Monday Open Thread

Comments

[Kazinski]

Well despite saying he wouldn't Joe has pardoned Hunter.

I don't think there was ever any doubt he would, and I don't have too much of a problem with Joe pardoning Hunter. The only quibble I have is that s pardon restores Hunter's gun rights, and while I always thought the gun charge against Hunter was bogus, Hunter was not a responsible gun owner. But a pardon was Joes only option because he pardoned Hunter for all crimes 2014-2024, and you can't commute sentences for crimes not yet charged.

it is amusing though seeing some of the clips being dredged up from the summer praising Joe for his respect for the rule of law when he pledged not to pardon Hunter. Especially one from Andrew Weissman.

[Michael P]

The pardon also complains that the DOJ only prosecuted Hunter Biden because it bowed to political pressure. It's too bad that Joe Biden's DOJ did that sort of thing; a lot of people in the comments here denied that anything like that would happen under Merrick Garland's watch. (Most of those people also said it was ridiculous to suggest that Joe Biden would pardon Hunter, especially after Joe promised he would not.)

[Kazinski]

I think there was some political pressure with the gun charge, they added it to the charges he faced when Republican Senators brought up the obvious violation.

But a cynic might think they added it to the tax charges (which were not politically motivated) in order to make sure they were disposed of in the aborted sweetheart plea deal.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Biden was in an impossible position, Kaz. How anyone thinks a Father is going to leave his son to the vagaries of prison is beyond me.

Now Hunter must go and sin no more. I hope that he gets the help he needs, and not in the form of a CIA Sugar Daddy lawyer who enables his habits.

[Brett Bellmore]

Worse, Biden Sr. was complicit in his son's crimes, so he could hardly afford to have them exposed in court.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Biden won't be with us much longer, Brett. There is physical decline to go along with cognitive decline. I don't want to see ex-Pres Biden in Court. He isn't competent.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, sure, realistically Biden Sr scarcely needs to worry for his own sake in this regard; He'll be dead or obviously incompetent by the time any legal process could reach him. But, two things:

1. Has he accepted that?

2. What about Jill? Even if he's not long for this world, he wouldn't want his wife to see ill gotten gains clawed back.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't understand why Putin doesn't just leak the details about Biden and the Ukraine, he's got to know them.

[Brett Bellmore]

1. The details are already largely known, they're just widely denied anyway.

2. Putin doesn't have that much access to information in Ukraine, outside of what his intelligence services can provide, our intelligence services could provide the same data.

3. But, such information would be useless for trial purposes.

4. What's in it for him?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Putin gains by forcing the Ukraine into a peace deal.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Uh, what do you think this information consists of?

[David Nieporent]

I don't understand why Putin doesn't just leak the details about Biden and the Ukraine, he's got to know them.

Because there aren't any details, you microencephalitic moron. We already know everything, and there was no Biden wrongdoing.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 20 hours ago
Flag Comment
"Because there aren't any details, you microencephalitic moron. We already know everything, and there was no Biden wrongdoing."

Brett's comment was spot on - As usual your response is a common denial
Brett Bellmore 1 day ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"1. The details are already largely known, they're just widely denied anyway."

[David Nieporent]

"1. The details are already largely known, they're just widely denied anyway."

Yes, that's what I said. We already know everything, and there's nothing of interest, which is being denied by the loons.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t expect the Biden Crime Family bullshit will last long, but remember Brett is a travelgate truther so he’ll be adding this to his cinematic universe no doubt.

[Michael P]

Meanwhile, the pardon is red-pilling Nate Silver.

[Sarcastr0]

...OK.

[Malika]

Even the liberal Nate Silver!!!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

This really is about Obama, and pardoning Hunter prevents Hunter from having to make a deal with a Trump DOJ. HOWEVER, Hunter no longer has 5th Amendment protection and hence could be required to testify before Congress.

And even though Joe Biden's life expectancy is not much, and likely would be found psychologically unable to stand trial, OBAMA is only 63 years old and still healthy. And he's the real puppetmaster here. And statutes of limitations don't apply to Congressional hearings -- remember the Church Commission?

[Noscitur a sociis]

This really is about Obama,

Haha! Please go on…

[David Nieporent]

Worse, Biden Sr. was complicit in his son's crimes,

Holy shit! Joe Biden bought drugs for Hunter Biden? Big if true.

[Joe_dallas]

Big guy's 10% cut?

[David Nieporent]

There was in fact no such thing plus that wouldn't have been a crime.

[hobie]

Biden had to do it. With the bizarre Republican fixation on Hunter's piddly crimes and with a clearly stated mandate to weaponize the entire government against Trump enemies, Hunter would have ended up in new danger.

[Michael P]

"No one is above the law." - Joe Biden, pretending to be someone other than Joe Biden while being a Twit

[Don Nico]

As CNN wrote today:
"Politically, Biden’s reversal may be seen as a stain on his legacy and his credibility. It contributes to an ignominious end for a presidency that dissolved in his disastrous debate performance in June and that will now be remembered as much for opening the way for Trump’s return to the White House as evicting him four years ago. "

[ThePublius]

"Hunter's piddly [sic] crimes"

Piddling crimes? He failed to pay millions in taxes [1], and broke a bunch of gun laws. People are literally in jail for these offenses, never mind that he committed both of them.

[1] not to mention the taxes were for likely ill gotten gains.

[Voize of Reazon]

He failed to pay millions in taxes

It was wrong for Joe Biden to pardon his son Hunter Biden for failing to pay taxes and lying on a gun form.
It was wrong for Donald Trump to pardon his Paul Manafort for failing to pay taxes and witness tampering. At least when Trump pardoned Charles Kushner for failing to pay taxes and witness tampering he did it after the full sentence had been served.
Entrusting the pardon power to a single individual is an anachronistic holdover of a royal prerogative that tempts abuse.

[Bob from Ohio]

Manafort was prosecuted as a proxy for Trump. Trump not elected, no prosecution. Textyboolk political prosecution.

Pardoning Manafort was right and proper.

[Voize of Reazon]

It would have been right and proper for Manafort to serve his time.
That he might have gotten away with it under different circumstances isn't justification for a pardon.

[tylertusta]

I think it's obvious that Biden's enemies were going to make life difficult for Hunter.

That being said, if his name was Hunter Trump a lot of the usual types would be bleating about the "rule of law," "abuses of power," and "accountability."

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

At least Biden isn't making Hunter ambassador to France.

[Armchair]

I think the GOP wouldn't have cared. I think Hunter would have paid for his crimes, with a jail sentence for his tax evasion and tax fraud. And that would be it and over.

Now? With such a broad pardon?

Hunter no longer has 5th amendment protections. I'd be interested in having him come in.

[Sarcastr0]

What crime are you looking into?

Most folks will probably drop the bullshit political conspiracies now that the election is over.

Trump seems to have the media and IC in his sights, not Biden.

[Brett Bellmore]

The obvious crimes would the ones where Hunter passed on some of the proceeds from HIS crimes to his dad. Which we have testimony about from Hunter's business partners, and an IRS whistle blower testifying that they were blocked from following up those leads.

Now he can be hauled into court to testify without 5th amendment protection, against his dad, and any perjury would be a fresh crime not covered by the pardon.

[Malika]

Former Truther and Green Screen Dupe has solved the case!

[Sarcastr0]

The obvious crimes!

LOL at citing Comer-originated whistleblowers. None of them panned, out, Brett.

Though I suppose to you that only shows how deep the conspiracy goes.

[Commenter_XY]

The hearings would create some much needed transparency to set the historical record straight, Brett. That is important.

As for prosecution, forget it. Cannot do. Pres Biden is not competent. Biden cannot answer questions under oath in court on the complicated web of LLCs that payments came through, and the like.

[bernard11]

Brett, that's BS.

Comer and Jordan deliberately lied about what was said in the hearings, as was proven when the transcripts were published.

You have no plausible evidence that Hunter passed on proceeds. Stop reading RW BS news sources.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Brett knows he isn't telling the truth. His kind no longer gives a shit about morality.

[Riva]

And what kind of a big guy would he be if he didn’t pardon his crackhead bagman? And I’m sure no self interest played any role. I suspect very soon we’ll be confronting the presidential self pardon issue.

[not guilty]

Hunter Biden is a scoundrel. I have reservations about the pardon and about President Biden reneging on his promise not to do so, but I do understand his reasoning.

Joe Biden did not trust the incoming administration not to make his son a piñata.

[Riva]

Biden is a corrupt sleaze that has perverted the rule of law by weaponizing the justice system against his political opponents. But that’s not the reason he pardoned his bagman. He did it as much for himself. Ukraine wasn’t paying his crackhead son millions for his knowledge on Eastern European natural gas markets. Neither were other countries. No one ever hired Hunter for anything but access to Biden and whatever information/assistance could be bought. Can’t have that crackhead yum-yum out there coping any deals, hence the pardon.

[David Nieporent]

There's that bearing false witness thing again!

[Riva]

But the crackhead can sill be compelled to testify so I suggest that the Big Guy, and whoever knew about or facilitated his corruption (that would be Obama) still may have some worries.

[tylertusta]

The diversion agreement / plea deal used the gun charge as the vehicle to include the tax charges and any FARA charges.

Any FARA charges would have already barred by the statute of limitations, but Hunter wanted them included in the deal anyways.

[Riva]

As Miranda Devine notes, “It’s true that Hunter was singled out — for favorable treatment. He and his father were protected by the DOJ, FBI, IRS, State Department and CIA while selling Joe’s influence to China, Ukraine, Russia etc…”

[David Nieporent]

Is Miranda Devine an attorney?

[Riva]

Was Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein?

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you?
Are only attorneys allowed to talk about the law?

[Mr. Bumble]

FYI "are you" was sarc.

[Life of Brian]

Only the high priesthood is qualified to interpret the sacred scriptures....

[Riva]

And Ol'Joe's corruption and the corrupt activities of the Biden crime family extend far beyond his administration's lawfare abuses.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's a good thing that Biden's finally admitting that his DOJ was corrupt, and prosecuted people for political reasons, though.

[Malika]

Ah, equivocation fallacies!

[TwelveInchPianist]

What equivocation fallacies?

[Voize of Reazon]

Yes, it was an admission that Biden couldn't root out the MAGA Deep State.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The MAGA deep state under Biden and Garland? They could have nixed the prosecution at any time if they thought it was unfair. In fact, they had a duty to.

[Voize of Reazon]

The whole purpose of appointing a special counsel is to give them autonomy when there is a real or perceived conflict of interest with the leadership. Biden and Garland had a duty to keep their hands off, and they did. Maybe too much, and in the end Garland got in trouble for his integrity - as did Jeff Sessions a few years ago.

Don't worry, you'll see plenty of presidential DoJ-wielding over the next four years. Trump's plan all along has been to normalize the scandalous things he wants to do, like improperly interfering with DoJ operations, by accusing Biden of already doing it. Not because he was, but so there would be less resistance when DJT does it for real.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The whole purpose of appointing a special counsel is to give them autonomy when there is a real or perceived conflict of interest with the leadership. Biden and Garland had a duty to keep their hands off, and they did."

We no longer have an independent counsel. Biden and Garland still have ultimate control over the special counsel. Biden and Garland have a duty to take care that the law is faithfully executed, and Biden appears to admit that they failed in that duty.

[Malika]

Lol, "we kept throwing sand in your watch and you eventually had it fixed even though you said you wouldn't before we started throwing!"

[Kenneth Almquist]

The DOJ didn’t bow to political pressure. What Garland did do was to make David Weiss a special counsel. As far as I know, Garland never allowed political pressure to affect the relationship between the DOJ and the special counsel. To the extent that David Weiss bowed to political pressure that was applied directly as opposed to through the DOJ, that’s on him and the Congressional Republicans who applied the pressure.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, Hunter will never face consequences for all the crimes he committed in the last decade, (Presidents get to pardon unspecified and unknown crimes?) even if he murdered somebody in a post office.

But at least going forward people are going to stop pretending that he's a brilliant artist and a genius business executive. Hope he banked a lot of that loot, instead of snorting it.

[Martinned2]

people are going to stop pretending that he's a brilliant artist and a genius business executive

Who ever said that? Certainly no one here on VC.

[Brett Bellmore]

The people who bought his paintings and put him on corporate boards, obviously.

