin-skinned and is tilting discernibly right in ways that undermine his standing as a scholar) and what's an assertion of fact (Arthur is alive), then that's on you.

[Bwaaah]

1) I am THRILLED to know that Arthur is alive (and hopefully well)! This is, ironically to me, JOYOUS NEWS. (If you read this, Arthur, I wish you the very best of life in whatever that means to you.)
2) I am disappointed in EV if what you say is true. If it is, I hope EV will reconsider his decision. Arthur could never land a blow about EV (or anybody/anything) that would sting me as much as this possibility, if it is true.
3) This is a special moment for me, to know that Arthur is OK. (I just had to say it again, because the sensation is so real.) If EV won't let Arthur haunt us here with his mainly worthless nasty drivel, then I hope he will find another suitable haunt somewhere else. GO ARTHUR!!!

WOW!!!

[Bwaaah]

P.S. I wrote a comment earlier today that I decided not to post. It was actually a very honest and thoughtful comment, but could be considered "hurtful" by some. In light of other people having been banned recently, as I was about to press SUBMIT, I wondered if I could run afoul of the very unclear rules of propriety that are evidently in effect here. I didn't post the comment.

I think Eugene doesn't want to stoke such insecurity. (Maybe the additional civility it appears to engender in discourse *is* his intent?) But indeed, the bannings do exactly that, and I really don't know where are the edges of safe waters anymore. I used to pretty much assume 1A boundaries were a good guide, but it appears quite certainly to me there are narrower preferences in operation here. (At first blush, this seems quite disappointing to me, and hard to reasonably square against the nastiness that is clearly tolerated. But then, maybe the nastiness would be much worse and even intolerable?)

TheEndOfTheLeft? Ilya Snowman? Queenie? Malika? Nige? (NIGE??? Not Nige!!!) Arthur???!!! These all strike me as offensive, well-within-bounds posters. But then I think back to them and other tirelessly prolific nasty posters (definitely including ones on the right), and wonder how corrosive it would be around here if their kind were allowed to proliferate and DOMINATE discussion. The more I know, the less certain I feel.)

Perhaps EV might do a post about VC moderation and what understandings of "jurisprudence" there may be herein? I don't doubt that would be a difficult dissertation to compose, and certainly contentious in how it would be treated. But this isn't just a blog, nor just a discussion; it's Eugene Volokh's blog, and Eugene Volokh's limits to discussions.

The more I think about it now, the more I imagine I have benefited from the quality of moderation here. Still, there should be an allowance for even a bad dog like Arthur because he's not just a bad dog; he's the old house dog. Tolerating Arthur makes me feel like I am tolerant of a diverse world.

Maybe instead of banning some people, they can be put on a global default "Mute" list, and individuals could choose to un-mute them as wanted? Newcomers would not be faced with the barrage of nastiness, but for those of us with tough stomach's, we can open the spigots ourselves, one by one? To the extent that other non-muted people interact with the muted-by-default people, that would remind us not only of the muted, but of our opportunities to expand our view of the dialog by un-muting those people?

[NOVA Lawyer]

I am THRILLED to know that Arthur is alive (and hopefully well)! This is, ironically to me, JOYOUS NEWS. (If you read this, Arthur, I wish you the very best of life in whatever that means to you.)

I'm happy to agree with you on this and the rest of your points.

[EscherEnigma]

"Eugene clearly aspires to be a leading free speech scholar and advocate [...]"

Only when it's right-wing people/causes he thinks are being oppressed. The moment they're the oppressors he's a cheerleader.

Which is to say... he is not, has not been, and most likely will not be, a "free speech scholar and advocate" (leading or otherwise). He is a right-wing shill.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I agree.

Which is why it is not surprising, if still disappointing, that he silenced one of his critics. A bigger man, a better man, would have given the Reverend leeway. Free speech is (or should be) at its zenith when you are criticizing the king.

[David Nieporent]

Kirkland was not a critic. He was a troll. Once every few months (at best) he would post something actually responsive to the discussion that was going on. The rest of the time, other than the obligatory Rolling Stone link, his posts were intended solely to hijack the discussion to be about himself. His responses to Orin's posts were the best evidence of that; he was actively trying to drive away Orin from the blog.

[Bwaaah]

+1...good, concise summarization.

[NOVA Lawyer]

He also maintained a running tally of the sorts of comments that were allowed to stand and Eugene's quotation of slurs in his own posts. You can disagree with what those tallies showed, but that was, actually, adding to the conversation.

And his responses to Orin's posts were in furtherance of that conversation. I do think he should have been more civil and less troll-like, but his mission to highlight the ideological and cultural biases of this blog is legit.

Orin is, easily, the best thing about this blog. But he is associating with Blackman, Calabresi, etc. That doesn't say nothing.

[Bwaaah]

"Orin is, easily, the best thing about this blog. But he is associating with Blackman, Calabresi, etc. That doesn’t say nothing."

What *does* it say? About Blackman, Calabresi, and you know, etc.?

Is Blackman beyond the pale for you? Is he *that* extreme? Are you *that* intolerant?

Don't just attack them. Attack their associates too. Why not their families? Would that be an unfair presumption of guilt beyond mere association?

You sound pretty comfortable with informally sanctioning right-leaning advocacy outside some very narrow range that I can't discern. The only diversity of opinions for which you seem to endorse tolerance is a left-leaning diversity of opinions. If you're endorsing a broader forum than that, I am missing your message. Maybe you can copy/paste a part of your remarks here that convey broader-than-leftward tolerance of expression?

A lot of people on the right think a lot of the people on the left want to marginalize them to the point of silence. You certainly help to make that case. Correct me, sincerely, if I'm wrong, sincerely.

[Magister]

Sincerely, Blackman posts a lot that is partisan and hypocritical. Sincerely, Calabresi posted some off the wall stuff that had people wondering if he had had a stroke or his account hacked. The only people that I can recall whose families got attacked here were by Theendoftheleft.

Orin Kerr has posted occasional responses to posts by each of these, which is a positive effort to improve the overall quality here, and makes non-partisan posts about the area of law he is an expert on. It is up to him whether the association with a blog like this has a sufficiently negative effect on his personal or academic reputation; in one case he even preemptively commented to reject Kirkland's usual suggestion that he should disassociate himself from it. But I wonder if Kerr would join a new blog with the reputation that this one currently has.

[Bwaaah]

lol. I was one of the people who thought Calabresi's account got hacked (or that it was a late-night drunk post gone totally awry).

I never fully recovered from that one. (LOL. Loki13 was similarly freaked out.)

I find this moment so illiberal and crazy. It's just wrong to have to seriously consider negative effects on Orin's professional career for merely posting on a blog where other posters are controversial. And what is the defining controversy that puts him at professional risk? Expression of right-leaning sympathies? The difference, more pointedly, is fraternizing with people who would vote for Trump.

Trump has captured and poisoned the minds of Democrats. And now, from almost all of them, all I can see is, "All your right is MAGA now."

For those who are impressed with how much [they think] Trump has changed the right, the true reactionary monolith is the abject contempt he has stoked in the Democratic Party for anybody associated with the other side. That contempt now binds together a Democratic Party in a way that its hodge-podge mealy-mouthed policy positions and special interest sub-constituencies couldn't possibly accomplish.

That widespread Democrat contempt should be carefully focused on Trump and his true devotees (who are much fewer than is portrayed). But it has been generalized to anybody who would vote for Trump, whether they be Trump-loving or not. (Yes, many of us who will vote for Trump recognize the swill every time he opens his mouth. Just because we may cheer him on doesn't mean we buy his swill. U.S. politics is a two team game. My participation in it, for example, is excruciatingly humiliating.)

Trump has not captured the right ideologically; he has captured the Republican Party tactically. He has no ideological foundation in any traditionally comprehensible terms. He will be gone soon or in a few years. I am quite sure Republicans are itching to rebuild a Trump-free party with leadership that reflects the traditional prudence of the right. I look forward to the Democratic message being reformulated to something deeper than wholesale contempt for half the country and a transient orange-haired man.

And I look forward to Orin's professional position being safe despite posting here, on VC, where people like you, and me, and an ideologically diverse range of others, express ourselves. The real dangers are at the fringe quarters, not the central quarters that are so roundly smeared these days. I hope Democrats can rekindle the compassion they had for a diversity of people; a compassion that has been doused by their hatred for one.

[Magister]

A serious academic posting alongside grifters, con artists or conspiracy theorists does take a risk with his reputation. I am satisfied to let Orin Kerr manage his own. To pretend that the concerning thing about Blackman or Calabresi is that they are conservative only, and not MAGA, apparently requires a lot of paragraphs to sustain.

[NOVA Lawyer]

To pretend that the concerning thing about Blackman or Calabresi is that they are conservative only, and not MAGA, apparently requires a lot of paragraphs to sustain.

A lot of paragraphs to try to sustain it. But the fiction cannot be sustained.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I am quite sure Republicans are itching to rebuild a Trump-free party with leadership that reflects the traditional prudence of the right.

I’m equally sure those Republicans include the excommunicated Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Jeff Flake and the barely hanging by a thread Mitt Romney only because he openly lacks the courage to go any further because he’s worried about his family (speaking of who it is that threatens families with blackballing, at minimum, and potential violence at worst). Given how few of them are willing to stick their necks out and the fact that the party has been taken over by the sycophants and the Republicans who were clearly in it for the power and perks, not the ideology in the first place, I think you are being sanguine to the point of delusion to think the Republican party can be rebuilt after what has been wrought upon it and the country.

Historically, the two major parties have been composed of sincere people pursuing legitimate ideological goals in good faith and also opportunists who are just in it for the power and perks as well as some who fall in the middle. Mostly, the people actually committed to ideological principles and actually care about the good of the country have held sway.

Trump broke that for the Republican party. You don’t just get it back when he is gone. The right cultivated a constituency largely detached from reality, convinced Democrats are evil, and who see persecution and conspiracies everywhere. A cultural shift like that is impossible to direct and very difficult, if not impossible, to change.

I think you are kidding yourself that things go back to normal when Trump is gone. Pandora’s box has been opened.

[Bwaaah]

"I think you are kidding yourself that things go back to normal when Trump is gone. Pandora’s box has been opened."

What can I say, but that I am an eternal optimist? (That's the foolish side of me that I try to keep from getting stomped.) But I wouldn't take a bet on my position, because I'm a realist too. One thing that's almost always true is that tomorrow will be like today. So if my optimistic view is to be realized, something will have to change for a much better reason than that "Bwaaah is optimistic."

I share your skepticism.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I try to be realist. And this time will pass. I just hope your optimism about what’s on the other side is warranted. I think giving tacit support to the MAGA model (which is what voting for Trump does, at minimum) makes it less likely the Republican party can be rebuilt in the fashion you hope.

And I would happily have voted for Jeff Flake, Mitt Romney*, or Adam Kinzinger, to name three, over Hillary Clinton or Joseph Biden, despite they and I don’t agree ideologically. At all. But they are each honorable men who understand the importance of the American system and preserving it and, thus, I trust that they actually care about the good of the country and, frankly, have superior character to either Clinton in 2016 or Biden in 2020. So my vote would be character (and a little competence) based in those two instances because, in those two instances (2016 and 2020), it makes up for policy disagreements.

*Mitt Romney has shown deplorable cowardice in that he won’t full on endorse Kamala Harris because he’s afraid of the consequences for his children and grandchildren being subject to retaliation by the MAGA right. Think about that. An extremely wealthy Senator and former governor, a man with both wealth and power, is afraid of retribution for endorsing one candidate over another, even to the second and third generations of his family.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bwaaah — I am not impressed with your commentary. You defend as diversity of opinion what looks to me like anti-institutionalist opportunism—from advocates who seem serious about tearing down whatever institutions hamper access to power for them.