We are now going to see exactly how much of his income was due to his own merits, and how much was due to people sucking up to his powerful dad.

[Commenter_XY]

It is how 'Princelings' make money, Brett.

[tylertusta]

That and book deals.

[Malika]

Companies pay money to have famous names associated with them all the time. That doesn't mean they get something from that apart from the name.

[Krayt]

Companies pay money to have famous names associated with them all the time. That doesn't mean they get something from that apart from the name.

It's a safe assumption with politicians. Indeed, one could argue it's irresponsible not to speculate. Seriously. You'd be failing your job to keep an eye out, presuming innocence as baseline for their behavior.

Fundamental Theorem of Government: Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it from day 1.

But the solution is not a partisan investigation to hurt the opponent. Be fair. Special prosecutors for all high officials the day they take power!

[Sarcastr0]

Companies put famous private sector folks as well.

I guess that's the Fundamental Theorem of Non-government?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, corruption is a thing, so we shouldn't care about corruption.

[Malika]

Paying someone famous or connected to be associated with an enterprise is not really corruption unless something other than the NIL comes from it, no?

[Sarcastr0]

Corruption has a meaning, Brett. You can't just decide that's the only explanation and ignore the need for evidence.

I mean, you can, and you do. All the time. But for most folks that looks more like nonsense than any legitimate accusation.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Corruption has a meaning, Brett. You can't just decide that's the only explanation and ignore the need for evidence.

Most everyone knows about the corruption, Why would you deny it?

[Sarcastr0]

Your appeal to 'everyone knows' continues to be worthless table pounding here, as it is everywhere else you make it .

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 46 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Your appeal to 'everyone knows' continues to be worthless table pounding here, as it is everywhere else you make it ."

Yes - As you have repeatedly made clear, It is absolutely worthless pounding the table to those such as yourself who want to pretend facts dont exist

[David Nieporent]

Yes - As you have repeatedly made clear, It is absolutely worthless pounding the table to those such as yourself who want to pretend facts dont exist

As always, you've cited no facts. If you had any facts, you would not need to resort to "everyone knows."

[Joe_dallas]

Yes - lets pretend there is no Big Guy

[Voize of Reazon]

lets pretend there is no Big Guy

Is that what your leader called Arnold Palmer?

[David Nieporent]

Yes - lets pretend there is no Big Guy

Once again: even if we assume that the term Big Guy in one email not written by Joe or Hunter Biden referred to Joe Biden, there's no there there. The email asked a question about a deal that never happened (and therefore Joe Biden did not get 10% or any other amount) that was not in any way illicit and that would've taken place when Joe Biden was a private citizen.

[Riva]

Was the Big Guy a private citizen when his unqualified crackhead bagman son was paid millions to be on the Burisma board of directors? And all those millions from CEFC China Energy to the crackhead bagman and brother James were well earned I guess. Which makes one wonder, when will the Big Guy pardon his brother? This week or next?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Most everyone knows you're full of shit and undeserving of anything other than contempt and hostility.

Why would you deny it?

[Commenter_XY]

Friend of yours?

https://mandynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/GaGFLxPb0AIEBiJ-1024x703.jpeg

Why would you deny it?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Genocidal clown thinks he's relevant, LOL.

[Joe_dallas]

Malika 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Companies pay money to have famous names associated with them all the time. That doesn't mean they get something from that apart from the name."

That is true - famous names bring value, and companies will pay for that "value". Companies dont pay money if the name doesnt bring "value" - Any quesses what "value" the biden name brought to the table?

[Voize of Reazon]

Yes, names have value.
After Donald Trump Jr. joined the advisory board of drone maker Unusual Machines its stock rose 90%, an indication of how confident investors are in the reliability of Trump family corruption.

[David Nieporent]

The people who bought his paintings and put him on corporate boards, obviously.

You think that only genius business executives serve on corporate boards?

[not guilty]

"Presidents get to pardon unspecified and unknown crimes?"

Uh, yes Brett. That cost Gerald Ford election to the presidency.

[Brett Bellmore]

And rightfully so.

[AmosArch]

He probably could have just told the truth from the beginning or at least not doubled down a billion times. Its doubtful a little more admission of blatant political corruption would have moved the needle much with all the much more serious gaffes he and the Dems committed and still got the votes as they did.

[Martinned2]

I don't think there was ever any doubt he would

Of course there was. Biden is generally an ethical person.

I don't have too much of a problem with Joe pardoning Hunter

I do. Politicians shouldn't pardon relatives, friends, or campaign donors.

[AmosArch]

Of course there was. Biden is generally an ethical person.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thats the most hilarious thing I've read in this site in maybe a year or more. You should seriously consider a career in standup or SNL rather than posting on forums. Wouldn't be that hard to improve on the writers currently at the show.

[Armchair]

"Biden is generally an ethical person."

I mean....have you seen his history? This is just willful blindness.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

This is what these people do who don't have God.

They turn their elites and masters into gods and worship them.

[Malika]

And you have God? A blue eyed blond haired one?

[hobie]

I thought Comer was given years to come up with POTUS Biden crimes. What became of that?

[Armchair]

Personally, I was thinking of Joe's repeated historical instances of plagarism. That's not "ethical".

[Malika]

I think Biden is a pathetic figure and would be willing to go into details if you'd like. But it's hard to imagine hating a current politician for the sin of....plagiarism.

[Don Nico]

"I think Biden is a pathetic figure "
I agree. Now he can go peacefully into the night.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But it's hard to imagine hating a current politician for the sin of....plagiarism.

Given that nobody said anything at all about hating him for plagiarism it would appear that imagining that was pretty easy for you. It was simply pointed out as a counter to the claim that Biden is "generally an ethical person".

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty sure you are the only one still on that kick, Armchair.

[Kazinski]

How many decades did Biden spend in Congress?

“It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress”
- Mark Twain

[Bob from Ohio]

"Biden is generally an ethical person."

Does an "ethical person" not meet a grandchild because she was born on the wrong side of the blanket?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lol at you thinking you have any credibility on the subject of ethics.

[David Nieporent]

If the mother doesn't want him to, sure.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well given the morals of the Biden family not wanting your young daughter in the company of Joe might be justified.
However, that doesn't justify the failure to acknowledge the child as one of his grandchildren.

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned2 7 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
" Biden is generally an ethical person."

Since When?

[Armchair]

I remember several commenters here, reassuring us, repeatedly that Joe Biden would not pardon Hunter. Do I expect any regret from them?

The gun charges are...whatever. The tax evasion charges are not "whatever." Hunter has now gotten away with stealing hundreds of thousands in tax revenue from the US government...only because he was the Vice President's / President's son.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, there are quite a few other likely crimes documented on that laptop. Hunter was a very bad boy. He deserves prison time for his actions. Sometimes people skate. That is what lawyers (and Presidential pardons) are for.

[Kazinski]

i briefly thought of browsing the comment history, but their is no point. I think all the protestations about Biden's honesty, acuity, and morals were just the lies people tell themselves and try to get others to believe to to support their political side.

[Armchair]

I have to suspect, they knew their candidate was guilty of such malfeasance, but needed to tell themselves lies, while simultaneously pretending the opponent was guilty of the malfeasance.

[tylertusta]

I don't see it that way. The belief that my side is good, your side is evil is an easy one to fall into. After all, rationalization is a coping mechanism for resolving cognitive dissonance.

They likely actually believe that Biden is honest, moral, and mentally acute.

[Malika]

I think it's more likely that they thought that if he continued to run he would not pardon Hunter.

[tylertusta]

Except the ones who continued to say it after Biden dropped out, you mean.

[Michael P]

As a smart man once observed, "rationalization is a coping mechanism for resolving cognitive dissonance."

[Malika]

Every accusation!

[Kazinski]

Until after the election you mean, he was always going to pardon Hunter.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Biden said after he dropped out that he wouldn't pardon Hunter.

[tylertusta]

Biden even reiterated it less than a month ago, in fact. I don't recall any conversation here at the VC comment section about Biden's statement around that time, either.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz of the Comer stenography and constant whistleblowers who all evaporated in weeks?

That’s the guy talking about lying to yourself?

[Kazinski]

Comer was one of the reasons we won the election. I don't know why you think somehow Joe leaving office, losing the Senate, and a repudiated VP was completely unrelated to Comers investigations.

Here is a headline from last year:
"CNN Poll: A majority of Americans believe Joe Biden, as VP, was involved with son’s business dealings"

It was Comer's IRS whistleblowerd that blew up Hunter's sweetheart plea deal.

[Sarcastr0]

This is kind of dire, Kaz. Nothing about the truth, only what pepole were convinced of?

Yeah, liars helped you win the election, Comer among them.

What Comer didn't do was establish any of the nonsense he confidently declared. Does that even matter to you? At one point, you seemed to deeply feel what he said was real and that the truth would come out.

[Kazinski]

Comer documented everything and had witnesses.

I believe what Comer said, and so did most Americans. But the goal was not to impeach Biden it was to expose the truth, the DOJ and the mainstream press certainly weren't going to help.

If you don't believe Biden was a grifter, and Hunter was getting on corrupt oligarchs boards, and getting porches bought for him from Kazakastan, and threatening chinese executives about wiring money, then thats up to you.

Comer showed the wires, and the accounts.

He did a lot better job proving his case than Mueller did with his case.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Kaz, he didn't.

You fell on your face with your predictions stuff would come out again and again.

Now I guess you've just retconned it all to have been true, but the libs are too powerful, I guess.

Comer showed the wires, and the accounts.
No, he didn't. He showed some wires, but they had pretty good explanations and the amounts were pretty normal, and Hunter wasn't involved.

You're Bretting yourself in real time.

[tylertusta]

I thought it was the judge that blew up the plea deal?

[Kazinski]

The judge blew it up because the whistleblowers raised questions publicly, or at least made sure to give it the attention so the courtroom was packed and it was well covered when the judge did blow it up.

Certainly the resulting trial and conviction and the subsequent guilty plea show that the diversion agreement was exceedingly lenient.

[tylertusta]

My recollection is that the whistleblowers were only talking about how the DOJ/IRS leadership were dragging their feet on the Hunter Biden investigation. They were not talking about the plea deal nor the diversion agreement.

As I recall, no one knew that a diversion agreement existed until the morning of the hearing, and hardly anyone had time to piece it together until the judge started asking questions about the meaning of the provisions.

Edit: My recollection was correct. The details of the plea deal were not publicly announced until the day of the hearing. The Judge herself remarked that she only got the diversion agreement shortly before the hearing.

[Bwaaah]

Whistleblowers can't just "evaporate." Gary Shapley of the IRS continues to be punished (for well over a year now), openly, facing retribution for his honest testimony about how the IRS and DOJ slow-walked and thwarted their investigation of Hunter.

I never heard you express any regret for failure to enforce anti-retaliation laws against Shapley. I never heard you express regret for the victims of your team's games, like Shapley. It's still going on, and yet, all you speak of are the rightful [D]ifferences.

It's lowlifes like you who get to move on, Sarc. The innocent people who get punished for opposing your team (or the other team), real whistleblowers like Gary Shapley who are being punished right now while your elected Senators and Congressmen PROMOTE PUNISHMENT OF HIM AND OTHERS THROUGH THEIR SILENCE, don't get to move on. It only makes a [D]ifference to you when they come for you or yours.

You know little of ethics, Sarc, nor of the real burden it places on ethical people. You do little to promote ethics, because it's not [D]ethics. You manifest the scourge of malignant silence that infects partisans, pretending Shapley isn't a victim of your smallness. He is. You are.

[tylertusta]

You forget that if the NYT doesn't report on something, then it doesn't happen.

Therefore, if the NYT doesn't report that the IRS whistleblowers were facing retaliation, then it clearly didn't happen! Those whistleblowers just "evaporated" into thin air!

[Bwaaah]

With respect to Sarcastr0, I've repeated the story of Gary Shapley for around a year. Despite knowing those accounts, Sarc can't speak a word of regret for Shapley's ongoing punishment.

For partisans, there are no innocent victims in the game...there are just good guys, and everybody else (who got it coming to them).

Sarc, a bastion of fairness and good principles.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"It's lowlifes like you who get to move on, Sarc. The innocent people who get punished for opposing your team (or the other team), real whistleblowers like Gary Shapley who are being punished right now while your elected Senators and Congressmen PROMOTE PUNISHMENT OF HIM AND OTHERS THROUGH THEIR SILENCE, don't get to move on. It only makes a [D]ifference to you when they come for you or yours.

You know little of ethics, Sarc, nor of the real burden it places on ethical people. You do little to promote ethics, because it's not [D]ethics. You manifest the scourge of malignant silence that infects partisans, pretending Shapley isn't a victim of your smallness. He is. You are."

This from the civility police. LOL.

[Malika]

"Hunter has now gotten away with stealing hundreds of thousands in tax revenue from the US government"

Lol, this from a guy who want's the IRS ability to collect tax revenue hamstrung.

[tylertusta]

I believe Hunter's back taxes were paid for by a Democratic crony.

That doesn't address Hunter's tax evasion, but at least the public wasn't stiffed.

[DeAnnP]

Didn't some lawyer pay off Hunter's past tax debt?

[David Nieporent]

The gun charges are...whatever. The tax evasion charges are not "whatever." Hunter has now gotten away with stealing hundreds of thousands in tax revenue from the US government...only because he was the Vice President's / President's son.

Um, all the back taxes (with associated interest, penalties, etc.) were paid.

[Life of Brian]

All the back taxes, for the entire pardon period? All the discussions of repayment I'm seeing start in tax year 2016.

[Armchair]

Incorrect. The back taxes from 2014 and 2015 were not repaid. The related tax charges were "allowed" to expire. Since the charges expired, Hunter did not feel the need to repay those back taxes.

Only back taxes from 2016 forward were repaid.

Speaking of which, any remorse or regret about the assurance Biden wouldn't pardon his son?

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside the made up facts, you are confusing the criminal statute of limitations for tax fraud with the statute of limitations for collecting back taxes.

[SimonP]

I have been losing interest in these Open Threads, dominated as they so frequently are by mountains of stupidity. Still, I thought to drop by to see how many of you MAGA-heads are freaking out over the pardon, to see how many of you are just drinking from the firehose of shit that right-wing media is continuing to push out.

Honestly, people. You won the election. When will you chill out? Why can't you give it a rest? Why do you have to spend so much of your time, every day, proving that you've always been scoundrels and hypocrites?

[Swede425]

"Leave SimonP Alone!"
- Britney Fan Meme

[Kazinski]

Well since you seem to be replying to me, then maybe you can read my post closely enough to see I am definitely not freaking out about the pardon, I approve of it.

I did not approve Joe lying about not giving Hunter a pardon, nor his supporters extolling Joes virtue when he told the lie.

But if you approve of Joe lying that's up to you, it certainly isn't unexpected that he would lie, or that his supporters would approve of him lying if they thought it conferred some fleeting electoral advantage.

[Bob from Ohio]

"freaking out "

I think we are laughing. Mostly at the weirdos here who were just convinced no pardon would happen.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Like I said, it’s a great week to be a cynical asshole.

[Commenter_XY]

Indeed, we are laughing. They are making complete spectacles of themselves (or zirselves). Strangely, I don't feel bad about it at all. I think it is called getting your comeuppance.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not particularly freaking out, because I totally expected Biden to do this, and said as much repeatedly. He'd wait until the election was past, and then issue the pardon regardless of anything he was saying before the election. I think everybody expected it, even if people on the left had to ritually deny it.

I *am* more than a little surprised that he made the pardon so general as to apply to absolutely all federal crimes whatsoever, rather than limiting it to the crimes at issue. That's pretty breathtaking; Hunter could literally be found to be a mass murderer, and so long as he did it on federal territory rather than state, he'd be untouchable. I wonder what Joe knows about Hunter's past?

I'm less surprised that he did it this far in advance of leaving office. I'd speculate that either the DOJ was planning on bringing new charges against Hunter, or Biden wanted to get the pardon done before they could try invoking the 25th amendment on him to make Harris officially "the first woman President".

But it's only speculation. Maybe Joe just wanted to get it out of the way, and was waiting for a holiday to distract people a little.

[David Nieporent]

Can't you come up with a less stupid hypothetical? He's not a mass murderer, and if he were I guarantee there would be a way for a state to try him; it's essentially impossible for there to be no jurisdictional hook elsewhere.

[Commenter_XY]

Many 'ladies of the evening' just disappear, David. It is not uncommon. That is an occupational hazard. I would point out, the same kind of ladies of the evening who have a starring role in Hunter's Laptop From Hell. Who knows if they are alive or not.

That pardon is quite broad, and time specific.

[TwelveInchPianist]

They're fighting the hypo, and then they're fighting the hypo.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I *am* more than a little surprised that he made the pardon so general as to apply to absolutely all federal crimes whatsoever, "

Well, all federal crimes after Jan 1, 2014. Limiting it to crimes he was charged with or crimes related to Burisma would have been a little obvious.

[Stephen Lathrop]

One last chance to see some Republican spine. It will take only a few R crossovers to deny Trump consent to install his numerous cabinet-clown choices. To do it would require a sustained campaign of rejections, until Trump got the message and began to supply partisans with minimal competence.

I doubt that will happen. Even if it did, Trump might welcome it as a chance to go to his fallback dodge of appointing "acting," replacements. More clowns, in other words, just to humiliate the Senate.

With the impeachment power a dead letter, even a landslide result against MAGA two years hence would probably prove powerless to restore Constitutional order to the appointments process. Count on Republican Senators who can see that coming to use it as an excuse to avoid even a show of resistance now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can you say "RINO Removal"?

The only reason to tolerate a Susan Collins is that she nominally is a Republican.

[Frank Drackman]

That's what "Recess" Appointments are for.
And why does Congress need "Recess" for anyway? it's practically been eliminated even for school children, they've got a state of the art gym (remember the Theraband strap that attacked Senator Hairy Reed?) they spend a fraction of their time on the House/Senate Floor, 90% of them can't wipe their asses without written instructions, and I'm not too sure of the other 10%.
They were perfectly good with Matt Getz in the house, it was only when he was picked for AG he suddenly became Hunter Biden

Frank

[hobie]

I'm concerned that half of Trump's picks won't be able to pass for security clearance. Only by virtue of being President would Trump himself been allowed anywhere near top secrets again

[Brett Bellmore]

The FBI handles the security clearances; Is there any reason why, after the last 8 years, Trump should trust the FBI to do it honestly?

[Commenter_XY]

None whatsoever, Brett. The FBI needs right-sizing.

[SRG2]

Is there any reason to trust Trump to do it honestly?

[Malika]

Serious question: should there be serious security clearance requirements, and if not the FBI, who should do it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, there should be security clearances, and in a world where the FBI hadn't become politically corrupt, they'd be the right ones to do it.

But we're not obligated to pretend we live in that world.

[Malika]

You didn't answer my question.

[Brett Bellmore]

I honestly don't know who should, in THIS world, do it, because so much of our government is too politicized to trust.

[Malika]

That's a cop out.

[Commenter_XY]

There are private investigative agencies, and they can find out a scary amount of info on anyone. These companies are nothing like the Intelligence Community in terms of the reach and scope of information.

Malika, if the politicized IC is the problem, why rely on the IC for the upfront security clearance investigations of incoming departmental leadership (which is who nominated Cabinet officers are)?

Assuming '47' gets sworn in, the IC is about to be shaken, not stirred. I personally would like to see far more transparency, and look forward to upcoming releases of files on any number of matters. One end goal of the incoming Trump admin is a numeric reduction of DC based IC staff.

Let's see if that actually happens. I hope that it does.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just because you think something is necessary doesn't mean it's possible. If corruption is widespread in a government, as it is in ours, you can't trust that government to vet the people being brought in to clean house.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If you're full of shit, which you almost always are, you can't trust that anything you have to say is based in any kind of reality whatsoever.

You believe the FBI is corrupt because the most prolific liar in American history told you so, because he was charged with multiple felonies and one of the authoritarian playbook steps is to discredit the official institutions and claim only he can be believed.

You're a gullible fucking idiot.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore joins Trump in regarding evidence of extraordinary unfitness to be highly qualifying. Bellmore's actual concern is not dishonesty by the FBI, but likelihood that the FBI will prove honest and diligent.

That is Trump's concern too. Both worry that there is no chance in the focused glare of a Senate confirmation hearing to explain away factual evidence of criminality, incompetence, bad character, or intent to mismanage deliberately the agencies the proposed candidates are designated to lead.

[Sarcastr0]

OPM does clearances on behalf of each agency that requires one.

[Michael P]

OPM only does the background investigation. The issuing entity adjudicates the clearance and administers any polygraph that is needed.

[SRG2]

They still use polygraphs? Idiots.

[Sarcastr0]

They do. And they are.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, Brett, I have seen reports is that he ISN'T using the FBI for background checks. I forget what it is, but he's doing something else.

[John F. Carr]

Top officials need to be investigated by people the Senate trusts.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but who has investigated the investigators?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bumble — In this kind of situation It is a question which matters less than you suppose. Even corrupt investigators would face nearly insuperable obstacles in any attempt to falsely vet a proposed cabinet pick. The level of scrutiny and the glare of publicity are too intense.

Every detail alleged will have to be supported with evidence subject to cross checking by rival partisan media, by others knowledgeably associated with or opposed to the nominee, and by every random fact-checker in the public at large. In a game played for political stakes as high as these are, you need not worry too much that someone will get away with cheating.

On the other hand, your question will later matter far more—when confirmed nominees take office, appoint themselves as investigators, and set out to target relative nobodies by the thousands.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you point to even a single example in the last eight years where you feel the FBI handled the background check process improperly?

[TwelveInchPianist]

People on the left sure can.

[David Nieporent]

Is there any reason why, after the last 8 years, Trump should trust the FBI to do it honestly?

Yes. The last 8 years.

[Don Nico]

hobie,
POTUS is not allowed.
He is the prime classifier. He has access by definition.
But what is your evidence for your claim tht half won't pass scrutiny?

[Malika]

"POTUS is not allowed.
He is the prime classifier."

Are you ok with that as a general principle? POTUS says they are ok security wise so it should be accepted?

[Michael P]

The entire classification system is defined by executive order of the President, and implemented by the executive branch. Congress could make statutory law about it, but they haven't, so apparently all of the federal government is "ok with that as a general principle".

[Sarcastr0]

No, Michael, it's a system set down by law not EO.

[Michael P]

I assert it is currently defined by E.O. 13526, the latest in a series running back 70-some years. What law do you think define the classification system?

[Sarcastr0]

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information.

(b)As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution.

Yet again, the President isn't a king.

[Bob from Ohio]

That makes violations criminal. It does not create a "system".

It says that it applies to info "specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution" E.O. 13526 sets up the system for such designations.

[Don Nico]

You grossly misrepresent the power of POTUS to determine what is classified. There is an exception: Restricted by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended.

[Sarcastr0]

Follow the chain up, Don:

Here is the point of contention: "POTUS says they are ok security wise so it should be accepted?"

That's wrong in a number of ways, as Mara Lago shows.
Nuclear is the obvious one, being a directly statutory scheme, but even more generally it's a mixed executive-legislative regime.

It's far from clear to me that the President, as 'Prime Classifier' and give whomever he wants whatever classification level he wants.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
Read again.
That POTUS ultimately decides what National Security Information is classified. Restricted Data is an exception as I already wrote.

POTUS does NOT determine, who is eligible to receive a clearance; again as I previously wrote.

Mara Lago does not show anything regarding your comment, as no documents whose caveats have been identified were Restricted Data, but past Presidents have no power to classify documents. So to that extent. Trump's claim about declassification is highly questionable as the appropriate declassification procedures were not followed and other copies of those documents were not marked as declassified.

Contrary to what you write, individuals not not given classification levels; they are given access according to administrative rules pursuant EO's and legislation.

I have read the chain of comments and people are confused.
BTW, Prime Classification Authority does not have scare quotes. It is a term of art.

[Sarcastr0]

I had missed the thread changed from who gets clearance to who is the 'prime classifier.'

With the proviso that most of what I said was indeed irrelevant to your thesis, your pushback seems to misapprehend what I was saying.
The 'telepathic declassification' theory held no water. That seems to me to at least be something of a flaw in your plenary authority argument.
We don't generally allow past Presidents to bind future ones, so I'm not sure how your theory of authority to create binding declassification procedures works.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, you lack the chops to make the argument.