Thus, my test for diversity of opinion comes equipped with a requirement for endorsement and defense of opinion-supportive institutions. From advocates willing to do that, I can be comfortable with the widest array of opinions.

For instance, Liz Cheney, who espouses policies which scarcely overlap at all with my preferences, would have had my vote in a second had she somehow become a candidate against Trump. Cheney’s commitment to opinion-supportive institutions sets her apart from Trump’s actions and advocacy against those institutions; that difference matters far more to me than the contents of opinions, or even the tendencies of opinions towards distasteful policies. I can always suppose that with institutional support prioritized, distasteful policies might be reversed.

I do want advocates for destruction of opinion-supportive institutions marginalized, however resigned I must be to the inevitability that they will not shut up. It falls to the rest of us to convince them that our steadfast defense of institutionalist norms will exact a price, not for their advocacy, but for their actions. I am sorry to say I see little support in your commentary for distinguishing opinion itself from anti-institutionalist action parading as opinion.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Cheney’s commitment to opinion-supportive institutions sets her apart from Trump’s actions and advocacy against those institutions; that difference matters far more to me than the contents of opinions, or even the tendencies of opinions towards distasteful policies. I can always suppose that with institutional support prioritized, distasteful policies might be reversed.

A thousand times this. I care deeply about policies. But I care about them less than the strength and health of our democracy. The whole point of the American experiment was to have a system where sometimes bad policies get put in place, but the system, including respecting elections, was preserved to allow mistakes to be corrected, policies to be changed or improved. It was to protect the country from demagogues and authoritarians by separating powers and subjecting them to periodic votes. But if you undermine elections, you undermine the very thing that makes America America. It's not whatever policy you think is good. It's respecting the outcome of elections.

Trump violated that, but Bwaah supports him because Bwaah prefers his policies. It's a dangerous game you are playing, thinking you can ride the tiger, that it won't eat you and your policies in the end.

[Bwaaah]

I suspect that my belief, and confidence, in our institutions may be greater than yours or SL's. Individuals come and go. These United States comprise not just LEGITIMATE institutions, but culture(s) that I believe will present a short-lived nightmare, and swift riddance, for any would-be despot who would try to make it his own.

There's 350 million of us who share so much more than the fractious storylines of the partisan divide.

I'm not a gambler, nor a tear-it-down guy. I'm in for us all, for the long haul, and beyond the horizon of my own fleeting existence. And though I've admitted to NOVA that I am guilty of quite possibly [likely] false optimism about the Republican Party, the strength and enduring integrity of the institutions of the U.S., governmental and private, are neither fleeting nor unjustified sentiments I hold.

[Commenter_XY]

logorrhea

[NOVA Lawyer]

Bwaah,

This is a really, really weird take.

Is Blackman beyond the pale for you?

You don't understand the conversation. No one said he was beyond the pale. He's a partisan hack who is several intellectual leagues removed from Orin Kerr. It's like Angela Bassett signing up to costar with Rob Schneider in some rom-com. Like Adele having a concert with Milli Vanilli. It's not that Rob Schneider or Milli Vanilli hold views that are beyond the pale. It's that Schneider is a shitty actor compared to Angela Bassett and Milli Vanili are talentless hacks compared to Adele. It's incongruous for them to share a professional stage.

And, yes, to some degree it lends a little extra credibility to Blackman's and Calabresi's hackery. It's like David Boies starting a new law firm with Guiliani and Sidney Powell. Why would he lend them his credibility? They're unserious hacks unfit to carry his briefcase.

Is he *that* extreme?

No. He's that....mediocre is far too kind. He's that untalented and doesn't even try to hide his partisan bias. Orin Kerr presents as a serious scholar. Blackman presents as a PR guy.

Are you *that* intolerant?

It's a weird question. I find Blackman a joke, not intolerable.

Don’t just attack them. Attack their associates too. Why not their families?

WTF are you talking about? I think it would be preferable if Orin Kerr did not lend his prestige to this blog. But that's his choice. I don't hold him in lower regard. But Arthur's question of why he would lend a little of his credibility to a hack like Blackman is a legitimate one.

You sound pretty comfortable with informally sanctioning right-leaning advocacy outside some very narrow range that I can’t discern.

You don't read very well. I didn't say anyone should be sanctioned. I think serious scholars would do better working with other serious scholars. If you're a serious journalist, but go to work for OAN....why would you do that? I'm not arguing for any consequences for Orin Kerr. I'm not arguing for any punishment for Blackman, though I think very little of him. What are these sanctions you are talking about?

A lot of people on the right think a lot of the people on the left want to marginalize them to the point of silence. You certainly help to make that case.

Blackman marginalizes himself. No one serious should take him seriously (other than he's obviously an ambitious hack hoping Trump will tap him for a lifetime appointment as thanks for his sycophancy. But if any chooses to take him seriously, that's their business. I haven't advocated for anyone silencing him. He fits into this blog quite well. It's Orin that I would recommend go elsewhere.

You might check into how you are reading your irrational fears into what I wrote. You came in all hot with intolerance and people threatening families and fevered dreams of persecution.

Shorter: Stand corrected. Blackman is a hack. I would never recommend a serious, accomplished, talented singer, actor, plumber, attorney, journalist, accountant, scientist, etc., associate with a very untalented, hack who is not even trying to do the same thing you are doing.

A lot of people on the left think the right has a bunch of rather bizarre persecution complexes. You certainly are giving credence to that point of view.

[Bwaaah]

I appreciate your patience with me, and your reasonableness. There's one request I made that you didn't quite address:

The only diversity of opinions for which you seem to endorse tolerance is a left-leaning diversity of opinions. If you’re endorsing a broader forum than that, I am missing your message. Maybe you can copy/paste a part of your remarks here that convey broader-than-leftward tolerance of expression?

I get a sense of a real one-sidedness to your position regarding an abstract question, "Are we hearing the diversity of voices we should be hearing, or should we be hearing a different diversity of voices?"

My answer to that is that we *are* hearing the diversity of voices we should be hearing, as they reflect the ugly but genuine range of voices that, for better or worse, are operative in our population. These strike me as being the voices of the people, for better or worse.

My sense is that you'd like a different diversity of voices, one less stupid, and you think we'd be well-served if EV would upgrade his associates. Am I mistaken?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bwaaah — What do you suppose an oath to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” is, if not a pledge to, among other things, speak in its support, avoid denigrating it, and not to do activities, including activities involving public expressions, to undermine it?

When Trump’s loss in the election became evident, and he ran out of legal challenges, every utterance he made thereafter to assert he won was a violation of that oath. The oath imposed on Trump at that point a duty of concession. He refused it then, and continues to refuse it. Worse, he refuses it prospectively, and demands his political associates and supporters do so as well.

NOVA Lawyer specifically endorsed my remark saying I could vote for an institutionalist whose policy advocacy I opposed. That, of course, remains a demand for a different diversity of voices, because it excludes the voices of anti-institutionalist oath breakers. But it leaves full room otherwise for broader-than-leftward expression.

EV, or any patriotic American, is indeed stupid if he acts to promote the views of anti-institutionalists advocating and acting to abolish protections for expressive freedom. There is advantage to oppose a government power to criminalize particular policy views—it is a necessary means to constrain government abuse.

To understand that is not to agree that we all owe a duty of tolerance and assistance to enemies of our own expressive freedom. In fact, we would be wise to seek laws to silence oath-breaking members of government who seek to oppose our liberty. There is nothing unconstitutional about a law against oath breaking. The nation has had them and enforced them in the past. It would be wise to do so again.

[David Nieporent]

Bwaaah — What do you suppose an oath to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” is, if not a pledge to, among other things, speak in its support, avoid denigrating it, and not to do activities, including activities involving public expressions, to undermine it?

Lathrop getting into "compassing the death of the king" territory here.

I suppose it is not in fact a pledge to do any of the things you said.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — It does not surprise me that someone whose views on expressive freedom extend to pro-libel advocacy would also endorse oath breaking as an expressive liberty. Or do you stop short of that, and just insist that to make an oath non-binding all you have to do is cross your fingers behind your back while you take it? Or, come to think of it, maybe you insist that it is the oath taker who has exclusive power to define, and later to redefine, what expressions the oath encompasses.

[David Nieporent]

Or do you stop short of that, and just insist that to make an oath non-binding all you have to do is cross your fingers behind your back while you take it?

No; I insist that the oath doesn't say anything remotely like what you pretend it says.

[NOVA Lawyer]

There’s one request I made that you didn’t quite address:.....Maybe you can copy/paste a part of your remarks here that convey broader-than-leftward tolerance of expression?

It's because I reject your premise and gave you no grounds to reasonably conclude that I wanted to suppress any expression, right or left.

I'm at a loss as to why you think I don't tolerate right wing voices. I seek them out. It's just getting harder and harder to find ones that will seriously and honestly engage with facts.

Why would I prefer Blackman not be invited to the blog? Not because I don't want to hear a right wing perspective, it's because he's a hack who, I don't think, offers anything remotely approaching intellectually honest defense of his right wings views. He's more radio talk show host than legal scholar. I originally came here for the law talk. I watch Rachel Maddow about as often as I read Blackman which is to say I'm not entirely sure when I last watched her. She's much less of a hack than Blackman, but she's also very much a cheerleader for her side more than she is a journalist. And that's despite her job is pretty clearly to have and present her political opinions and cheerlead. I don't think that's Blackman's presentation or how he would describe his role. But that's pretty much all I see him do. Why would a serious, respected scholar publish serious legal analysis alongside partisan hackery masquerading as legal analysis? I don't think it's the smartest move, but I'll grant Orin is smarter than I am and knows better what's good for getting his quite worthwhile thoughts out to a broad audience.

It's just weird to me that you keep presenting this as if I want to suppress anyone's speech. I don't tune into talk radio because I find it almost entirely garbage. I don't care to read what Blackman writes for much the same reason.

Despite his many flaws, I enjoyed Krauthammer's columns (though he definitely annoyed me sometimes) and George Will (annoyingly always feels to get in a dig, often irrelevant, at someone on the left) engages with ideas as an opinion writer. And I would read National Review regularly. Andrew McCarthy can certainly dip into partisan hackery and apologetics for MAGA, but he's worth reading and he's publishing an opinion column in an opinion-based magazine. If he was posting the same things here, I would also question whether this is the right place for him. But not that he should be banned, suppressed, or whatever, just a serious legal blog (which this used to be and still purports to be) isn't really the right place for what he's selling.

I really think you see censors everywhere, because I haven't advocated for anyone to be censored or suppressed (other than commenters who just use demeaning and insulting slurs for the purpose of insulting and demeaning and don't appear to have any actual interest in engaging in good faith). In other words, I'm pretty sure this is a you issue, not a me issue. Please copy and paste where I advocated suppressing any right wing voices (other than for decorum-based reasons which I am quite happy to be applied equally across the spectrum, as I mentioned).

[Bwaaah]

Sorry. I am triggering the wrong ideas. I'm not trying to imply that you are trying to censor anybody. (honestly)

It's true that I'm super-sensitive about professional/reputational punishment in response to political speech, and its negative effects, particularly in the form of self-censorship of normal political discourse.

In this case, I heard you saying, [my paraphrasing] "If I were Orrin, I would be considering the professional risks of being associated with this blog, and considering the merits of avoiding such association." (my paraphrasing)

That's reasonable. But my reaction is: "If I were Orrin, I would try to resist altering my associations simply because I'm around people who others dislike due to to political differences." And I would wish to hear, from the voice of all free thinkers, that they'd rather see those who would punish opinion-holders to chill out before they'd encourage speakers, like Orrin, to run for cover.

You seem to making the case that Josh is legitimately toxic enough to warrant protecting oneself from association with him. Though I'm no fan of his analysis, I don't think he's even close to the threshold I'd deem "of serious professional concern." I see placing Josh on the toxic side as a dangerously think-skinned take on political discourse that cedes the ground of acceptable political discourse to the zone of professional/reputational punishment.

I have a problem with your view of Josh being so negative that it renders him as being toxic, and the passive way in which you ruminate about the merits of Orrin running away from that. Orrin should stay here to let voices happen where they may, and not cave to the prevailing winds that now punish people for speech even when it's not their own.

I think we should be reducing the number of people that we categorize a pariahs due to their political speech, and not by changing associations or the views expressed, but by simply saying something like, "Josh isn't that bad. Orrin should stay put." Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem that you're that kind of voice.

[Bwaaah]

And please don’t misinterpret my voice here…you’ve been a gentleman with me, and I really appreciate that. And all your points are not just reasonable, but near to my own. I'm fighting my own battles here, with my own demons.

[NOVA Lawyer]

First and foremost:

And please don’t misinterpret my voice here…you’ve been a gentleman with me, and I really appreciate that.

Likewise. And, frankly, I give you more credit than me for the gentlemanly nature of the conversation. Thank you for that. I’m sure we’ll vehemently disagree in the future, but this has been a valuable lesson to me of your underlying good will. It won’t be forgotten. Despite I think you’re totally wrong. jk, jk.

But my reaction is: “If I were Orrin, I would try to resist altering my associations simply because I’m around people who others dislike due to to political differences.”

These are things that frustrate me. I’ve said it many times and I will say it again. It isn’t where Blackman falls on the political spectrum that is the problem. It's not "due to political differences."

Orin strikes me, admirably, as not a political operative and, again, as a serious, talented, and accomplished scholar. it’s not where Blackman is on the political spectrum, it is that he is so much more political than he is legal. And, unlike say Ilya Somin, he isn’t pushing an ideological agenda of the right (whereas Somin is of a pretty radical libertarianism), Blackman is pushing a political agenda of the MAGA right with a gauzy disguise of legal analysis. His is legal scholarship is pretty unimpressive, and mostly has a clear political objective and bias, and he doesn’t make deep ideological arguments. He makes intellectually dishonest arguments and engages in embarrassing sycophancy to push a political agenda (and his own professional ambitions).

I’m tempted to keep trying to explain, but I think I’ve wasted far too many pixels already. It would be the same problem if he was on the left. I wouldn’t expect Orin Kerr to join a blog with a leftist Blackman either.

If you understand it is not about punishing someone for political views that are too far out, it’s about how much dishonesty and embarrassingly naked brown-nosing renders someone a person you don’t want to share your credibility with. That’s the line I think Blackman and Calabresi cross, not a political one.

I don’t get the sense that Eugene is any less a rightist than Blackman (maybe a little more libertarian, but not that much actually). I think he is more intellectually honest, though I have definitely criticized various aspects of his posting and his scholarship with respect to what I perceive as tailoring for political ends rather than, as Kerr, being a straight shooter. However, Eugene isn’t even close to the line Blackman is across. He does serious scholarship. While there is some reason to question Eugene's bias and whether it’s due to ambition rather than sincere beliefs, it isn’t openly blatant and he is undoubtedly a serious, talented scholar. It makes sense that he and Orin Kerr and Will Baude would be on the same blog. They are doing largely the same thing with, in matters of legal scholarship, reasonably similar integrity.

Blackman and Calabresi……not at all.

Bernstein is ideologically as “right” as Blackman. I have definite issues with some of his positions, but he fits on the blog. He's smarter than Blackman and less of a hack. Unprecedented! notwithstanding.

I think we should be reducing the number of people that we categorize a pariahs due to their political speech, and not by changing associations or the views expressed, but by simply saying something like, “Josh isn’t that bad. Orrin should stay put.”

I’m not saying no one should associate with Blackman. He and Calabresi definitely should start their own blog. And, maybe not a good business model, but should invite left wing professors/attorneys with similarly flexible ethics and commitments to ideology (as opposed to team jerseys). I’m all for that.

In terms of intellectual integrity, I do find Blackman "that bad." He isn’t a useful voice. In fact, he hurts the cause of the right, at least with people like me, because he is such a hack. I can’t take anything he says seriously. But there are plenty people who are in various camps on the right, including Blackman’s, who would be great additions to the blog. It isn’t “due to his politics.” I want a serious, intellectually rigorous and honest right. I definitely don’t match with the left (which isn’t really a thing anyway as “the left” and Democrats are far more diverse in their views, I think, than the current right/Republicans) on everything and, even where I do agree, I’d love to hear the counterpoints because, shocker, I might be wrong. And in areas where I might be correct (it is too possible), it would help me sharpen my own understanding of the issues and better allow me to articulate why I think I’m correct by addressing honest, well-thought out objections/counterpoints.

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for all of that. Every time you respond, I see more of how I’ve miscommunicated. But no worry; it’s been enlightening anyway.

I’ll wrap up with a brief quote from a beautiful little treatise called Desiderata written by a guy named Max Ehrmann in 1927:

Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.

🙂
Cheers, and thanks again.

[Bwaaah]

Count me and so many others as being among "the dull and ignorant"...even maybe Josh (for a moment?).

🙂

[NOVA Lawyer]

No, I've been dull for writing far too much. Probably concision would have been better. Thanks for reading and responding.

I look forward to listening to your take in the future.

[Bwaaah]

No. I don't think it's as simple as favoring right or left. In thinking back to which voices have disappeared, and the nature of their posts, I think the concern is much more about the thoughtfulness of comments, particularly of prolific commenters.

Lots of nasty, essentially thoughtless comments from the same commenters can easily overwhelm the overall sense of quality of the discussion, and greatly degrade the experience of others. A few people already have outsized effects because of how prolific they are. I think EV has to watch for how poisonous their content may be, regardless of point of view.

Also note that the "libertarian" leanings of the Conspirators tends to draw a like-minded commentariate that tends to lean right. Conversely, the attraction to the left is weaker, and regrettably, reflected in the reduced contributions from the left. In fact, I think it's the "legal" leanings of the blog that probably draw a more diverse audience vis-a-vis political leanings, and accounts for the higher quality commenters from the left. I find the lack of more, better arguments from the left is a regrettable effect of the leanings of the Conspirators, but by no means the intent of the moderation practices. To the contrary, EV may be maintaining a slightly lower bar for the left for the sake of fostering diversity of opinion (even junkier ones).

[EscherEnigma]

I'm not talking about his moderation of this blog's comment section. This is his playground, I don't give a shit if he turns it into an echo chamber or cess pit (which he has).

His support for right wing censors in America's schools and libraries, how he cheers on hecklers vetoes of LGBT events, and can't repress his glee when gay folks get harassed?

Yeah, that's got me calling him a right-wing shill.

[Bwaaah]

Having just discovered that, according to you, that I’m a “lover of the TSA,” and then seeing all that other tripe you got there about EV, I can see where you’re coming from. Good luck with that. For me, there's no "there" there.

[Frank Drackman]

I'll believe the Revolting Reverend is alive when I see the nail wounds in his palms.

[Estragon]

Heh, nice!

While his contributions did tend to be a bit rote and repetitive, Art was on the side of angels for the most part. I find much of the criticism of him to be overly harsh to the point of self-refutation. If it is true he has been banned by EV, that is yet another black mark against what can only be viewed as a pretty hypocritical standard, given what regularly gets posted in this space.

I find myself thinking of the other commenters who have disappeared. Where are all the tearful paeans to Jimmy the Dane? I wonder what it was about his charming personality that didn’t afford him the same treatment as the Rev? LOL!

[NOVA Lawyer]

Art was on the side of angels for the most part. I find much of the criticism of him to be overly harsh to the point of self-refutation

Hear, hear!

[SimonP]

As one who also frequently criticizes Eugene in direct, not always nice terms, this does make me feel a little "exposed." I always try to be more thoughtful than Kirkland ever bothered to be, but if Kirkland got himself banned just by pestering Eugene constantly... well, it's not easy to know where the line is.

If Eugene is banning commenters for being "uncivil" towards him, it's only a matter of time before Josh might start doing the same.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Right? As another commenter pointed out, if there's a line, at least make an effort at telling people where it is. As it stands, it appears the line is different for those who criticize Eugene (or disagree with him ideologically?) than for others. That's antithetical to what I would think he purports to stand for.

Again, secure mature people can take criticism, even harsh criticism, even unfair criticism. Eugene is not that man, apparently.

[SimonP]

Well, I can understand not wanting to say more about it.

I’m not sure that Eugene has ever explained his position, but an express and more particular policy inevitably invites debate over whether this or that comment did or didn’t cross the line. Leaving it all under the rubric of a unilaterally-enforced and silent policy on “civility” helps to avoid those kinds of digressions.

Perhaps, also, Eugene’s familiarity with case law surrounding the regulation of social media platforms has made him more reluctant to engage in explicit content moderation of the comments. He is, after all, engaged in litigation on behalf of this very site, in order to avoid certain social media disclosure obligations (imposed by California, if I recall correctly). It may be awkward to take the position that the VC isn’t a “publisher” of the comments if it is demonstrably provable that he is curating their content.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Leaving it all under the rubric of a unilaterally-enforced and silent policy on “civility” helps to avoid those kinds of digressions.

Well, yes. But then it's also fair of Arthur and others of us to notice who gets disappeared and who doesn't. It's also fair to notice what First Amendment related stories Eugene posts on and which he doesn't. And what side he takes in cases of censorship and how it does seem to vary depending on whose ox is getting gored. That probably is how you angle for judgeship from a Republican administration, but it's entirely fair to point out how he appears to put ambition ahead of integrity.

[Bwaaah]

I appreciate your expression of sensitivity here.

I've found some of your remarks about EV to be not just wrong, but stinging to me personally. Why me personally? Because we all seem to benefit, in some measure, from the VC. And this comes to us for free (setting aside any emotional costs), and at significant cost to EV in time and effort and contention. And in your attempts to punch the guy in the proverbial gut, I am reminded of why good thinks like this must go away: to avoid the wrath of those who won't forgive; of those who punish.

This isn't intended as an insult. (It really isn't.) It's just to point out that even if EV sets aside how your criticism of him directly effects him, he still has to consider how your criticism of him effects others like me. And that's not just about criticisms of him, but of all the nastiness that comes from you, and from me, and from everybody around here.

There are numerous operative value offerings here: useful data, salient commentary, humor, the game of rhetorical combat, and quite often, opportunities to deal out self-righteous smacks at those with whom we disagree. And we get to deal out those smacks with [some measure of] impunity. But the smacks, the nastiness, are the seeds of self-destruction that can't be allowed to proliferate or they will inevitably lead to overwhelming discord and the destruction of the value of the enterprise.

I have come to realize that all online discussions, if left to grow uncensored, will be overwhelmed by the angry/resentful/deceitful/opportunistic dreck that haunts our inner psyches. Let us each try to restrain those destructive instincts in ourselves, and forgive EV for drawing some lines that forestall what would otherwise be our hasty demise.

[SimonP]

I am nasty to different degrees, with different people, for different reasons.