[Michael P]

It's cute that you think cryptography and COMINT are the universe of classified information. No HUMIMT, IMINT/GEOINT, MASINT, the rest of SIGINT, ...

[Sarcastr0]

Not a thing I said, but congrats on being able to show of some rudimentary IC terms.

[Bob from Ohio]

What statute?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Clinton did it -- otherwise many of his people wouldn't have been cleared because they had smoked marijuana.

[Don Nico]

OF course I am. That is an inherent power of the Commander-in-Chief.

But you ducked my question by misrepresentation; I did not say that POTUS could grant a clearance to anyone by fiat. Please read more carefully next time.

[David Nieporent]

Why would access to information by civilians be part of an 'inherent power' of the Commander-in-Chief?

[Don Nico]

David, stop talking through your hat. But the answer is because it is National Security (or Defense Security) Information.

[David Nieporent]

I don't understand your first sentence, and your second sentence doesn't answer anything. Commander in chief means one is in control of the military; just because something is important to national security does not mean it pertains to the military.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Where is your answer to...

But what is your evidence for your claim tht half won't pass scrutiny?

...?

[David Nieporent]

Revealed preference: if they would pass scrutiny, there'd be no reason for Trump to try to evade having them be scrutinized.

[Don Nico]

Mere polemics.

[Michael P]

That's all they really have, sadly.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Don, that's an actual argument DMN made.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think you know what that word means.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course, it may be that he figures they wouldn't pass scrutiny for improper reasons...

[Sarcastr0]

Paranoia - is there any Trump behavior it can't explain away?

[Brett Bellmore]

As the saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Remember the FBI lying to the FISA court to keep up surveillance of Trump's campaign? Because I do.

[Sarcastr0]

Remember the FBI lying to the FISA court to keep up surveillance of Trump's campaign? Because I do.

Not the FBI writ large and not material to the predicate for the investigation.

There is no Trump authoritarianism you won't excuse as needed to fight the liberal menace you've ginned up.

[Swede425]

LOL!
"Paranoia".
You guys tried lawfare against him and you couldn't take him down.
You tried killing him, twice, and you still couldn't take him down.
Paranoia, by definition, is an unreasonable or unjustified suspicion.
Sit down.

[Sarcastr0]

Lawfare isn't just what you don't like.
And who tried killing Trump twice? Seems you're making connections to Dems where none are established.

'It's not paranoia, you can't ignore all these paranoid delusions I have!'

[Riva]

Is this the grand scheme of resistance 2.0? Disappointingly pathetic. I expected more.

[Kazinski]

Stephen, I would have thought you would have seen enough Republican spine on election day. Its no coincidence Trump picked up 4 Senate seats (and the VP to make it a 5 vote swing), and was close on 3 others. The voters didn't want moderates like Murkowski and Collins defining the Republican Center.

[Malika]

"Its no coincidence Trump picked up 4 Senate seats"

It's nice when the cultists drop the mask and admit their party is a cult.

[Kazinski]

A candidate who says what his positions are and gets people to vote for him, and vote for others is not a cult.

Do you know what is a cult? Having a candidate that lies about all of her positions like building a wall, supporting fracking, ending EV mandates, and all of her supporters know she is lying and vote for her anyway. Having a candidate that pays for celebrity endorsements, puts out false rumors about non-existent concerts, pretends they are running against a wierd Hitler.

That seems like a cult to me.

[Sarcastr0]

Responding to someone calling you a cultist with 'Trump has done no wrong and the other side did nothing but wrong things' is a bold move.

Your access to Trump's real positions, as well as Harris', is incredible.

And the fact that they align completely with who you support, so it's 100% your guy good other guy bad? Amazing!

[Dr. Ed 2]

ALL parties are cults. Always have been...

[David Nieporent]

Its no coincidence Trump picked up 4 Senate seats

There were 34 senate seats up for election in 2024. Democrats won 19 of those 34, and Republicans — not Trump, who was not on a senate ballot — won only 15.

[Kazinski]

Trump has designated Kash Patel to be the new Director of the FBI, despite the fact that Trump's previously appointed Wray to a 10 year term that still has 2 years to go.

Patel is an excellent choice as both a former public defender, and a terrorism prosecutor during the Obama Administration. He was also Deputy National Security director, and chef of staff at the department of defense.

There is some criticism that Patel is too close to Trump, but I don't think Patel was appointed to protect Trump but to root out the rot and corruption at the FBI.

Despite the consternation at the upper levels of the bureau many whistleblowers that have come forward about problems in the bureau including partisan witch hunts to root out conservative agents, are very happy with the pick and think Patel will do a good job getting the bureau back on track.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — What purpose is that idiot comment supposed to serve? Nobody agrees for a second that Patel is a rational, or even a safe pick for Director of the FBI. The distinctions are between MAGAs stupid enough to think a dangerous fanatic is a good idea, and others who do not. You can get your MAGA hate fully recharged when Lavrentiy Patel gets started trying to dismantle MSNBC, which I suppose will delight you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Obama seems to have respect for him...

[Commenter_XY]

Pace yourself lathrop...it's gonna be a long four years. Don't stroke out on us. Stoke is an issue for guys your age. Fetterman is right about this.

[Drewski]

You spend a lot of time fantasizing about the death of other commenters (and occasionally encouraging them to expedite it). You are not a good person.

[Bwaaah]

Maybe there's some humor intended there? Maybe you missed it because you're stroking out?

The only thing I'm fantasizing about is more people on the left having a sense of humor.

[Commenter_XY]

Bwaaah...They have none; Pres Trump broke their humor meter. The hilarious part is why are they spazzing out? There is a non-zero chance Pres-Elect Trump never takes the oath. Sad, but true. The new Congress is not yet seated. No legislation is written. It is a blank slate, so to speak.

TCJA rate extension, the border, rapid deportation of illegal aliens, defusing UKR/RUS, facilitating victory for ISR over their enemies, is an ambitious agenda for a first 2-yr legislative term. This would be achieved in the face of substantial DC-based bureaucratic passive resistance.

One thing I hope the incoming admin keeps in mind; the shoe can always be on the other foot.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bwaaah — You seem unable to distinguish malice from humor. Here is a hint: sometimes someone you agree with will say something nasty about someone you oppose, and others you agree with will laugh in response. That kind of laughter is not a signal that a humorous remark has been uttered.

[Bwaaah]

That wasn't nasty. It was humor, and you're just stroking out again. Lighten up. (But if you are stroking out, please hang up and dial 9-1-1.)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You spend a lot of time fantasizing about the death of other commenters (and occasionally encouraging them to expedite it).

Are you functionally illiterate, or just blindingly stupid in general?

[Frank Drackman]

"Nobody"?? apparently "45/47" thinks he's a good pick, I do to. FBI needs to get back to what they used to do, apprehending criminals.

[ThePublius]

" Nobody agrees for a second that Patel is a rational, or even a safe pick for Director of the FBI."

That is an idiot comment.

[Nelson]

The guy believes that the 2020 election was stolen and that QAnon is true. You don’t get much more divorced from reality than that.

[ThePublius]

Which guy?

[Sarcastr0]

Patel.

Have you looked into him beyond 'Trump likes him and libs don't so I know what I should think!'

[Nelson]

Yes, Kash Patel. He’s a few sandwiches short of a picnic, as my dad used to say.

[Commenter_XY]

And yet, the Republic will somehow survive the trauma of a bad picnic. 😉

[Kazinski]

Why don't you enlighten us about how extreme Patel is?

Is he extreme.enough that he will make sure we never have a Senior FBI agent say again to his FBI attorney girlfriend:

”[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page, who also worked on Mueller’s staff, responded.

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,”

I'm hoping Kash Patel is that extreme.

[Sarcastr0]

Pathetic, even by the pathetic standards for whattaboutsm.

[Don Nico]

Bitterness is unbecoming.

[Sarcastr0]

It's whattaboutism, Don. Kaz is deflecting criticism of Patel by digging up some deep cut non-analogous nonsense.

He shouldn't do that.

[Commenter_XY]

It remains the truth, Sarcastr0. Those things were said by the Director of counter-intelligence (IIRC), and they were brought out in court.

[Kazinski]

This is nothing to do with whataboutism.

That is a clear example of why we need someone like Kash Patel to purge and reform the FBI of politically motivated hacks, like Peter Stzrok, Andrew McCabe etc.

I'm not pointing at FEMA and the political litmus tests there as a reason to purge and reform the FBI, I am pointing to the FBI as the reason to purge and reform the FBI.

[Malika]

Let's remember McCabe was fired for leaking to hurt Hillary Clinton.

[tylertusta]

He was fired for lying under oath about it, not for the leaks themselves.

[Sarcastr0]

Your example has nothing to do with the top ranks of the FBI, of course. And examples are not generalizeable - jumping it up to be what the FBI is about is kinda silly.

You clearly haven't done any work to know about the guy.

Did you see his children's book 'The Plot Against the King?' Normal stuff right there!

“We’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections,”

He's a 2020 truther, if the above didn't hit home enough.

Plenty I don't like about the FBI. But this guy is not a reformer, he's an authoritarian conspiracist, and you either don't know or don't care.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You clearly haven't done any work to know about the guy."

First "minority" to head the FBI, after a century of White guys.

You don't like diversity?

[Sarcastr0]

Oh well, then, better change my mind.

Who is this kind of comment even for?

[Nelson]

Diversity is fine if combined with competence and sanity. Kash Patel doesn’t reach that admittedly low bar.

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe you need to check your privilege, Nelson.

[Kazinski]

"Your example has nothing to do with the top ranks of the FBI, of course."

Streak was Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division

At just what rank would you put a Deputy Assistant director?

"You clearly haven't done any work to know about the guy."

[Sarcastr0]

So someone who serves at the pleasure of the FBI Director?

By top ranks I mean of the civil servants, as do you. Or as you seemed to. Otherwise you don't need reforms beyond what'll happen immediately.

You used to just have very bad critical thinking skills. Now you're quite willing to discard consistency as you argue on the Internet.

And again, if you need to reach that far back for an example to generalize off of, and that example isn't really appropos, then you don't want an example, but an excuse.

An excuse for lunatic to abuse the power of the FBI to go after the media and election officials who did their job well, but failed to elect Trump.
What an awful thing to support.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You already know how extreme Patel is. That's why you like him. That makes you, like Patel, an outlier on the anti-patriot axis. Patel is a notably worse pick than J. Edgar Hoover. Even Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s did less damage than Patel will do if he tries to keep his public promises.

[Malika]

Remember these "senior FBI Agents" were working for a career GOP operative charged with investigating a GOP President. There's no stacking of the deck that these people won't cry foul.

[Nelson]

“ Why don't you enlighten us about how extreme Patel is?”

He believes that the 2020 election was stolen and that QAnon is true. So very, very extreme (and frightfully divorced from reality).

[tylertusta]

Patel was one of the authors of the Nunes memo that exposed the FBI's malfeasance that went into the Carter Page FISA warrants.

Also, let's remember that the Director of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the President and can be fired at any time. The "10 year term" is essentially meaningless except at an academic level.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It had real meaning before Trump gleefully obstructed justice by firing Comey. Bill Clinton would have dearly loved to fire Louis Freeh. But he didn’t.

[Mr. Bumble]

Clinton had no trouble firing William Sessions and he nominated Freeh as director.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Sessions resigned because of an ethics violation .

[Mr. Bumble]

Per Wiki:
As a result, President Clinton dismissed Sessions on July 19, 1993. Sessions was five and a half years into a ten-year term as FBI director; however, the holder of this post serves at the pleasure of the President.

[Commenter_XY]

Sometimes people know things that just aren't so, Mr. Bumble. 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

As prosecutorial discretion is an executive power, and "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.", Trump was perfectly entitled to direct Comey to lay off persecuting Flynn. And to fire him for violating that lawful command.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yet another example of your utter lack of principles.

Attempting to block an investigation which could lead back to yourself is not something anyone is 'perfectly entitled' to do: it's blatant fucking corruption.

Your presence makes this country worse.

[tylertusta]

I surmise that Clinton couldn't fire Freeh because Freeh knew all about Clinton's expeditions with Jeffrey Epstein.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, the 10 year term was instituted as a means of nudging another J. Edgar into retirement.

[tylertusta]

There's nothing preventing a FBI director from remaining, provided he or she was reconfirmed by the Senate. See Robert Mueller.

[Bob from Ohio]

"reconfirmed by the Senate'

The extension can be only 2 years.

[tylertusta]

Only? There's no provision for an extension at all. The law is explicitly clear that only one 10-year term is permitted.

...and then Congress made a 2-year exception for Mueller.

Which means that the official rule is 10 years, but the unofficial rule is unlimited so long as Congress signs off on it.

[Malika]

Is Kaz still saying the Gaetz pick was 3d chess by Trump to get him out of Congress?

[Don Nico]

It worked, didn't it?

[Malika]

Lol.

[Kazinski]

Sarcasm just flys by you doesn't it, especially when you are still seething the month after the election.

I'm not a Gaetz fan, so i was happy to see the pick fail and Gaetz out of Congress.

Trump recovered nicely by picking Bondi, and got a needed reminder that he can't make everything stick when he throws it up on the wall.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Watch for Gaetz to become a special prosecutor...

[SimonP]

No, the criticism of Patel is that he is completely unqualified for the position, and you know it, your flooding the zone with shit notwithstanding.

It is insane to me that the same people complaining about the drug overdose and immigration crisis - issues that the FBI is instrumental in addressing - are so interested in hollowing out the FBI over its investigation of one person, a person who in fact engaged in all kinds of criminal activity and corruption. And, in so doing, bulldozing right by the fact that the director's 10-year-term is there to prevent precisely this kind of thing from happening.

The media is brushing off the term "kakistocracy" to try to describe what we're seeing happening. As one actively engaged in helping it along, Kaz, how ought we to describe you? "Kakis," say? "Kakistos"?

[Kazinski]

In what world Is Patel unqualified?

-Public defender in Miami.
-Terrorism prosecutor for DOJ in Obama Administration
-Senior counsel on counterterrorism at the House Intelligence Committee
-Senior Director of the Counterterrorism Directorate,
-Principal Deputy to Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell.

That seems to me to be more than sufficient background to be FBI director

[Josh R]

It's this comment to Bannon in 2022 that raised my eyebrows:

We will go out and find the conspirators — not just in government, but in the media ... we're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections ... We're going to come after you. Whether it's criminally or civilly, we'll figure that out. But yeah, we're putting you all on notice, and Steve, this is why they hate us. This is why we're tyrannical. This is why we're dictators ... Because we're actually going to use the Constitution to prosecute them for crimes they said we have always been guilty of but never have.

[SimonP]

Yes, I saw your list of "qualifications," most of which consist of positions he was also unqualified for.

FBI directors typically come from FBI rank and file. That's why Barr opposed him the first time Trump tried to appoint him. The only point in choosing this clown to head the FBI is to drive morale into the ground and elevate incompetent sycophancy. Why you'd want to do that, for the FBI, is hard to grasp.

[Kazinski]

No FBI directtors do not typically come from the FBI rank and file, Assistant directors do.

Past FBI directors who were not from within the bureau included Clarence Kelly, William Webster, William Sessions, James Comey, and Christopher Wray.

[Noscitur a sociis]

FBI directors typically come from FBI rank and file.

Well that’s certainly not true: indeed, I believe there are only two FBI directors with prior FBI experience at all. (Which is not, of course, to say that Patel is qualified.)

[bernard11]

It is "sufficient background,"though he seems to have "overstated" his participation in terrorism in terrorism prosecutions.

Of course the quote cited by Josh R. makes him utterly unqualified for any job within a hundred miles of law enforcement.

He also is a 2020 election truther. Typical MAGA scum.

[Commenter_XY]

You're still angry, when do you get to the bargaining phase? 🙂

The President gets to pick his team. The FBI DC-based bureaucracy is about to be shaken, not stirred. The FBI will be right-sized.

Remember bernard11: Elections have consequences.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The president gets to pick his team, with the advice and consent of the senate. If the president picks wrong, they can advise that they don’t consent. (This is why Matt Gaetz will never be the attorney general.)

[Josh R]

Do Patel's comments bother you?

[bernard11]

Why shouldn't I be angry? Yes, the President gets to pick his team - subject of course to Senate approval.

That doesn't mean we must all sit back and refrain from criticizing atrocious picks, like Patel. And if we do it is not an example of your psychological analysis. Tell us, what is your psychological training?

And who appointed you to decide what the right size of the FBI is? Some lunatic RW media?

Get your nose out of Trump's ass.

[Bob from Ohio]

"drug overdose and immigration crisis "

What are you talking about? DEA is the primary anti-drug agency and ICE for immigration.

[SimonP]

Oh, I forgot, the FBI just does criminal investigations of political opponents, right right.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The FBI is heavily involved in investigating drug trafficking and associated violent crime.

[Commenter_XY]

You know what...in the near future (meaning post 1/20/25), there will be even more FBI staff directly assigned to combatting drug trafficking and violent crime in the field, and far fewer DC-based FBI staff to tell others how they think they should go about doing that.

The President gets to pick his team. I don't see anything that disqualifies Kash Patel at this stage. If caterwauling is proportional to qualification, then '47' picked the right man.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You know what...in the near future (meaning post 1/20/25), there will be even more FBI staff directly assigned to combatting drug trafficking and violent crime in the field, and far fewer DC-based FBI staff to tell others how they think they should go about doing that.

You have very strange ideas about how the FBI is currently organized.

If caterwauling is proportional to qualification, then '47' picked the right man.

And if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas. Thing is, there’s more to successful government than owning the libs,

[Commenter_XY]

Nas, the FBI is about to be shaken, not stirred. And considering their political corruption and corrupt actions, rightfully so.

You're bargaining. May I suggest moving to acceptance.

The FBI will be right-sized. In 4 years time, there will be far fewer DC-based FBI staff. RIFs are coming to the FBI, Nas. That isn't owning the libs (humorous and entertaining as that is), it is telling you what is absolutely going to happen.

There will be some good real estate deals to be had in Northern VA in about 1.5 years (spring 2026). I am stockpiling some cash now in anticipation. You should think about doing the same, if you like the NoVa area (it is quite crowded, but nice).

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"There is some criticism that Patel is too close to Trump, but I don't think Patel was appointed to protect Trump but to root out the rot and corruption at the FBI."

Even you can't possibly be this naive in swallowing Trump's bullshit. Patel is a fawning Trump sycophant. He published children's books about how great Trump is. He's publicly stated that he thinks Trump should use DOJ to go after his enemies. But you think his nomination is all about anti-corruption. Fat fucking chance.

Even so, he isn't in the top 5 nominations for the amount of damage they could potentially do. At #1 by a large margin is Tulsi Gabbard.

[Brett Bellmore]

Holder was a fawning Obama sycophant. Is Trump not equally entitled to a "wingman"?

[Sarcastr0]

Holder was a fawning Obama sycophant. Is Trump not equally entitled to a "wingman"?

Tu quoque based on blowing up a single quote into a whole narrative.

You really are one-note.

Fallacies to excuse a QAnon and 2020 truther loon as head of the FBI who promises to abuse his power.

Miles away from liberty of any sort, much less libertarianism.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Only if we accept that Obama is the moral standard for how Presidents should act and make decisions.

[Michael P]

https://open.substack.com/pub/seaventure/p/connect-ing-the-dots makes interesting comparisons of arrest data before vs after London's Metropolitan Police adopted a new IT system to record arrests. Arrests are down, sharply so in some cases, and offender ethnicity is recorded less often (largely among white offenders, assuming offense rates didn't suddenly change at the same time).

[John F. Carr]

It makes me wonder which people are avoiding arrest and prosecution because arresting and prosecuting them is too much work.

If the system ran without friction we'd all be in jail.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I like to think that prosecutorial ethics plays a little part.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is the sort of thing that makes you think that Iran has the right idea: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/canadian-town-fined-for-refusing-to-celebrate-pride-month-fly-rainbow-flag/ar-AA1v4EBG

So much for "tolerance"...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump's Secretary of the Navy was never IN the Navy. Or Hooligan's Navy (USCG).

I think this is good because the Navy has real problems that an outsider can better see.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that our military now has issues that will take a decade or two to finally fix, (Ship building isn't fast in modern America!) while things are likely to come to a head between China and Taiwan in the next few years.

China's demographic problems pretty much guarantee that they will cease to be a world power in another decade or two, and there are things they will be rushing to accomplish before that happens.

[Martinned2]

Forget demographic change, Xi Jinping is 71 years old. The problem with letting old guys run the world is that they have no reason to look further than 10 years ahead, because they'll be dead.

[Brett Bellmore]

On the plus side, he could just stroke out tomorrow. That would probably leave China too tied up in internal fighting to do anything until the window for attacking Taiwan had passed. We should be so lucky, though.

I am hoping that we're going to do something about China buying US institutions and politicians. The Confucius Institutes were just the tip of the problem, and there have been a lot of things going on that are simply inexplicable if China hasn't got a lot of our government compromised. (The OPM data breach, where we hired Chinese programmers working out of China to do database management. Chinese surveillance balloons allowed to fly over US airspace unmolested.)

[Martinned2]

I am hoping that we're going to do something about China buying US institutions and politicians.

How about making sure they're not for sale in the first place?

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, kinda late on that front, since they've already been bought. The task before us is undoing that sale.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm hoping that Team Trump appoints people innocent enough to deal with this. So what if he uses it as a tool to drain the swamp, if they sold us out, they are guilty.

This is why Tulsi Gabbard is a good pick.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The problem with letting old guys run the world is that they have no reason to look further than 10 years ahead, because they'll be dead.

You're such a simpleton. I have children and grandchildren, and with luck there will be more generations of my descendants after them. I have plenty of reason to look further than 10 years ahead.

[Moderation4ever]

Does this matter? We are in the era of America First and I thought the idea was to step back and let the rest of the world take care of itself. If China wants to lead then why would we stop them.

[Brett Bellmore]

I mean, that would be fine by me once we reshored a lot of industry. But I don't think anyone would enjoy a world where China had captured most of the world's IC manufacturing capacity.

[bernard11]

Then why are Republicans opposing the CHIPS Act?

[Life of Brian]

Opposing? They've been trying to fix it so it'll actually have some shred of hope of fulfilling its stated purpose rather than the grab bag of cross-purpose ideological priorities liberally salted in by Team Blue.

[Commenter_XY]

There is the matter of our treaty obligations to The Philippines, and Japan, M4e. My understanding is the treaties that cover The Philippines and Japan are treaties ratified by the US Senate. How far the US is willing to go to defend Taiwan against invasion (or to break a blockade, which China has now rehearsed twice against Taiwan in 6 years) by Communist China also matters.

The majority of America's advanced semiconductor supply comes from Taiwan, so I would say Taiwan matters a hell of a lot.

[Krayt]

There's also the idea of keeping the trade routes open, a Pax Americana on the high seas.

"Why is that America's job?"

Because trade, and freedom, are our business. I vote yea!

Or do some people enjoy a powerful military, but only in storage, rather than being the big stick in "Speak softly..."

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

We are in the era of America First and I thought the idea was to step back and let the rest of the world take care of itself. If China wants to lead then why would we stop them.

You're just as much of a simpleton as Martinned. If you can't figure out why allowing China to take a leading role internationally is not in the best interests of the U.S. (and many others) then you should just sign off now and never comment on anything ever again.

[Sarcastr0]

I do expect this to be the GOP position - ignore Russia, ignore Israel, ignore NATO.

Do lots of dumb things to perform how hard you are going against China.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, you would be wrong (surprise!) = I do expect this to be the GOP position - ignore Russia, ignore Israel, ignore NATO.

The incoming '47' admin is not ignoring RUS (or UKR, for that matter). They seek peace, and an end to the killing. They are certainly not ignoring ISR, or the fate of our hostages. Pres Trump talks about them; POTUS Biden ignores them. I see a line of NATO functionaries making their way to Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring, er, I mean pay their respects, er... to congratulate the incoming Pres and reiterate their determination to meet their financial commitments. I see engagement, and he hasn't even taken office yet..

Like I said, you don't have the chops.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, teaching helmsmen how not to run into things would take a year. Firing a handful of DEI Admirals would take a lot less.