In some cases, it's because others are nasty. There's this tendency, in online debate, for right-wingers to engage in all kinds of nasty rhetoric, but they're never countered on their own terms, because those who might object to the nasty rhetoric - whether left-wingers or conservatives who try to elevate the debate - are expected to "go high." The result is unremitting and unanswered abuse from many MAGA commenters. I return in kind.

In other cases, it's because I cannot stand - am in a sense enraged - by the frequent intellectual dishonesty I encounter here. Not just disagreement, but people who know what the facts are and intentionally mischaracterize them. Or people who claim to believe one thing but act as if they believe another. Or people who take the time to respond to my comments with sealioning, strawmanning, and other kinds of trolling. I'm nasty with them.

With Eugene - it's coming from a place of disappointment. I have been reading the VC almost since law school. I've seen how the VC has evolved, how Eugene himself has evolved. Over the years he has moved from doing the kind of quaint, intellectual work of a legal academic to focusing increasingly on culture-war topics and developing arguments in favor of conservative legal initiatives. He has gone from an ardent supporter of free speech to one eager to note its caveats and exceptions. And his tolerance of what VC has become - including his decision to bring Josh on board - just adds to the frustrated disappointment.

I still will engage with his ideas and offer what I feel to be thoughtful critiques. And I will do that with any commenter who does the same. I am not altogether eager to add to the toxic commentariat. But there is just a lot of tomfoolery around, and that kind of tomfoolery carries the day if it's treated as serious commentary worthy of consideration.

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for your remarks, SimonP.

I don't disagree with any of your characterizations, but clearly experience much less discomfort over the changes simply because of my own current political leanings. Much of what I find not just wrong from the right-side comments here, but indeed dishonest low blows, stings me only a little and understandably stings you much more. I do consider that to be genuinely serious badness, regardless of right/left leaning. But I have a strong inclination to stay silent about that here, in these online discussions, for the most simplistic of motivate reasons: partisan advantage. I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I feel some shame in that.

In "real life," I hold myself much more accountable for the greater community and what appear to me as such obvious breaches of integrity. I openly and consistently challenge such deceitful speech, understanding silence itself to be pernicious.

In anonymity here comes my convenient, simplistic, politically motivated silence. It is a dark side that indeed casts its own shadow. I am thinking on this much now.

[Magister]

Bwaaah's sympathy for the Krell, who destroyed themselves by changing the Mute button on their social media for a Kill button, is noted. After a million comments of shining sanity, they could hardly have understood what power was destroying them.

[Bwaaah]

I note that I don't use the mute button, but see it as a potentially useful tool to sustain the presence of still moderate others who can't tolerate what dialog EV is trying to tolerate.

Now that I've looked up what your "Krell" fantasy is about, I note the great disconnect between my genuine sentiments and your hyperbole.

[Magister]

I am surprised that you took my comment as anything but agreement with your final paragraph. Probably just a monster from your id.

[Bwaaah]

I can’t argue with that, or my id. Regrets.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It’s just to point out that even if EV sets aside how your criticism of him directly effects him, he still has to consider how your criticism of him effects others like me. And that’s not just about criticisms of him, but of all the nastiness that comes from you, and from me, and from everybody around here.

This doesn't track. I've seen you be quite nasty. Lately, you seem much more reasonable and much less nasty. That's admirable. I applaud it. But, no, Eugene doesn't have to worry about how criticisms of him affect others. There can be lines of decency, I am all for it. Bigoted slurs and calls to violence seem top of the list for moderating away in maintaining a reasonably healthy comment section. That doesn't seem to be where Eugene drew the line, though somehow "slack-jawed" crossed it. But the line for insults directed at the proprietor should, in my estimation, always be more lenient than the line for insults direct at guests.

SimonP laid out the essential case admirably. I'll just concur.

And, like SimonP, I invite and will happily have a civil discussion with people who disagree and disagree vehemently. With different core values even. But there are plenty of people who day after day after day post outright, objectively verifiable lies. And do it with insults and often bigotry. They deserve the scorn and mockery they get. I'm with SimonP on that too.

[DaveM]

The Rev was a troll. Among the very first I muted. Occasionally I would unmute him to see if there was anything, anything!, but nope, just same 'ol same 'ol. Not sad to see him gone at all.

It's not about his POV, it's his incessant repetitions and trash talk mannerisms. A troll doesn't want discourse, they just want to watch the pot boil over.

[ThePublius]

+1

[MoreCurious]

Wow, Kirkland's banned and Drackman's still here spewing his hateful, childish, vulgar, ignorant garbage! The logic of that escapes me.

[Bwaaah]

[David Nieporent]

Thin-skinned? I think waiting ten+ years to ban a troll is literally the opposite of thin-skinned.

[OtisAH]

This will really upset the peckerwoods around here…

“68 indicted in bust of ‘Peckerwoods’ white supremacist gang in San Fernando Valley.”

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-10-02/68-indicted-in-investigation-of-san-fernando-valley-gang-linked-to-aryan-brotherhood

[Frank Drackman]

I hate San Fernando Valley Nazis

[OtisAH]

Sure you do, piece of shit. Sure you do.

[Frank Drackman]

C-C-C-C-C-C an't W-W-W-W-We J-J-J-J-J ust get along???? (HT (The Late) R. King)
Me, with my life, you, if you had one,

Frank

[Zarniwoop]

Timely!

Tina Peters, a former county election official in Colorado, was sentenced Thursday to 8½ years in prison and six months in jail after being found guilty of charges connected to efforts to copy election data from her office as Donald Trump and his allies spread false claims that the 2020 election was stolen and searched for evidence to prove it.

By the time one gets to sentencing, sometimes you have to actually acknowledge you committed crimes and were found guilty by a jury, or the judge might hold it against your unrepentant posterior:

Peters, who had asked for probation, emphasized earlier in Thursday’s sentencing that maintaining her innocence was not a form of disrespect of the law, saying, “I’m not a criminal, and I don’t deserve to go to a prison where other people committed heinous crimes.”

But in his sentencing decision, Barrett said Peters used her privilege “to obtain power, a following and fame.”

“You are no hero, you abused your position, and you’re a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be a snake oil time and time again,” the judge remarked before handing down the sentence.

Let's hope that deters other partisan, outcome-oriented election officials from trying to swing the outcome of the next presidential contest.

[hobie]

"Let’s hope that deters other partisan, outcome-oriented election officials from trying to swing the outcome of the next presidential contest."

Yep. All indications so far are that those who tried to steal the 2020 election are repentant and won't try it again this time. Like Vance said in the debate, he's tired of talking about that past and only wants to talk about the future

[Life of Brian]

from trying to swing the outcome of the next presidential contest

Perhaps this was just a bit of a rhetorical shortcut on your part, but as far as I can tell she was convicted for a series of acts that started in the May 2021 time frame, several months after there was anything to "swing."

Timing aside, if the release of forensic images of electronic voting machine hard drives could somehow result in swinging an election, that seems like just about the last damning nail in the coffin as to their basic unfitness for purpose.

[hobie]

She handed over the data she stole to Q-anon. United States election data went to the Qanon account in the Philippines.

[SRG2]

I would expect honest people across the political spectrum to applaud the punishment because what she did lessens confidence in our electoral system and weakens that system.

[Brett Bellmore]

"By the time one gets to sentencing, sometimes you have to actually acknowledge you committed crimes and were found guilty by a jury, or the judge might hold it against your unrepentant posterior:"

I've never particularly liked the idea of punishing people worse if they don't confess to being guilty. For the guilty, it's no big deal confessing once they've been convicted; Really, only the people who think they're innocent who will refuse.

So the extra penalty will fall primarily on the last people who should be punished.

[Magister]

The idea that only innocent people will continue to assert their innocence after conviction is delusional. Among the purposes of criminal penalties is to stop people from doing more crimes, and who is more likely to repeat a crime than the person who did a crime (as evidenced by their conviction beyond a reasonable doubt) but won't acknowledge that wrong? Another purpose is rehabilitation, and that's going to take longer with someone who denies their crime.

[Zarniwoop]

I’ve never particularly liked the idea of punishing people worse if they don’t confess to being guilty. For the guilty, it’s no big deal confessing once they’ve been convicted; Really, only the people who think they’re innocent who will refuse.

I think there are two possible categories of people who “think they’re innocent”, not one:

1) people who assert “That’s a real crime, but I didn’t do it”
2) people who assert “I did it, but that shouldn’t be a crime”

Ms. Peters seems to fit comfortably in #2: she refuses to acknowledge that the conduct she factually committed is criminal. It’s not “I didn’t do that”, it’s her fundamental inability to acknowledge that she can’t just ignore laws and her oath of office.

I think a judge can and should consider scenarios 1 and 2 differently.

[Sarcastr0]

So Brett is a libertarian, but has some concessions he makes to practicality.

But when it comes to the criminal justice system, he is suddenly a full on idealist.
Note that this has almost exclusively come up in his VC comments with respect to January 06 folks.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hm, this seems a bit before January 6th.

Not as early, but still before January 6th.

[OtisAH]

It’s a great spot to remind folks there are no specious claims of executive privilege available this go around. Presidential immunity, as detailed in our constitution, does not apply to a presidential candidate or his co-conspirators. And the law will likely be even less forgiving this go around.

[Don Nico]

What are Biden/Harris thinking?
1) The WH made it known that it will support any hard response to the Iranian ballistic missile attack except one. No attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. Why?

2) Then we read in the NYT that although Iran is within 3 weeks of having enough weapons grade uranium for several nuclear weapons, it will still take then a year or so to actually make one. Where does that claim come from? I doubt that it originated in a newsroom.
Plenty of underground tests of all systems could have been conducted with a depleted uranium pit. So why is a 1st generation implosion device more than a month away?
Any thoughts on these questions?

[EscherEnigma]

To (1) beyond the risk of a nuclear disaster (there's a reason people keep freaking about Russia bombing too close to Ukraine's reactors), it would most likely escalate the conflict. Simply put, bombing Iran's nuclear facilities greatly increases the risk that American will be committing ground troops next year.

(2) You're right, that doesn't sound like it came from a newsroom, that sounds like the CIA "anonymously" leaked a statement that is intended to produce two outcomes: (A) to reassure people that we are not at risk of nuclear war in the next few months, and (b) warn that a prolonged conflict with Iran means we might be. Or, to put it another way... "calm your tits folks, they don't have nukes yet. But Israel, wrap this up quick, 'cause it's coming soon".

[Don Nico]

I think you you’re right that it sounds like an intelligence community leak. But it also does not make much sense. All previous administration claim to be firmly opposed to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Only inside knowledge could say that Iran is a year away even after they have the materials. So i'd agree that Israel should not strike any Iranian reactors.

It is true that an attack on Natantz would spread uranium widely. Not a good thing, but very far from the enormous environmental catastrophic of bombing a running or previously running reactor.

[ThePublius]

EscherEnigma 37 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
To (1) beyond the risk of a nuclear disaster (there’s a reason people keep freaking about Russia bombing too close to Ukraine’s reactors), it would most likely escalate the conflict.

> how do you escalate a conflict with an adversary that has launched 181 missiles, targeted indiscriminately at your country, including civilian enclaves, as well as funding and supporting terroorist organizations that are terrorizing your country, and murdering and raping your civilians? Israel responding is an escalation? That's anti-Israeli nonsense.

Simply put, bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities greatly increases the risk that American will be committing ground troops next year.

> how's that? please explain, I don't get it.

[Don Nico]

I think that you exaggerate.
Refraining from attacking nuclear infrastructure, does not imply that Israel should not strike hard at Iranian military infrastructure. Israel could siull attack Iranian airbases, missile bases storage sites, major troop concentrations.

[EscherEnigma]

If you don't understand how a full war between Israel and Iran would be an escalation, then I think you don't understand how ineffective Iran's proxies have been, and overestimate the damage done by Iran's missile barrage.

That isn't anti-Israeli nonsense, it's a recognition that so far, they have completely out-classed their enemies.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Simply put, bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities greatly increases the risk that American will be committing ground troops next year."

While greatly decreasing the risk of mushroom clouds in our cities. I think that's a positive trade.

Iran is a world sponsor of terrorism. The idea that we'd let a world sponsor of terrorism end up with nuclear weapons is CRAZY.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — You urge on Israel the reckless miscalculation that the U.S. made about China, during the Korean war. The U.S. never paused to consider whether a nuclear warfare advantage over China had strategic import. Turned out China regarded nuclear strategic warfare as irrelevant, because it was so lacking in nuclear strategic targets. So nuclear threats proved useless to deter China from entering the Korean War.

Today’s situation with Israel and Iran is similar. Israel as a whole is a nuclear strategic target so compact that a few low-yield fission bombs, maybe less than 10, would wipe it out. Iran is a nation with one nuclear strategic target, Teheran, but otherwise a hard-to-acess large nation (3 times the size of Afghanistan, with twice the population) which the IDF would be powerless to dominate.

Iran, like China in the 1950s, examples how nuclear weapons give military advantages to nations which lack targets those weapons can destroy. But Iran with nukes would be positioned to leverage asymmetric strategic advantage. The minimum time it could take Iran to have nukes—on the dangerous assumption it does not already have them dispersed in hiding—is likely the duration of an airplane flight from North Korea.

If you think any kind of military attack, nuclear or otherwise, on Iran by Israel would do anything except unify the population in resistance—while making the world far more dangerous—I will accept any offer you want to make for a beat-up old Bay of Pigs that might entertain you.

[Frank Drackman]

Ear-Ron is closer to having a Nuke-ular Weapon than they realize.

[hobie]

Well, make up your mind. In one breath you say fuck Ukraine and our Kurd allies and Taiwan and no more American-involved foreign conflicts, but then you say this. Well...which is it.

And I for one want us to bomb the shit out of Iran's nuclear sites. These past few years have shown that Iran and it's proxies will attack any and all nations in the region. So can the world handle an Iran with nuclear weapons? Absolutely not. Despite the right's new peacenik stance in service of Trump's pro-Putin agenda, you'd be fools not to support the crushing of Iran right here and now

[Don Nico]

"Well, make up your mind. In one breath you say fuck Ukraine and our Kurd allies and Taiwan and no more American-involved foreign conflicts, but then you say this. Well…which is it."
Are you talking to me?
When did I comment on the KURDS except to say that despite their obvious ability to govern themselves, none of the left are protesting that they need a state.
I never said fuck Taiwan; this is you imagination.
As for the Ukraine, my comment has been that this is Biden's proxy war against Putin. It could have been settled within the first two months, but the US and UK squashed an agreement. I have said that move has cost 700,000 lives.

Now let's move on to Iran?
Why do you think that Mr Biden wants to protect Natantz?
And why do you think that the IC leaks that Iran is a year away from a weapon. Can the development center be destroyed now?
You say, yes do it now. I agree, with one proviso. Don't bomb active nuclear reactors to cause a worse environmental disaster than Chernobyl.

So back to my original question what is Biden/Harris waiting for?

[David Nieporent]

As for the Ukraine, my comment has been that this is Biden’s proxy war against Putin. It could have been settled within the first two months, but the US and UK squashed an agreement. I have said that move has cost 700,000 lives.

And I have said that it's a tankie lie. No, it could not have been settled within the first two months. Ukraine could've surrendered in the first two months, which is what you want.

[not guilty]

[duplicate comment deleted]

[not guilty]

If Donald Trump is preparing to reprise his shenanigans of November 2020 through January 2021 in the event he loses next month's election, the fact that he is on bond in the District Court of D.C. should give him pause.

Condition number one of his bond is that "The defendant must not violate any federal, state or local law while on release." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.13.0_7.pdf Per 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)(A), a judicial finding of probable cause to believe that the accused has committed a Federal, State, or local crime while on release is sufficient to revoke bond, if combined with a finding that there is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community or that the accused is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release.

Subsection (b)(2) further provides:

If there is probable cause to believe that, while on release, the person committed a Federal, State, or local felony, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will assure that the person will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community.

Probable cause is a low threshold. Trump had best watch his step.

[Riva]

If Harris wins, everybody will have to watch their steps. And learn to speak Bolshevik.

[hobie]

Who, again, coddles communist Putin?

[Riva]

Probably the Big Guy, whose crackhead bagman son got millions from the CCP and the wife of the mayor of Moscow. But I was really referring to the economy and society ending communist agenda of the current Democrat candidate. The one that ousted Ol'Joe in a coup back in July.

[Kazinski]

The Mainstream Media is not going to report this, but you can probably expect some campaign commercials, FEMA spent all the disaster funds on illegal aliens and there is no money left over for hurricane relief:

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas set off outrage Wednesday when he told reporters that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “does not have the funds” to see Americans through the rest of this Atlantic hurricane season — after the agency spent more than $1.4 billion since the fall of 2022 to address the migrant crisis.

“We are meeting the immediate needs with the money that we have,” Mayorkas said during a press gaggle on Air Force One en route to tour damage from Hurricane Helene in South and North Carolina.

“We are expecting another hurricane hitting,” he added. “We do not have the funds. FEMA does not have the funds to make it through the season and what — what is imminent.”

https://www.aol.com/feds-no-money-left-respond-173553640.html

[hobie]

Well, ask Mike Johnson to have an orderly vote to increase FEMA funding. If FEMA is tasked by its mandate to respond to this or that and it ran out of funds...congress holds the purse strings

[Kazinski]

Why should he have to, Congress already appropriated enough money 1.4 billion for hurricanes and other disasters, but FEMA spent all the money for illegal aliens, which is not what Congress appropriated the money for.

[Sarcastr0]

Members of Congress who voted to defund FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program one day before Helene hit:

Sen. Budd (R-NC)
Sen. Blackburn (R-TN)
Sen. Hagerty (R-TN)
Reps. Bean, Bilirakis, Cammack, Donalds, Gaetz, Lee, Luna, Mills, Posey, Waltz, Webster (R-FL)
Rep. Bishop (R-NC)

[hobie]

In Ohio, roads and bridges are being repaired all over the state. I see this every day. The hayseeds are grateful. Why Harris isn't pointing this out is a mystery to me. I wonder if all the Republican pols here that voted against it are touting it on the stump. I'm unsure but I'd like to know

[Frank Drackman]

You should be grateful too, how do you think your Condoms and Lube get to your shithole, your Fairy Godmother?
Actually, that probably is how they get to you, but a Tractor Trailer and a road and bridge are involved somewhere in the process.
Probably a Train, also, but not that kind of Train.

Frank

[NOVA Lawyer]

Another day, another Kazinski falsehood. From the New York Post article he links (through aol.com)

“As Secretary Mayorkas said, FEMA has the necessary resources to meet the immediate needs associated with Hurricane Helene and other disasters. The Shelter and Services Program (SSP) is a completely separate, appropriated grant program that was authorized and funded by Congress and is not associated in any way with FEMA’s disaster-related authorities or funding streams.”

I am sure Trump will tout this lie. Already is, in fact. You know who first started using FEMA funds for migrant issues? Trump.

But these are congressional authorizations, so go complain to your congressman.

[Kazinski]

Another day Kazinski directly quotes a news article with direct quote from a senior administration office and gets accused of lying:

"WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas set off outrage Wednesday when he told reporters that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “does not have the funds” to see Americans through the rest of this Atlantic hurricane season — after the agency spent more than $1.4 billion since the fall of 2022 to address the migrant crisis."

I didn't add a word or delete one from the lead paragraph from the article, from AOL, not exactly a right wing rag.

I've come to the conclusion you just can't handle the truth.

[OtisAH]

“Another day Kazinski directly quotes a news article…”

You misspelled “selectively.”

[Magister]

I didn’t add a word or delete one from the lead paragraph from the article, from AOL, not exactly a right wing rag.

The story is from the New York Post, which is a right wing rag. And even it's more honest than Kazinski, as it reports the rebuttal from DHS:

“These claims are completely false,” DHS said in a statement Thursday to Fox News following the Republican outcry.

“As Secretary Mayorkas said, FEMA has the necessary resources to meet the immediate needs associated with Hurricane Helene and other disasters. The Shelter and Services Program (SSP) is a completely separate, appropriated grant program that was authorized and funded by Congress and is not associated in any way with FEMA’s disaster-related authorities or funding streams.”

I’ve come to the conclusion you just can’t handle the truth.

A post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy from a partisan source is not truth. I've come to the conclusion that Kazinski is dishonest.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I’ve come to the conclusion that Kazinski is dishonest.

It's the only rational conclusion. I mean:

from AOL, not exactly a right wing rag

But, of course, it's a New York Post article with a misleading headline.....

You seriously have no shame about being caught out over and over and over completely misrepresenting things, do you, Kazinski? I'm embarrassed for you, though. That'll have to do.

[Kazinski]

I did a search for the story after seeing it on Twitter, the AOL story is what came up. I didn’t check to see if the reprinted it from another source.

And the NYPost is one of the more reputable sources out there. After all they are the ones that printed the Hunter Biden Laptop story when every other outlet was going with the bogus fabrication that it was Russian disinformation.

They’ve earned my trust by telling the truth when no one else would.

They’ve earned your scorn for not supressing the truth like everyone else did.

So two questions: did FEMA spend 1.4 billion appropriated for disaster relief on housing illegal aliens?

Does FEMA need more money now?

[Sarcastr0]

"the NYPost is one of the more reputable sources out there"

Reputed is not your personal take. Use a different word if you've personally decided to lean into your usual excretable critical thinking on partisan items.

[Magister]

It says New York Post right under the headline in the page you linked to. I understand you like the New York Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch, because it blasts out the propaganda you want.

So two questions: did FEMA spend 1.4 billion appropriated for disaster relief on housing illegal aliens?

No.

Does FEMA need more money now?

No.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd also like to highlight, that for Kaz saying he loves the NY Post it sure looks like he tried to launder the Post through AOL, and then lean on AOL's authority as "not exactly a right wing rag."

At best, he's profoundly ignorant of the Internet media landscape. At worst he's lying to try and get what he knows is propaganda out under the radar.

Given he selectively edited even the freaking NY Post to get the thesis he wanted, I'm leaning towards lying.

[NOVA Lawyer]

That's the simplest explanation.

[Kazinski]

Can you show me on the doll where I made any edits?

[Magister]

Omitting the rebuttal from DHS. Duh.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I didn’t check to see if the reprinted it from another source.

lol. It was obvious right at the top. So you don't read the things you link? You're one of those headline people? How embarrassing.

They’ve earned your scorn for not supressing the truth like everyone else did.

It's always nice to make a strawman and linger in the warm glow of the embers after burning it down. You haven't accomplished anything though.

So two questions: did FEMA spend 1.4 billion appropriated for disaster relief on housing illegal aliens?

Nope.

Does FEMA need more money now?

Ask your congress person. They do appropriations.

[Nelson]

I'm pretty sure it's evidence of the exact opposite.

[Krayt]

A free-range response that escaped into the wild!

Fortunately, it applies to all discussions. The little fellow'll be all right.