We still have Bath Ironworks in Maine and Ingals in Mississippi -- I believe that both are only working one shift. During WWII, BIW worked three shifts with a whole lot more men on each. We *could* ramp up ship production if we wanted to -- right now contracts are stretched out to preserve jobs.

[Brett Bellmore]

There are a lot of areas where once you stop doing something regularly, it takes a long while to resume doing it, because a lot of the techniques aren't well documented, they're passed from worker to worker. Our ship yards would NOT be easily restarted.

[Moderation4ever]

I have no problem with this. Our military is suppose to be directed by civilians. I have seen way too many appointments of ex-military to management posts.

[Frank Drackman]

I was "In the Navy" and wasn't really "In the Navy" spending almost all my time at Marine Corpse Bases and Naval Hospitals
(No fancy recruiting commercials, just the dulcet tones of the Village People)
"Where can you find pleasure?
Search the world for treasure
Learn science technology
Where can you begin to make your dreams all come true?
On the land or on the sea
Where can you learn to fly?
Play in sports and skin-dive
Study oceanography
Sign up for the big band or sit in the grandstand
When your team and others meet?
In the Navy!Yes, you can sail the seven seas
In the navy
Yes, you can put your mind at ease
In the navy
Come on now, people, make a stand
In the navy, in the navy
Can't you see we need a hand?
In the navy
Come on, protect the motherland
In the navy
Come on and join your fellow man
In the navy
Come on people, and make a stand
In the navy (in the navy), in the navy (ah)
They want you, they want you
They want you as a new recruit
They want you, they want you
They want you as a new recruit

[Dr. Ed 2]

The USN used that as a recruiting song until -- about a year later -- it realized "the gay nature" of the song and stopped.

[Malika]

Trump and his cultists, of course, still don't get the "gay nature" of Village People songs.

[Frank Drackman]

The Village People are gay?!?!?!??!?!?!?
at least there are some real Men's Men in music, like Boy George and Elton John

[Kazinski]

Teddy Roosevelt was appointed assistant secretary of the navy because he wrote a book about the war of 1812.

Then he quit after 2 years to lead a Calvary regiment in Cuba.

[tylertusta]

Different time, man. It was a different time...

[tylertusta]

There are advantages and disadvantages to having non-veteran Secretaries over the various branches.

If they meddle too much in operational and tactical plans, their lack of experience risks lives and the mission. However, sometimes a fresh point of view can break institutional logjams.

They're often best suited- albeit not universally- in defense procurement. One of Robert McNamara's unintentionally fortuitous moves was to force the branches to adopt the best fighter between the current offerings. The aircraft that was selected was the F-4 Phantom. Former Secretary of the Navy Gordon England tried to pivot the Navy towards the GWOT and partially succeeded, but by doing so the Navy created the LCS boondoggle.

One of the most serious challenges faced by the Navy today is procurement and maintenance.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-831587

RIP Omer Neutra. American hostage confirmed killed by Hamas terrorists. May his memory be as a blessing.

Bring them home.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've been assuming that basically all the hostages are dead, which is why Hamas has been so intransigent about trading them for anything, even at crazy ratios. They just weren't capable of not torturing them to death, they don't have that level of restraint.

[Frank Drackman]

I thought there was a "Ceasefire" does it not apply to killing civilian hostages? Of course there was a "Ceasefire" on October 7th also.

[Dr. Ed 2]

BLU-109/MK 84s bombs is the appropriate response, at least a dozen. Put a very large crater in Gaza and the next day drop leaflets with his picture and "this is what happens if you kill an American."

[tylertusta]

I'm assuming that you mean that we drop bombs in uninhabited places in Gaza where no civilians live. If that is the case, then I'm all for it. BLU-109 warheads are probably a poor choice. Airburst BLU-117s on a Mk84, on the other hand, would probably get a lot of attention and aren't terribly expensive.

Good luck finding an uninhabited part of Gaza to use 2000lb bombs though...

On the other hand, if you meant that we start blowing up civilians, then that's where we part ways. We shouldn't condone reprisal killings against civilians.

[Commenter_XY]

I am encouraged by Pres Elect Trump's words:

Everybody is talking about the hostages who are being held so violently, inhumanely, and against the will of the entire World, in the Middle East – But it’s all talk, and no action! Please let this TRUTH serve to represent that if the hostages are not released prior to January 20, 2025, the date that I proudly assume Office as President of the United States, there will be ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East, and for those in charge who perpetrated these atrocities against Humanity. Those responsible will be hit harder than anybody has been hit in the long and storied History of the United States of America. RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW!

[Commenter_XY]

Text of POTUS Biden's statement on pardon of his son, Hunter Biden.

Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter. From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department's decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted. Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.

The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election. Then, a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the court room — with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter's cases.

No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter's cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong. There has been an effort to break Hunter — who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they've tried to break me — and there's no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.

For my entire career I have followed a simple principle: just tell the American people the truth. They'll be fair-minded. Here's the truth: I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice — and once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>For my entire career I have followed a simple principle: just tell the American people the truth

He has no shame. Well, he also has no memory. Or control of his bladder. So that makes sense.

[Armchair]

The honest truth is this.

Hunter was guilty of textbook tax evasion and tax fraud. Just like Wesley Snipes (who served time). That's how the case came up...not a political prosecution, but line agents at the IRS discovering "oh, he hasn't paid hundreds of thousands in taxes". FYI, he STILL hasn't paid the taxes he owes for those years that are past the statue of limitations. He does not have the moral high ground for having "paid his taxes back" The gun charges were only added on because of the original tax evasion/fraud investigation.

If Hunter wasn't the VP's son, he would be in prison. But because he was, he got the case delayed, sabotaged, and very easy charges were allowed to expire. If this was a borderline case, that would be it. It wasn't borderline. It was obvious. Hunter played up his connections, played hardball with the courts, knowing he always had a pardon in his back pocket.

[DeAnnP]

I believe some guy named Kevin Morris paid Hunter's taxes

[Armchair]

Only for 2016 and forward. The 2014 and 2015 back taxes were never paid.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the loan comes due next year; Wonder how Hunter's going to pay it?

Joke! He's not going to.

[Riva]

Interesting. I wonder if Hunter will get a new laptop for Christmas too? I understand his old one is broken and badly in need of repair.

[Malika]

Pardons are not for sons, they are for fathers of son's in law!

[Don Nico]

Give it up. They do what they do.

[Malika]

It doesn't have to be that way. Iirc Mississippi, to take one example, reformed pardons after Barbour misused them.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Pardons are not for sons, they are for fathers of son's in law!"
You forgot ambassadorships.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That Marc Andreesen interview with Joe Rogan is absolutely terrifying. Debanking political enemies? You fucking fascist monsters.

I can't wait for those evil vile fucking govies to get Justice for all the evil vile shit they do. J20 Electric Boogaloo can't come soon enough.

Get fucked Sarcastr0. Get fucked govies. Time you stopped riding our backs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Who is shocked that Biden restarted Obama's Operation Choke Point? Basically nobody. Though a quick search reveals the left is denying it happened; No surprise, they still deny that OCP 1.0 actually happened, too.

I personally think crypto is just tulip futures, but, so what? Banks should just be banks, not moral arbiters, let alone the government's agent in going after legal activities the administration happens to disapprove of.

[Sarcastr0]

No corroboration any of what he told the conspiracy podcast guy is actually happening.

You got issues.

[Brett Bellmore]

Weren't you one of the guys denying that Operation Choke Point 1.0 actually was a real thing, too?

[Sarcastr0]

I AM one of the people who denies it's the vast conspiracy to take away our guns like you continue to claim.

Again, with no evidence. Other than telepathy.

So you're just going to double down on the 'this one guy says it and I need hear no more' thing, eh?

You uncritically believe whatever falls into your insane political thriller version of reality that has never come to pass.

Quit with that positive feedback loop. You should be *more* skeptical of stuff you want to believe.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, there we have it.

Operation Choke Point

It was entirely real. But the Democratic party line is that it's a myth, so Sarcastr0 must deny that to the bitter end.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, there was a thing called Operation Choke Point. It started with fraudulent payday lenders, and later moved on to some less-than-highly scrutinized industries like porn, gun shops, and a few other things.

Maybe not great policy, but the conspiracy police state takin' our guuunz stuff is all you.

It's telling you're sticking to the past, because you have nothing other than this one guy who you believe immediately.

[Brett Bellmore]

That has got to be the lamest defense of the government covertly attacking legal activities I have ever read from you, and that's saying something.

The government literally intimidated banks into denying services to law abiding people on the basis that the government didn't like what they lawfully did for a living, and you've got no problem with it.

It wasn't just a conspiracy by a police state attacking the RKBA, they were attacking other lawful activities, too. That somehow makes it better?

[Sarcastr0]

No, we don't like people who use our banking system to do stuff that's set up to purposefully be of unclear legal provenance.
Maybe that's bad policy, but the picture you draw just isn't what anyone else sees. As usual.

You make a lot of assumptions about a lot of shady areas. And of course you assume the government's motives here. Which is your usual made up political novel stuff.

And you're still living in the past. Remember, this is about the new program that the only evidence for is this one guy who you believe, and then never want to talk about again it seems.

[Absaroka]

'we' seems to be doing a lot of work there, given that once exposed the policy was walked back.

[Sarcastr0]

I said it may not be good policy, but Brett thinks it was a conspiracy against gun ownership by Obama et al.

I'm not saying I support the program but Brett's running way beyond his skiis in his storytelling. There are lots of reaasons why this seemed to be a good idea beyond that paranoid supposing.

And remember, Brett's using this to bootstrap into another conspiracy: "Who is shocked that Biden restarted Obama's Operation Choke Point? Basically nobody."

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it was a conspiracy against a whole list of things the Obama administration didn't like, of which gun ownership was just one.

[Sarcastr0]

I think it was a program, not a conspiracy.

And if you think the Obama administration didn't like porn, you may want to check your notes on that.

There are a number of potential motives at work here, and as usual you created one and decided it's the only possible way it could be.

[Brett Bellmore]

If a group do it in secret, and have to stop doing it when it becomes public, how is it not a "conspiracy"?

[Sarcastr0]

Was it any more secret than the average financial investigation? Are all of those conspiracies if they're stopped early?

[Brett Bellmore]

Does the average financial investigation have to be terminated once its existence becomes public?

[Brett Bellmore]

"No, we don't like people who use our banking system to do stuff that's set up to purposefully be of unclear legal provenance."

You're free to not like whatever you want, we're discussing what the government is legally entitled to sanction, not what it likes.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry if my language was too causal for your outrage, Brett.

You don't seem to be arguing the program was illegal, so by your usual Trump-based standards that means it's fine.

I am not endorsing the program as cool and good. I just think you, as usual, go way too far in how and why it's bad.

And, yet again, you seem to vastly prefer talking about this compared to your 'I believe this one dude and bet Biden did it too.'

I will be unsurprised if banks are talking to the government about handling crypto.
And there's the rise of fintech that is also below strict regulation but may fall within risk-based regulatory review frameworks. No evidence, but wouldn't shock me if that's being talked about as well. There have been some high-profile bankruptcies and such bank-like-entities are not covered by the FDIC.

[Brett Bellmore]

The program was not so much "illegal" as "ultra vires"; Rather than being contrary to a statute, no statute authorized it.

[Sarcastr0]

From your link: "Operation Choke Point was an initiative of the United States Department of Justice beginning in 2013 which investigated banks in the United States and the business they did with firearm dealers, payday lenders, and other companies that, while operating legally, were said to be at a high risk for fraud and money laundering."

As written this seems well within the DoJ's investigatory power.

Are you arguing
1) The high risk part is not true?
2) There was animus?
3) You can't investigate someone just because they're high risk?
4) some other thing?

[Brett Bellmore]

The investigation part was fine, though the target list was pretty strange looking if they were really looking for fraud and money laundering.

The ultra vires part was where they leaned on the banks to deny services to people who weren't breaking any laws, on the basis of purported 'reputational risk' that supposedly attached to entire industries.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just a reminder:
Douche

someone who is more than a jerk, tends to think he's top notch, does stuff that is pretty brainless, thinks he is so much better than he really is, and is normally pretty good at ticking people off in an immature way.
"Wow he's such a Douche"
"That was a Douche move"

[BrotherMovesOn]

Just a reminder:
Bumble

"Nips"
"Japs"
"Stupid Mick"
"Dumb Polack"
"Fags" (referring to gay Americans)
"Jamaican voodoo judge" (referring to an African-American female federal judge) ... et seq.
One could go on, but one gets the picture. Bumble is a low octane troll, and an ass.
(and weirdly effeminate?)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Uh, you fucking nutjob, there's been tons of corroboration.