[Estragon]

“First of all, I need a magnetic mattress”

-Tina Peters, at her sentencing today.

[apedad]

It would almost be worth it for Trump to win and see him NOT pardon her.

[Zarniwoop]

State charges, not Federal; Trump can’t pardon her even if he wanted to.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

9 years by a Democrat judge for trying to preserve election data before the Democrats deleted it.

That should make a Patriotic American sick to their stomachs.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Good job by Liz Cheney in Wisconsin.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes

[Frank Drackman]

in winning it for "45/47"??, YES! (HT M. Albert)

[Krayt]

When I was a kid, there were no “meals” at fast food like McDonald’s. Pizza places, too, the toppings were ala carte, so to speak. There weren’t “deals” like you see today, especially cut rate pepperoni specials.

You just went in, I will have two burgers, a fries, and a drink. Or a pizza with pepperoni, sausage, and mushrooms.

The purpose of meals and deals isn’t to offer you cheaper fare. The purpose is to make adding extra the death not by nickle diming you, but by 2 or 3 dollaring you.

The meals and deals get you in the door, like a movie ticket. Then extras are the ridiculously overpriced concession fare. That’s the profit center.

Which is ok, but just be aware of it. There might be a workable business model that returns to much lower ala carte only, where each burger, fry, or coke is just a reasonable price, and hence any arbitrary order on a linear price axis, and each pizza topping also so.

With meals and deals, the pricing is severed from the making. Anything beyond these near loss leaders is the real profit center. It's a glorious sham.

[Krayt]

Also, look at the patty on a Big Mac. It is like a silver dollar disc amidst bun. It's not near the same diameter.

It might be a good time for Clara's grand daughter to start wondering, "Where's the beef?" again.

[Frank Drackman]

The quarter pounder is much better, and cooked when you order it. Just for nostalgia, I'll occasionally order a few plain hamburgers. We were so poor (I know my Dad was an Officer, but it was the 1970's, we'd qualify for food stamps today) the only times we went to Micky D's was when Dad was deployed or TDY, and all we could order was a plain burger, Mom would get large fries and we'd share.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I recall when the Big Mac first came out, it was so large that I literally needed two hands to eat it. It was, by itself, sufficient for dinner.

Now it's a single hand burger. That's not because my hands have gotten larger.

[Kazinski]

The Big Mac is now and always has been a terrible burger. It is 590 calories so you would probably need something more for dinner, but most people eat more than they should, so i won't criticize McDonald's for that.

The Whopper is a much better burger and it is 660 calories, so that additional 11% of calories might be enough to satisfy your appetite.

Of course The Texas Double Whopper might even be classified as food, and is 1090 calories so it would be a full meal. But in California with its $20 Minimum fast food wage it costs 16.89 for a Texas Whopper meal, so you might have to arrange financing there.

[SRG2]

I wonder whether American consumers are now so hooked on "deals" that trying to restore "regular" pricing will fail. IIRC the CEO at Macy's tried to wean consumers off "deals" and it was a near-catastrophic blunder.

[Krayt]

This. It isn’t really a new thing. Cars were priced like this for many decades already. So, too, colleges from the 1990s onward, where easy loans allowed nickle diming double-digit increases because an extra 300 dollars every year was bad, but an extra $20 a month on your loan hides it.

Now that I think about that, I even used car loans for overpriced options as the model universities used for their chronic well over inflation rate increases.

Anyway, meals and deals in fast food is just another industry adapting to this long-extant business model.

Anyone want to prognosticate the next industry to adopt it. Sorry, many goods, especially electronic devices, have many models, each just a little more expensive than the next, seeing how far up you will bite.

Gas does it with regular, premium, and super.

Washing pods do it, dishwasher or clothes. Their pod buckets even have charts of 4 levels of pods, and the extra cleaning goodness beyond their crap base, I mean very excellent base. Reg'l'r, silver gold omg platinum level pods!

Platinum level pods! The rich are different from you and me!

[Krayt]

Pardon me, Cascade! Just like the supreme court of NY is not the "supreme" court, Cascade Platinum is no longer the happenin' place. Above it is Platinum Plus!

These must be what the stratospheric and rarified "$200 billion" club buy. They're smaller than the number of members of the Order of the Garter. Buy? Nay, demanded come into existence so they could differentiate themselves.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If you're eating fast food, you're killing yourself.

[Krayt]

If you’re eating super healthy food, you’re killing yourself.

"Here's two graves. Both born about the same time, one lived 30 years longer."

"Did he think greater, deeper thoughts?"

"Don't know, but probably not. There's some evidence fattier diets have better functioning neurons."

[not guilty]

In the D.C. prosecution Donald Trump has filed a supplement to his motion to dismiss, based largely upon Fischer v. United States, 603 U.S. ___, 144 S. Ct. 2176 (2024). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.255.0_4.pdf

The Supreme Court opined in Fischer:

As we have explained, [18 U.S.C. § 1521](c)(1) refers to a defined set of offense conduct—four types of actions that, by their nature, impair the integrity or availability of records, documents, or objects for use in an official proceeding. When the phrase “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding” is read as having been given more precise content by that narrower list of conduct, subsection (c)(2) makes it a crime to impair the availability or integrity of records, documents, or objects used in an official proceeding in ways other than those specified in (c)(1). For example, it is possible to violate (c)(2) by creating false evidence—rather than altering incriminating evidence.

144 S.Ct. at 2186 [emphasis added]. Trump’s motion discusses this language in only a cursory manner at page 10 thereof. The motion utterly fails to acknowledge the fraudulent nature of the fake electors’ bogus “certificates” of election.

The superseding indictment alleges at ¶11:

a. The Defendant and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant’s opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant. That is, on the pretext of baseless fraud claims, the Defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the Defendant.

b. The Defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors. Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the Defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the Defendant never did. The Defendant and co-conspirators then caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6.

The conduct of Trump and his co-conspirators alleged in the indictment is the quintessence of creating false evidence. For purposes of the motion to dismiss, these allegations of the indictment must be taken as true. Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n.16 (1952). See also United States v. Durenberger, 48 F.3d 1239, 1241 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Under 18 U.S.C. § 1521(c)(2) an attempt to corruptly obstruct an official proceeding of Congress is just as criminal as a successful obstruction would be. Conspiracy to do so is a separate and distinct offense per § 1512(k).

Team Trump can run, but it can’t hide. As Governor Al Smith said, “No matter how thin you slice it, it’s still baloney.”

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's an irrefutable argument. Only a partisan, corrupt, hack judge would ignore it.

Well done, Team Trump!

[not guilty]

"That’s an irrefutable argument. Only a partisan, corrupt, hack judge would ignore it."

Thank you for your concession. The bogus elector scheme was chock full of fraud and corruption, topside to bottom.

Jack Smith's team took an execrable, result oriented SCOTUS decision and made the best of it.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What do you think my comment might have been referring to when I sincerely said:
"Well done, Team Trump!"

Any ideas?

[EscherEnigma]

"Team Trump can run, but it can’t hide."
Well that's the trick, isn't it? He is running... for office.

And if he succeeds, then the truth doesn't matter, does it?

[Frank Drackman]

Time to come clean, me, the Revolting Reverend Sandusky, and Hobie-Stank are all one person, like in Steven Kings “The Dark Half” notice you never see us together? I’ll, I mean Hobie-stank will deny it, so will Reverend Revolting (if I decide to bring him back)

Frank et al

[OtisAH]

Wow, you are such a needy piece of shit, aren’t you?

[Frank Drackman]

We are, aren't we?

[Bwaaah]

You're good, Frank. But you're not *that* good.

[Bwaaah]

Regarding the alleged banning of the Rev Arthur Kirkland, the allowance of Frank Drackman, VC discussion and censorship…

I suspect Frank is an edge case here, and must not only limit his invective, but also the quantity and even tenor of it. He could be much worse, and especially, for example, he could just use actual words and names instead of his pseudo-funny-words and names. Absent the limits Frank puts on himself, I suspect he too would be banned. He is probably a never-ending subject of consideration for being banned. He works at the very edge of permissibility.

Arthur gave up long ago, and became no more than a blight upon the blog. His posts became typically content-free darkness. Drackman actually thinks and creates, in some measure, in almost every post. And he limits his stalking, especially of those that aren’t inclined to take him to the mat (e.g. hobie, OtisAH).

For those who want others silenced, the mute button is your friend.

Eugene wears two hats here (and more): one as a free speech expert, and another as an online discussion host. As a discussion host, if he doesn’t restrict content, the discussion will take on the sewer-like qualities of 4chan that are so objectionable to “moderate” commenters that no moderate commenters would come here. Further, his role as a free speech expert would be eclipsed by his reputation as the demonic host of hateful speech.

We have to be very careful here to allow Eugene to censor VC discussions, or assuredly, say good-bye to the whole enterprise of hosting them. Calling EV a shill for those who say hateful things is a tired old tactic of the enemies of free speech: “If you let them speak, then that means you are one of them.” That is simply untrue.

I think TheEndOfTheLeft (a.k.a. Ilya Snowman?) is another right-leaning edge case who seems to be getting the axe. His thoughtful and robust writing should be concerning especially to those who disagree with him, and not just for the purpose of seeing him banned, but for the purpose of seeing what some of the most objectionable views look line in their most compelling forms. Alas, EV not only hears your objections about right-wing invective, but he feels them when he reads people like Ilya Snowman (and Drackman). He also feels those pangs when he reads the hate-filled contentless insults from the left, but fortunately doesn’t have to suffer being called a shill for their beliefs.

Be understanding and forgiving of VC discussion censorship, or VC discussions will have to go away. These discussions are *not* Eugene’s primary mission, and he can’t allow them to eclipse his greater missions of being a helpful authority on the contours of free speech, and also, a prudent, practical advocate for permissible expression.

[SimonP]

Frosty was no less repetitive than Kirkland. The fact that he has an entire worked-out ideology behind it - rather than Kirkland's handful of talking points - didn't make his contributions particularly worthwhile in themselves. You dig into them, you find he's just as insane as Frank.

His gleeful prediction that people like me were soon to be killed by my "betters" in America, in a civil war that the Europeans he claimed to be among would be cheering on, was a common refrain, which I thought stepped over the line of any kind of civil or constructive discourse.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I mean, seriously. Calling for murder, or if you must constantly predicting it, is far worse than repeatedly telling people they lost the culture wars so go suck it. These are categorical differences, but the more heinous one seems to get more leeway. Arthur never called for violence against anyone that I recall. It's not consistent with his online persona.

Yes, he leaned into dickishness, but mostly towards people who were being dicks. Which is why it seems to me it was that Arthur's primary offense must have been constantly bashing Eugene and keeping an actual tally of both what Eugene does and what he allows at his blog. It gets to be a bad look when someone is counting the vile racial slurs or homophobic slurs in the comment section from people who haven't been and aren't being banned.

Having said that, I do notice a lot fewer gray boxes, so people I thought deserved not to be heard appear to have been banned too.

[Magister]

Theendoftheleft was probably banned for calling for other commenters to kill their families and themselves, if not for some creepy inquiries about Kirkland's grandchildren to expedite his family being "the target of the American people's wrath" plus exhortations to "Carry on Clinger, till you see your grandkids with their brains blown out.". I don't recall anything comparable from Kirkland.

I have no idea if Ilya Snowman has been banned; Theendoftheleft would also disappear regularly for a while.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I don’t recall anything comparable from Kirkland.

Exactly.