Melanie and Barron Trump were debanked. You fucking clown.

[Sarcastr0]

Melania in her memoir complains her bank dropped her. She blames cancel culture, not a government program. And the timeline doesn't line up at all.

If it seems too good to be true, check into it!

Shitposting is so lazy.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Haha yeah, but one-sided concern trolling, incessant ad-hom's, and being a generally ignorant of current events is HARD WORK!

But then again, you are a govie. So not much expected of you. I guess that's kinda like your entire life.

P.S. Now do all the other corroborations of the Fintech CEOs coming out of the woodwork since Rogan.

P.P.S. And the threatening letter from Dem. Senators to all the Libre participants.

[Sarcastr0]

Do no response to my dismantling of your 'tons of corroboration' falling flat.

I don't know which CEOs you're talking about, but I do know fintech sure as fuck doesn't want to be regulated since it's oops all scams.

Do YOU read the news on fintech?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You didn't dismantle shit. Are you for real? You think sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Nooooooooo", means it didn't happen?

You believe that if you hadn't heard it, it doesn't exist. That's what people with <70 IQ's think. Remember that video of that kid in the courtroom where the judge asked "Imagine if you were standing there waiting for the Subway and someone pushed you from behind, how would you feel?", and the kid said "But no one did push me from behind."

That's you.

Protip, your head and the cocoon you live in is shoved so far up Soro's ass I'm surprised you can see daylight.

[Sarcastr0]

You failed to address my point that Melania’s story has nothing to do with the thesis you started with.

You just want off on a weird long story in some attempt to take the long way around to insult me.
It was not your best effort.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You can pick at nits all you want. That doesn't magically rollback the reality of what's happening and what's being corroborated.

[Sarcastr0]

Your thesis has government involvement. Your corroboration does not.

It also occurred right after January 06, so your timeline also makes no sense.

I know, I know, you post shit and don't try. But this is especially lame.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Still picking that nit.

I don't blame you. It's all you got. Squeeze it for all it's worth.

Just remember the topic. Debanking of a whole bunch of tech startups by Big Uglies like you.

You know, the midwit, overpaid, evil clowns you white-knight constantly?

[Kazinski]

Here's Adios on the subject:

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/01/debanked-crypto-andreessen-joe-rogan

And here's one example they cote:
"Coinbase founder Brian Armstrong in turn amplified Musk: "Can confirm this is true." Coinbase previously sued the FDIC for allegedly debanking crypto companies."

And the article closes with:

"The intrigue: In the waning days of the first Trump administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency advanced a rule that would have prevented banks from denying access to broad classes of people.

Just after Biden took office, the OCC suspended that Fair Access Rule from moving forward.
The bottom line: It's not clear exactly who lost what services when or why. But the claim alone will likely sustain a controversy and possibly spur investigations after the second Trump presidency begins on Jan. 20."

[Malika]

Guy who supports broad Presidential immunity shouts "Get fucked govies!"

[Brett Bellmore]

Guy who routinely denies that Presidents have any constitutional claim of immunity, you mean?

Presidents do not, in my opinion, have any legal basis for immunity from the prosecution of crimes.

This doesn't mean that, constitutionally, you can treat the exercise of a power of the office AS a crime. And that's the only 'immunity' for Presidents I support.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't even think the President should have that immunity. He could as commander-in-chief of DOD order some illegal shit to be done, or use his pardon power to elicit bribes or some other quid pro quo.

If the constitution can be interpreted to mean that there is some amount of immunity from prosecution for various official acts, does that render meaningless the part that specifically grants immunity to Congressmen for speech and debate?

[Brett Bellmore]

"I don't even think the President should have that immunity. He could as commander-in-chief of DOD order some illegal shit to be done, or use his pardon power to elicit bribes or some other quid pro quo. "

In principle, an actual violation of a valid law can't be an exercise of Presidential power. It's just that a law infringing on an actual Presidential power can't be a valid law.

The pardon can't be a crime, for example, but taking the bribe can be.

That was actually to protect members of Congress back in their home states from state level prosecution, I think.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'm not sure your bribery explanation holds. Just accepting money isn't a crime, presumably, the crime is connecting the money to the pardon. So for it to be a crime, there has to be a law that infringes on the actual Presidential power. Is that not true?

[Brett Bellmore]

Just accepting money certainly CAN be a crime, if Congress wants it to be. You do know there's already a law capping gifts Presidents can accept, right?

The bribe is a bribe regardless of whether the one bribed actually delivers, isn't that true? So bribes can be crimes distinct from what you bribe the person to do.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'm not sure you're responding to my point, but maybe that's because I'm not articulating it very well. If the President orders a
SEAL team to kill his political opponent, should that action be immune from any possible prosecution? Do the other two branches of government have any check at all on executive power? It seems wrong to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If the President orders a SEAL team to kill his political opponent, should that action be immune from any possible prosecution?"

I would say, no, because he doesn't have the constitutional authority to assassinate political rivals.

Or, to be more specific, while the President is commander in chief of the military, Congress gets to declare wars, so the context for Presidential exercise of his commander in chief role can be limited by Congress, and Congress has never authorized assassinating US citizens, and certainly not IN the US.

What Presidents do in office is theoretically either pursuant to enforcement of a law enacted by Congress, (The "take care" duty.) or an exercise of powers inherent in the office, the classic Section 2 powers. The exercise of the latter can't be a crime, because it is expressly authorized by the highest law of the land.

[Sarcastr0]

he doesn't have the constitutional authority to assassinate political rivals.

How would anyone prove that was his motive? The evidence is all within his CiC duties and inadmissible.

I will also note that you sure are using 'theoretically' a lot in this discussion. Almost as though you want to ignore the practical upshot.

[Brett Bellmore]

Almost as though I was aware that Presidents actually HAVE been permitted to have American citizens assassinated, and start wars without Congressional declarations of war, and all sorts of unconstitutional and illegal crap. And wanted it clear I was speaking about the Constitution, not judicial precedent.

He said "should", not "would", you might notice.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It seems to me you are quibbling around the edges of my examples, without addressing the main issue, but okay.

Your answer would seem to admit that the President could indeed be prosecuted for assassinating a political rival using the armed forces. Therefore his power as commander-in-chief is not in fact immune from prosecution. Isn't that an example where "Exercise of the latter" (a Section 2 power) IS a crime?

I guess my question really is this: Why is a power granted to a President under section 2 presumed to be immune from limitations set by the other two branches? I can understand that they cannot remove the power completely, but short of that what in the Constitution prevents them from setting reasonable limits?

[Krayt]

I've been calling for years for Congress to pass laws stopping banks and others who "make a market" in funds transfers, from cutting off otherwise legal transactions. Same reason you would not want that in roads or a mail system.

[Commenter_XY]

My question: Is de-banking legal, when done at the behest of a federal government agency? If the answer is yes...

My next question: Would the behavior be a problem if it was inverted 180 degrees? Remember, the shoe can be on the other foot.

I don't dispute a private bank can choose who they do business with. That is a different case. But de-banking by Fed request is something different. Is it illegal?

[Nelson]

“ Is de-banking legal, when done at the behest of a federal government agency? If the answer is yes...”

You mean is it legal for a bank to choose to disassociate from a person or group based on information from the government? Yes. They are private companies.

“ I don't dispute a private bank can choose who they do business with. That is a different case.”

No, it isn’t. The government makes requests of private industry all the time in every sector of the economy. Unless there’s some sort of evidence that a refusal results in retaliation, it’s legal every day and twice on Sunday.

You seem to be making the same fundamental error that those who rail against the government requests for social media companies to take down posts. You are insinuating that the government saying “Here’s what we want and here’s why we want it”, then doing nothing if their request is denied, is somehow authoritarianism. It isn’t.

If the government says, “Here’s who we want you to stop doing business with and why.”, and then some banks agree (and others don’t), that also isn’t an abuse of power.

Show me the bank that denied the government, then suffered retaliation, and then we’ll talk. Until then it’s just a conspiracy theory based on the assumption that everything the government does is evil and has a nefarious and coordinated secret motive.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Silicon Valley Bank

[LawTalkingGuy]

You’re not well, man.

[Frank Drackman]

Hunter Biden will be dead within 6 months, Book him Dano!
No assassination, just the natural history of cocaine/narcotics addiction.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah. Remember, the money train has just derailed, he can't afford the drugs anymore.

[Michael P]

There are a lot of people across our country who find ways to take drugs they can't afford.

[Bwaaah]

Drugs don't have to be affordable for addicts. They are quite resourceful when it comes to that stuff.

[Malika]

Does cocaine addiction cause people to be unable to write basic English comments?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Human drug addiction is like when dogs kill deer -- once they start doing it, they always will and the only thing you can do is kill them.

A clean druggie is still a druggie...

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks Dr. Bob

[Nelson]

Every time you post, I keep hoping this will be the one that hints that you have some shred of basic human decency. Six years or so later, you remain 0-for-thousands.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Leaving aside any Biden pardon pro-and-con stuff, it is evident from the Bidens' now-permanent political irrelevance that MAGA commenters on this blog cherish a political style founded mostly on personal emotional damage. I doubt they differ in that respect from MAGA supporters elsewhere. It's hard to imagine anything will occur during the upcoming Trump administration to ameliorate that damage.

[Armchair]

Stephen,

Nothing to say about the corruption? The lying? The broken promises? Do you care about any of that?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I used to care, when it was relevant. I am concentrating now on your emotional damage, because you are making it newly relevant.

[Armchair]

Joe Biden is still president. You really don't care that he lies so clearly to the public and people?

If you're a world leader, what does that do to Biden's credibility? Knowing he's willing to lie, repeatedly, so brazenly. Do you trust him?

[Stephen Lathrop]

There you go again. And there are so many like you. That's what worries me now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We're talking kiddie porn here -- and that is OK because the perp's father is no longer politically viable? What kind of morality is this???

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh boy, are we about to get another commenter admission to viewing and linking to CSAM in an effort to win an internet argument about Hunter Biden?

[Krayt]

commenters on this blog cherish a political style founded mostly on personal emotional damage

I miss the good Rev. I got a kick out of his polemics.

[John F. Carr]

The owner of Peanut the squirrel is suing everybody you expect over the death of his squirrel. I agree it was not necessarily to kill the squirrel for a rabies test. Squirrels are not considered rabies vectors and a squirrel bite does not require any unusual precautions. So I say give the owner the full value of an illegal pet, which is probably $0. In my state, and I think this is the general rule, the value of a pet cat or dog is its replacement value. Personal attachment is not compensable.

I have not seen a copy of the lawsuit.

I have been bitten by a squirrel. Wash the finger, put a bandage on it, and remind myself to keep up to date on tetanus boosters.

[Michael P]

Peanut was, according to reports, a very effective fundraising tool for the guy. Why should such an animal be valued at $0?

[John F. Carr]

Contraband has no value. And what's the value of this squirrel compared to another squirrel? Squirrels grow on trees. They are not like service dogs.

If the squirrel was somehow legal, the government may still escape liability. There's an exception to the tort claims act in federal law and my state's law for "detention of goods". This basically means if your property gets trashed while in government custody you're out of luck. A government agent wrecked a sports car that had been seized. Police officers stole jewelry taken off a person they arrested. No compensation even though the law said the property was supposed to be returned. Personally, I think the exception is applied overly broadly.

[ThePublius]

Actually, there are certain squirrels that are legal pets in some states. In Massachusetts it's the flying squirrel. They are quite expensive. There's a breeder in Texas who lists several, most in the $900+ range. Then there's the transportation costs, perhaps $200 to $500.

https://www.jandaexotics.com/flying-squirrels-for-sale

In this case, the squirrel was an important part of the man's business enterprise, and killing the squirrel deprived him of that income source. He should be compensated for that, too.

I don't know why the authorities euthanized the raccoon as well.