[SRG2]

I hadn't realised that "Rev Costco" (I pissed myself laughing when I first read that) was banned as I'd had him on mute for a while. Current list (mostly from the main Reason pages:

Nardz
Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
Balisane
billardl
Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)
Defenderz
Honest Economics
hoppy025
JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)
JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes
Jonathan Affleck
Frank Drackman
mtrueman
Rob Misek
Rosario Spacagna
Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment
Santaxd
Shu SeIvera

Some of them I don't even remember

[EscherEnigma]

Hrm... I didn't know you could make a list like that. Neat.

My own:
BravoCharlieDelta
Nardz
Just Say'n
Brett Bellmore
DaivdBehar
elnurmamedrafiev
Junkmailfolder
hoppy025
IsaacDanielcm
JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes
Commenter_XY
Jonathan Affleck
Frank Drackman
the questing vole
Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)
Nisiiko
Pavel Petrovich
Yes Way, Ted
Roger S
Sam Bankman-Fried
Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force
Theendoftheleft
WuzYoungOnceToo

The only ones I remember specifically are Bellmore --his inability to understand that a 2015 SCOTUS decision could not be responsible for a 2003 New Mexico law exhausted me-- and Kirkland who was just tedious. The rest are, I believe, for over-the-top bigotry.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

This is my list, mostly for faggotry and excessive bootlicking:

EscherEnigma
SRG2
NOVA Lawyer
Magister
SimonP
not guilty
OtisAH
Bwaaah
captcrisis
JoeFromtheBronx
Estragon
apedad
Nelson
hobie
Don Nico
Sarcastr0
Zarniwoop
David Nieporent

[SimonP]

People are sharing "mute" lists, Jésus. You can be found replying to several of these people right on this page (including myself).

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I routinely unmute certain participants when I feel like pitching peanuts to 'tards at the 'Tard farm.

[SimonP]

Sure.

[grb]

JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes : “This is my list….”

Damn. When the Nazi Child publishes an enemies list and you don’t make it, it cuts to the quick. A toxic troll loser like him is exactly who you want muting your posts.

[EscherEnigma]

Hah! You got me curious, and I actually unmuted him to check.

The funny thing is, I'm not sure I've ever directly talked to the guy. From what little I recall of him, I came back after a hiatus, saw this crazy racist fucker (like seriously, he's so over-the-top) and muted him quick.

Guess he just didn't like my vibes.

[Bwaaah]

I feel honored and hurt at the same time.

Well, not actually.

Anyway…glad I could find a place to share with a bunch of people from the left. That’s been a rarity for me of late.

Here's my list:

[Magister]

I had not noticed I appeared in one of these mute lists (and near the top; are those more recent, or less?), although I do rarely get replies. I choose to take being muted or just getting no replies as proof that my logic and evidence have prevailed. I have nobody muted, although I did for a while mute DavidBehar who frequently replied to his own comments five deep; tedious to scroll past. But I unmuted him before he disappeared.

[Bwaaah]

Jonathan Affleck made Stephen Lathrop look brief and unconcerned. (There's a slightly backhanded complement for SL in this.)

[NOVA Lawyer]

I'm all for some content moderation in the comments. I assume Arthur was too. His running complaint which you can't have failed to see was how many vile racist slurs, homphobic slurs, and violent fantasies were allowed to remain while, according to what he posted here, getting chastised by the proprietor for calling someone "slack jawed" is, by any measure, a pretty biased manner of moderating that pretty clearly favors right wing nuts. They can use vile racists slurs, but you can't call them slack-jawed morons? Arthur was right about the incongruity of that and what it suggested about Eugene's own values.

But, again, I do see that a lot of the usual gray boxes are gone, so this does appear to have been of much wider scope (although, the decrease in gray boxes did occur well after Arthur disappeared, it's only now become noticeable). And people who openly tout white supremacism in pretty disgusting terms do seem to still be around, at least as of yesterday.

[Zarniwoop]

I've got some lingering/predictable gray boxes, but "that one guy who posts his oddly-specific gay male penetration fantasies here instead of just visiting pr0nhub to get his repressed-homosexual rocks off" using a steady stream of new userIDs does seem to have gotten the hint.

In my view the greatest sin in posting that will ear a "mute" is repetitive, content-free, and frankly boring posts. There are times when Rev Kirkland had interesting things to say, but the cut-n-paste "clingers" schtick went on too long without even a nod to thought and effort and creativity.

[EscherEnigma]

Oh hey, I vaguely remember that guy. He thought about dick more then I do.

[David Nieporent]

while, according to what he posted here, getting chastised by the proprietor for calling someone “slack jawed” is, by any measure, a pretty biased manner of moderating that pretty clearly favors right wing nuts.

If this ever happened to Kirkland, it happened — by his own recounting — something like 10-15 years (and several blogging platforms) ago. It is not inconsistency to change one's standards over the course of a decade.

[Krayt]

I several times pointed out he did have a real effect here, where they focused on government universities censoring, but left private religious ones alone.

People responded, legally correctly, they were private and could do what they wanted, but nevertheless this blog and maybe even FIRE, started tackling religious schools, not for First Amendment violations, which did not apply, but for violating mission statements or other boilerplate that they agreed with freedom of speech and academic inquiry, and then seeking to hold them accountable for it.

That’s all your effort, buddy!

[NOVA Lawyer]

Exactly. Those pretending Arthur had no substance mistook dogged persistence for lack of substance. He pointed out legit hypocrisy and, whether they responded specifically to him or not, there was change. That's fundamentally different than the people who post the same lies with insults day after day after day. Arthur had plenty of insults, but they often did have substance behind them.

And, yes, the "slack-jawed" thing maybe was 10-15 years ago, and sure Eugene may have decided to change the standard. But at the time there were plenty of people saying far worse from the right. After there were people saying far worse from the right. Currently, there are plenty saying far worse from the right. It absolutely looked like a double standard. And Eugene's choice of topics, often ignoring what seem like very obvious cases to post about that would paint the right in a poor light, but flooding the zone with free speech or pseudonym-related cases where the free speech/open government side favored the right. So, yeah, Arthur nursed a grievance for longer than was natural, necessary, or probably healthy, but he wasn't wrong about it.

The reason whoever upthread complained about Arthur's digs at Orin (a standup guy who I much admire and who, on this blog, only Will Baude is close to being worthy of associating with in terms of intellect and class) is that those digs actually hurt. They had painful potential precisely because there is a legitimate question as to why a man of Orin's talents, quality, and accomplishments would continue lending his credibility to and would associate with a place that caters, in many cases, to bigotry, especially in the comments, but not only in the comments. And otherwise includes partisan hacks who make academia, government, and the world worse. That's a legit thing to point out.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Congrats to the latest insanity that is the Mets season and now the postseason. Did Alonso clinch a long-term deal?

A few more homers against the Phils will help. The Mets were three of four against them in the last series. One of three in the series before then. 6-7 overall.

The team has momentum and that added “destiny” vibe but is flawed enough that elimination would not shock. At the very least, they will have another chance to play a home game.

Meanwhile, grifting or not (see Slate analysis), I guess supporters can appreciate Melanie Trump’s positions on immigration and abortion rights.

I’m sure her “private debates” with DT are intriguing.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/02/melania-trump-memoir-defends-abortion-rights

[Ska]

Being a guy from Queens, though a lifelong Yankees fan, I would love to see another Subway Series - with similar results from 2000. I'll still root for the Mets through the NL games. Partly because, hey, hometown team, partly because my friend is moving to her boyfriend's home in Philly and I can rib him for it next time I see him.

[Estragon]

Just an absolutely stunning win last night. Onwards to Philly!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The EU put a 45% tariff on Chinese EVs.

What do they understand about tariffs that Democrats here don't?

[David Nieporent]

Nothing. Tariffs are a terrible policy. But assuming by "Democrats here" you mean "Democrats in the U.S." rather than "Democrats in the Volokh Conspiracy comment threads," then the "Democrats here" already did that.

[Bwaaah]

Hey, David:

JeyHay has you and me both on his Mute list (as per his post above).

Glad to have an opportunity to find you as kin.

🙂

[David Nieporent]

I saw — but I don't believe him. Trolls don't mute people, because they want to engage the people that are most opposed to them.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Looks like Jack Smith's brief has gone unread by the right wing commenters. Bellmore and others continue to insist Trump had nothing to do with the violence on J6.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Ideologues and bootlickers believe Jack Smith’s narrative.

Rational and normal people don’t.

Look at how uncritically you people lap up whatever the State puts out there. They can say and do just about anything and you people don't blink in eye.

[not guilty]

JHBHBE, the matter is before the District Court on Donald Trump's Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity (which he is permitted to renew by November 7 in light of the SCOTUS decision and the superseding indictment). At this stage of proceedings, the courts must credit the averments of the indictment. If that principle provokes you to a hissy fit, then just hiss away to your little heart's content.

For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the allegations of the indictment must be taken as true. Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n.16 (1952). That specifically includes a motion to dismiss based on a constitutional separation of powers claim. See United States v. Durenberger, 48 F.3d 1239, 1241 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

“Bellmore and others continue to insist Trump had nothing to do with the violence on J6.”

I’m going to type this next part really slow in hopes you can finally understand these big boy words:

What
does
that
comment
hvae
to
do
with
your
statement
question
mark
exclamation
point

[not guilty]

At the risk of casting pearls before swine, (Matthew 7:6,) I was responding to the comment immediately preceding mine, to-wit:

Ideologues and bootlickers believe Jack Smith’s narrative.

Rational and normal people don’t.

Look at how uncritically you people lap up whatever the State puts out there. They can say and do just about anything and you people don’t blink in [sic] eye.

That comment calls into question whether "Jack Smith’s narrative" is worthy of belief. I am pointing out that, at this stage of the litigation, the facts contained within that "narrative" which are alleged in the superseding indictment found by the grand jury must, as a matter of law, be regarded by the judiciary as true. (Blog commenters are of course a different matter.)

The eventual determination of whether the Office of Special Counsel can prove by admissible evidence what it has pleaded will be made by twelve men and women in the District of Columbia. The pleadings have been crafted quite carefully with that goal in mind.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Since you clearly understand that it's only "true" as some legal formalism and only in a courtroom, why the fuck did you make your stupid comment?

It doesn't generalize. His narrative isn't affirmed to be true in any objective sense, only in some nonsense procedural one that only applies in some very narrow circumstance.

Stephen made no such qualifications. How did you not figure that out?

What's wrong with you people? Are your brains rotten from bootlicking so much?

[not guilty]

I am unsurprised that you don't understand my point, JHBHBE.

The function of the Office of Special Counsel is to prosecute those who deserve to be prosecuted. At this stage of the D.C. proceedings the audience is Judge Chutkan, whom they need to persuade in order to overcome Donald Trump's claims that his conduct constituted official acts as to which he is immune from prosecution.

When the pretrial proceedings are concluded, the audience becomes the jurors, who start from the proposition that the accused is innocent and who must be persuaded by presentation of admissible evidence and argument that the averments of the indictment have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Jack Smith's narrative," as you characterize it, is designed to persuade the relevant actors in the judicial system. It is best understood in that context. He is not writing to elucidate for the benefit of blog commenters.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So fucking what?
Let me try to smart-splain this to you one more time.

Stephen asserted Smith's narrative was true.
I said, "it's just Smith's narrative, not objective, proven facts."
You said, "in the Judicial system, the courts assume Smiths' narrative is true."
I said "So what, this isn't the Judicial system"
You said "IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM THE COURTS ASSUME SMITHS NARRATIVE IS TRUE"

I say "What a buffoon"

[not guilty]

Get a clue, doofus. Any advocacy, whether written or oral, is best understood in the context of understanding whom the writing is directed toward.

If you had ever tried to persuade a judge or jury of anything, you would stand a better chance of understanding that.

That having been said, the September 26 submission of the Special Counsel is evidence based and composed by attorneys with a professional duty of candor toward the tribunal. Those are indicia of reliability. (If I am using words you don’t understand, please bear with me.)

Have you even read the Special Counsel’s September 26 filing (as redacted), JHBHBE? Yes or no?

[not guilty]

Yes or no, JHBHBE?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You actually think prosecutors are reliable arbiters to present all facts, even those that would undermine their claims?

Are you for real?

Let’s extend what your saying and assume it’s true. Prosecutors present cases that have systemically put more blacks in prison. Is the justice system systemically biased against blacks, or as you claim since prosecutors are just presenting all the facts, are blacks uniquely more criminal by nature?

IOW, is the Justice System racist ,or is the reality racist?

[not guilty]

Yes or no, JHBHBE? Have you actually read the Special Counsel’s September 26 filing (as redacted)?

You ask me, "You actually think prosecutors are reliable arbiters to present all facts, even those that would undermine their claims?" Don't be silly -- of course I don't think that. Like all litigators, prosecutors are advocates who present (selected) facts in a manner which advance their clients' interests.

That having been said, licensed attorneys in the District of Columbia have a duty of candor to the tribunal. Rule 3.3 of the DC Bar Rules of Professional Conduct states:

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) Make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer, unless correction would require disclosure of information that is prohibited by Rule 1.6;
(2) Counsel or assist a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good-faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law;
(3) Fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction not disclosed by opposing counsel and known to the lawyer to be dispositive of a question at issue and directly adverse to the position of the client; or
(4) Offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, except as provided in paragraph (b). A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

https://www.dcbar.org/For-Lawyers/Legal-Ethics/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct/Advocate/Candor-to-Tribunal The comments to Rule 3.3 are also instructive, but lengthier than I care to quote verbatim here.

Rule 3.8 imposes additional special responsibilities upon a prosecutor. https://www.dcbar.org/For-Lawyers/Legal-Ethics/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct/Advocate/Special-Responsibilities-of-a-Prosecutor

Licensed attorneys in D.C. are subject to professional discipline if they engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation or conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice, per Rule 8.4.

The factual recitations in the Special Counsel's September 26 filing are carefully indexed to supporting documents and other information, cited specifically in a plethora of footnotes. You would know that if you had read the filing.

These matters are not conclusive, but they are solid indicia of reliability.

[not guilty]

Yes or no, JHBHBE?

I promise it won't break your keyboard to tell the truth.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Prosecutors are reliable.
Blacks are overrepresented in prisons.

Therefore, blacks are a inherently more criminal than Whites.

Yes or no, not guilty?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I'm waiting for your answer, ng.

[David Nieporent]

It's not a mere "narrative." It's citations to actual evidence from eyewitnesses and primary sources.

[Life of Brian]

Of course it's a narrative. Lawyers (including, I'm very comfortable, you) routinely selectively cite to helpful evidence that tells the story they want to convey to the trier of fact, and minimize/omit evidence that detracts from that story.

If you have some basis for believing this particular brief departs from that well-trodden path and instead somehow serves as a font of objective truth, please do share.

[Sarcastr0]

So there's a factual basis, but you assume there are other facts to rebut it.

You don't provide such facts, just declare they must be there and so you will disbelieve the actually provided facts.

That's not how this burden works. Read legal briefs critically, but if you want to rebut them, you need more than 'I'll bet'

[not guilty]

Team Trump has an ample opportunity to controvert the factual submissions and legal contentions set forth in the Special Counsel's September 26 motion and to submit countervailing evidence and argument as to whether Donald Trump's actions were or were not official conduct. The defense response is due not later than November 7. They can elect to file the response sooner if they choose to do so.

[David Nieporent]

Of course it’s a narrative.

I didn't say otherwise. I said it wasn't a mere narrative. You can tell, if you just scroll up.

[Armchair]

Next you'll say that we don't need the whole "defense" thing. We should just believe the prosecution and not have any cross examination, or any of that other nonsense....

The legal system will work so much better that way,

[Sarcastr0]

Strawman harder you're almost there.

[not guilty]

"Next you’ll say that we don’t need the whole 'defense' thing. We should just believe the prosecution and not have any cross examination, or any of that other nonsense…."

Au contraire. Team Trump now has an ample opportunity to controvert the factual submissions and legal contentions set forth in the Special Counsel’s September 26 motion and to submit countervailing evidence and argument to Judge Chutkan as to whether Donald Trump’s actions were or were not official conduct.

There will come a time for defense confrontation and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. At least twelve men and women will then be sitting in the jury box.

[Zarniwoop]

Looks like Jack Smith’s brief has gone unread by the right wing commenters.

I'm shocked, shocked! that Trump fanbois don't/won't/can't engage with the factual allegations in a legal filing.

[Armchair]

"factual allegations"

Technically, that's what a trial is for. If indeed, they are accurate. Which is...questionable.

[Sarcastr0]

You keep pretending that randos on the Internet are bound by the rules of our judicial system.

It's not a defense anyone ever buys, but you keep making it.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Your comment make no sense. Why would any need to pretend that? No one but the judicial system participants actively engaged in a judicial system event are bound by it's policies and formalisms. How is that even a criticism of Armchair? Does everyone have to also assume that whatever tale a prosecutor spins is absolute, irrefutable truth until the facts are adjudicated? If you are asserting that, which it surely seems you are, you're probably the dumbest mf'er to stalk this Earth. No wonder you rest in the safety of the Federal gov't. It's a well known haven for morons and idiots.

In other words, great comment, AlwaysContribut0!

[not guilty]

Armchair, have you read the Special Counsel's September 26 filing (as redacted)? Yes or no?

[not guilty]

Yes or no, Armchair?

[Frank Drackman]

Not Guilty, have you stopped buggering young boys? Yes or no?
and remember, Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the Offense

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Can anyone surmise why the Harris-Biden FEMA is blocking volunteer rescuers and confiscating supplies for the survivors?

Is it an equity thing? Not enough coloreds in Appalachia?

[M L]

Welp...

Feds say there’s no money left to respond to hurricanes — after FEMA spent $1.4B on migrants

https://nypost.com/2024/10/03/us-news/feds-say-theres-no-money-left-to-respond-to-hurricanes-after-fema-used-640-9m-this-year-on-migrants/

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Someone's gotta pay for those 2 years of free rents in those brand new apartments in Maine for illegals.

Apparently in the name of DIE Social Justice, it's the lives of White Appalachians paying for it.

[EscherEnigma]

Dude, check your e-mail. You're behind on marching orders; that lie has already been refuted. Go pick up the new orders and get back to us.

[SRG2]

Yeah, this seems to have spread across the right-wing blogosphere.

As usual, Trump says something, his devotees take it as fact, the loyal Trump media republish it as fact and the devotees take the media stories as proof that Trump was right, etc. etc,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/10/04/trump-fema-claim-debunked-agency-not-running-out-of-money-because-of-migrants/

[M L]

New York Post isn't a blog.

Your Forbes link boils down to:

Yes, FEMA spent 1.4 billion dollars on illegal immigrants. Yes, FEMA says they are running out of money (they said that a few months ago too). But! We're going to spin this as, the latter isn't related to the former because - get this - it's a "different funding pot." Brilliant!

As usual, it seems that even as people hate these types of "journalists" more and more, we still don't hate them nearly enough.

[Sarcastr0]

What a profound ignorance of the appropriations process.

Well, not really ignorance. More believing what you need to to bait you some nativism.

Congress approved a Continuing Resolution without supplemental disaster money, on Sept 26.
The entire Florida delegation insisted on it, among other Republicans.

Now Mike Johnson wants to delay until after the election. Which is Florida levels of stupid.

This is not a good story for you.

[M L]

None of your comment makes any sense. Can you point to what I said that was wrong please?

[Zarniwoop]

That’s not what the Forbes link “boils down to”. Most of the rest of us can read, you know (admittedly, Grampa Ed’s abilities in that dept remain uncertain).

I find this opening paragraph of the Forbes article a summary that is 1) accurate 2) persuasive and 3) utterly ignored by you:

Former President Donald Trump and his allies have claimed the Federal Emergency Management Agency can’t respond well enough to the aftermath of Hurricane Helene because it’s diverted so much money to helping migrants—but that’s not true, as FEMA’s funds for handling disaster relief efforts are separate from money given to immigrant communities.

Dude, why do you even bother lying like that? The only person it makes look stoooopid is yourself.

[bernard11]

Dude, why do you even bother lying like that?

Because he's a liar. Can't help himself, I guess.

[M L]

Can you point to anything I said that was inaccurate, much less a lie?

From what I gather your point is that FEMA didn't "divert" disaster money to illegal immigrants. OK. I didn't say they did. I said they spent 1.4 billion on illegal immigrants and are running out of disaster money. That's according to the information I'm seeing. Your point is ??

[Zarniwoop]

But as typical, a Trump accusation is a confession:

Trump has a habit of assuming other politicians act in the same way as he would. So we wondered why he would accuse Biden of raiding the FEMA disaster fund to handle undocumented migrants.

It turns out that’s because he did this. In 2019, the Trump administration, in the middle of hurricane season, told Congress that it was taking $271 million from DHS programs, including $155 million from the disaster fund, to pay for immigration detention space and temporary hearing locations for asylum seekers who had been forced to wait in Mexico. “The U.S. is facing a security and humanitarian crisis on the Southern border,” the administration said in its notice that it was redirecting the funds.

Link to notice provided, go read it yourself.

[EscherEnigma]

"New York Post isn’t a blog."
I think it's normally called a "rag", actually.

[SRG2]

New York Post isn’t a blog.

No but many of the places that are reposting the story are.

[M L]

Fairly interesting read:

https://x.com/ryantyre/status/1841583311782568064

If you are wondering why citizens are being turned away that are coming to help NC and TN - you'll want to hear my experience as someone who has been doing this as a private citizen for almost a decade. . . .

[M L]

Also interesting:

https://x.com/angelanashtn/status/1842023887191581140

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

This is what an All of Government Equity Focus does.

White people are left to die, while brown illegals get free bus rides, plane rides, get to skip security lines at airports, get EBT cards and debit cards with tens of thousands of dollars.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's on the internet so it must be true, and its only purpose is to cause political division and strife, so obviously you'd post it here because you're the mouthpiece of stupidity.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, there's no way to know whether any of that is true, so what is the point?

[John F. Carr]

For those still on the fence, America's finest news source has published its long-awaited endorsement for President of the United States:

Joe Biden may be young by Washington standards, but he’s packed a lot into 81 short years. He’s fought hard for working Americans, be they on the factory line or on the board of Blackstone Group. He’s stood up to everyone who threatened this great nation, from Vladimir Putin to Anita Hill. And he supports women and minorities, based on that seemingly random lady he chose to be his vice president.

https://theonion.com/the-onion-officially-endorses-joe-biden-for-president/

If some senile old election worker has taken his name off the ballot, write it in.

[Zarniwoop]

Comedy gold!

Now, on Oct. 2, 2024, we are finally doing what we should have done months ago: Buck tradition, put our reputation on the line, and take a position that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other so-called “papers of record” are too cowardly to even consider this late in the election.

[Bwaaah]

LOL. Gold!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Patriots are rising in NC to save lives against the Equity FEMA Federal Marxists.

https://files.catbox.moe/99rnqc.mp4