[Brett Bellmore]

Might have had somebody from PETA calling the shots.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John, would you prefer that he snap a 30 round clip into an AR-15 and walk into a crowded McDonalds? Or put a new Fisher plow on the front of his SUV and go down a crowded sidewalk?

Litigation is also a safety valve, and includes compensation for emotional damages as a result.

[John F. Carr]

Shooting up a McDonalds is a bad way to get revenge on the government. It might lead to the best day of a politician's life as she gets to make a speech in favor of gun control.

[Frank Drackman]

Insert "Michael Brown/Floyd George/Jordan Neely" in place of "Peanut" and I might agree with you.
Personally, I prefer the Squirrels

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

I have been bitten by a squirrel. Wash the finger, put a bandage on it, and remind myself to keep up to date on tetanus boosters.

Rabies is really fucking bad news.
And there's no good way to test for it in non-humans other than by autopsy.

I don't know much more than that; maybe the SOP is wrong, but it's not a priori unreasonable.

[ThePublius]

It's exceedingly rare for squirrels to carry rabies. Plus, this particular squirrel was a house pet for years, with constant, daily contact with the owners. The probability that it could have rabies was zero. Same for the raccoon.

So, yes, it was unreasonable.

[Absaroka]

"It's exceedingly rare for squirrels to carry rabies"

The CDC seems to agree:

"People might worry about rabies in animals
that don’t often carry the virus, like opossums
or squirrels. But these animals hardly ever
have rabies"

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe there should be an exception to the SOP.

But I do get why it’s in place.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you get that the raid occurred in the first place in order to have an excuse to engage in said SOP, and for no other purpose?

[Sarcastr0]

The squirrel bit someone.
If SOP is if a wild mammal bites someone, rabies is assumed, I understand why.

I also agree with Absaroka that the risk/reward may very well be to except certain species, like opossums or squirrels.

Whatever you got going on about an excuse to engage the SOP seems just weird. You mean it was a power trip? I see no evidence of that.

[Brett Bellmore]

The raid itself was the power trip, I'm saying.

[Sarcastr0]

I see no evidence of that.
Don't make shit up, Brett.

[Absaroka]

"The squirrel bit someone"

The tl;dr here is that the decision to euthanize and test for rabies was made prior to the raid, while the bite you refer to was during the raid. While planning the raid the wildlife folks asked the health folks whether they should test for rabies, and the health folks answered “Wildlife cannot be confined like domestic animals, and if there was an exposure, the animals would need to be tested for rabies,”. I'm not sure whether P-nut the squirrel was running wild; my sense is that he was a pet without exposure to the wild, but I'm open to other facts.

Either way, though, it looks like they were planning euthanasia before the bite.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm guessing the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is heavily influenced by PETA, which probably was the source of the 'anonymous' complaints.

PETA is notorious for euthanizing any animals they can get their hands on, rather than risking them ending up as pets. If Peanut hadn't been killed, the guy might have gotten him back, and they couldn't risk that.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm guessing the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is heavily influenced by PETA

Don't make shit up, Brett.

[Sarcastr0]

"“Wildlife cannot be confined like domestic animals, and if there was an exposure, the animals would need to be tested for rabies,” the State Department of Health wrote the county on Oct. 23 — a message that all but sealed the animals’ fates, as rabies tests require decapitation so subjects’ heads can be opened and their brains sampled."

I'm not sure that sounds like a plan so much as a statement of standing policy.

[Absaroka]

1)"“DEC is aware of an individual in Chemung County who is known to illegally possess an adult gray squirrel and at least 4 young raccoons. They may also be in possession of other illegal wildlife species,” the DEC said in a message to the county on Oct. 22. “We would like to know if the Health Department would recommend these animals be tested for rabies as a precaution for human safety.”"

2)"“Wildlife cannot be confined like domestic animals, and if there was an exposure, the animals would need to be tested for rabies,” the State Department of Health wrote the county on Oct. 23 — a message that all but sealed the animals’ fates, as rabies tests require decapitation so subjects’ heads can be opened and their brains sampled."

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry, there was a big update on my comment, Absaroka. It looks like you responded to a strawman, but to all others he didn't! It was just something I took back.

[Sarcastr0]

"if there was an exposure" seems important.

But I also did a bit of poking around and am pretty convinced that squirrels shouldn't be in the rabies mix.

I think it's bad policy, due to beurocracy's tendency towards lazy one-size-fits-all-ism.

That is itself damning enough to the government without needing to go into sinister suppositions beyond that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny. Almost 8:00 AM EST and none of the usual suspects have shown their face to justify Biden's pardon of Hunter.

[Michael P]

Several of them showed up in Prof. Blackman's earlier post on the topic, although their defenses of the pardon so far have been weak

[Martinned2]

Why do you expect your political opponents to do what you would have done if the situation was reversed?

[Mr. Bumble]

Because past is prologue and they've never been shy about trying to justify the un-justifiable?

[SRG2]

I think you mean, "would NOT have done".

I am sure that Mr Bumble and Dr Ed and others will defend every last Trump pardon and commutation.

[Mr. Bumble]

Save the date, January 20, 2025 and see if he follows through on the promise to pardon or commute the sentences of most of those convicted of "insurrection".

[Dr. Ed 2]

As Trump is now calling them "the J-6 Hostages", I kinda think he will.

But what did they do? Drinking Nancy Pelosi's beer is petty theft, $100 fine. Likewise trespassing in her office -- let's double it and call it $400 -- although in Massachusetts with a good lawyer, it likely would be Continued Without A Finding.

Most of them are really victims of entrapment -- if Pelosi's minions had permitted enough CHPD (and National Guard) to be present to communicate the message that people weren't supposed to be walking in there, most of them wouldn't have. Isn't that textbook entrapment?

And I want to know how the people breaking windows knew which ones were breakable as *most* of them are blastproof and can't be broken. That's inside information.

Once pardoned and free to talk to Congressional investigators, it will be interesting to see what they say about people encouraging them.

[not guilty]

"Most of them are really victims of entrapment -- if Pelosi's minions had permitted enough CHPD (and National Guard) to be present to communicate the message that people weren't supposed to be walking in there, most of them wouldn't have. Isn't that textbook entrapment?"

Uh, no, not at all. "Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988).

[not guilty]

Actually, Mr. Bumble, no one has been tried for insurrection, an offense codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2383. Hundreds of January 6 defendants have been convicted of other offenses by trial or by plea.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thus the scare quote.
Get your sarc meter calibrated.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I won't justify anyone not having to pay acual (legitimately due) taxes and interest and, as I understand it, Hunter doesn't even have to do that.

I won't justify anyone having sex with children or taking pictures of it, as long as they legitimately know that they are children and there is evidence that Gaetz didn't -- although 17 is legal in many states. But Hunter reportedly has photos of clearly underaged girls on his laptop.

And the same thing with accepting bribes from foreign powers.

[ThePublius]

First, I think you omitted a negative in that statement, don't you mean "Why do you expect your political opponents to not do what you would have done if the situation was reversed?"

Second, it's a meaningless hypothetical. Think what you want of Trump and family, they are not shaking down foreign leaders or companies, failing to pay taxes, or committing firearms crimes. Trump has not run a five decade family criminal enterprise as JRB has.

[Malika]

"Think what you want of Trump and family, they are not shaking down foreign leaders or companies"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jared-kushner-post-white-house-business-moves-saudis-wealth-fund-mohammed-bin-salman-jamal-khashoggi/

[ThePublius]

Yes, AFTER he left government, and Trump was no longer president, and they actually invested in real things. (Did you read the article you linked?) What things did Hunter, et.al., actually invest in? What was their product, other than influence?

[Malika]

"Yes, AFTER he left government"

Lol, I like the "AFTER!" Hunter was, on the other hand, *never in government.*

[Don Nico]

Why bother pleading for this guy? He was always a grifter.

[Malika]

No love for Hunter but enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy.

[Krayt]

The real fun begins with the second derivative of hypocrisy, pointing out the other side tu cocks as well.

[Malika]

"failing to pay taxes"

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/27/politics/trump-income-taxes-new-york-times-report/index.html

[ThePublius]

He did not fail to pay taxes. He filed, and he paid what he owed. Losses can offset gains, you know. Unless you are asserting that he fraudulently failed to pay taxes due, in which case, given the lawfare campaign against him, why wasn't he prosecuted for it?

[Martinned2]

I don't think the guy who was busy defending the idea of a Trump self-pardon should pretend to have any principles when it comes to pardons.

[Kazinski]

Well for the record I fully support Joe pardoning Hunter, so I don't see what needs to be justified.

Bill Clinton pardoned his druggie brother Roger too, the office has its perks.

I expect Trump is going to do a.lot of pardoning too, and in his first few days of office, not in the last.

One pardon is likely to be Alexander Smirnoff who is being railroaded by the FBI and is set for trial in January.

[Malika]

"Well for the record I fully support Joe pardoning Hunter,"

Of course. It's the MAGA way.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Well for the record I fully support Joe pardoning Hunter, so I don't see what needs to be justified."

Of course. He selectively prosecuted him, as he admits, that justifies a pardon. But since there's no longer any dispute that the Biden DOJ prosecutes people for political reasons, we'll have to see who else gets a pardon.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Special Counsel"

Look it up sometime, idiot.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Okay, you ridiculous fuckwit:

Nevertheless, it is intended that ultimate responsibility for the matter and how it is handled will continue to rest with the Attorney General (or the Acting Attorney General if the Attorney General is personally recused in the matter); thus, the regulations explicitly acknowledge the possibility of review of specific decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

The independent counsel went away when people like you whined that it hampered your president's ability to get a blowjob from an intern and lie about it in court, remember?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Try again when you can properly construct a comment, and then I'll dismantle your stupidity.

That you think I or my opinions have anything to do with Bill Clinton demonstrates how remarkably dumb and partisan you really are.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Ah, the Canadian girlfriend of arguments.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don't see what needs to be justified"

It doesn't, every thinking person knew it was going to happen. Its his second favorite son.

The rubes like our Dutch friend just swallowed all the lies about it.

[SimonP]

You vastly overestimate the entertainment value to be derived from educating a bunch of morons.

I personally support Biden doing whatever he can to protect his family and other administration officials from vindictive and baseless prosecution by Trump's DOJ - something he did in his first term and appears dead-set to do again once he's inaugurated. I also support all of you fuckwits crying and wailing over all the scalps you wouldn't be able to brag about, if he were to do that. These are extraordinary times, and our president is doing the idiot-in-chief the courtesy he wasn't himself extended, by presiding over an orderly transfer of power. If he goes overboard on pardons, I frankly don't give a shit.

You can fuck all the way off, Bumbler and company.

[Nelson]

“ Funny. Almost 8:00 AM EST and none of the usual suspects have shown their face to justify Biden's pardon of Hunter.”

Probably because it isn’t justifiable. Understandable? A father with the unstoppable ability to protect his son? Sure. Even a raging asshole like Hunter has people who love him.

But I don’t recall anyone ever claiming Biden pardoning his son would be a good thing. Maybe wingnuts like Buttplug or the Reverend, but I muted those assholes years ago, so I wouldn’t have seen it.

The paleocons seem to remember a mighty chorus, but they believe a dozen untrue things a day, so you can’t trust what they say.

[Riva]

Where are all the usual leftist trolls that rant weekly on lawfare? I guess they haven’t gotten their talking points yet. Or maybe they were all fired for incompetence? They never were very effective.

[Krayt]

Some commenters on all similar sites must be paid trolls, as large orgs try to steer conversations.

That works for both sides, of course. Given the existence of think tanks, places to pay thinkers to gin up political (in this case) ideas, even that is a poorly-defined line. Chucking grand ideas into the top of public echo chambers is a secretary's job.

Hey! Throw me some bit coins, dammit. What a fool I've been!

[Sarcastr0]

Riva, you're the one with daily rants on lawfare.

You use the word lawfare more than any two other commenters on here combined.

For instance, *right here in this comment* you're farming for engagement on your favorite topic.

Congrats on hooking Krayt.
LOL.

[mulched]

And you.

[Riva]

Odd that you're more bothered by someone mentioning the repulsive lawfare than you are by the lawfare itself. You were just fine with the lawfare, as long as you thought your corrupt party could get away with it. Now, maybe a little worried about the reckoning and justice?

[LawTalkingGuy]

How is this anything other than “things I don’t like are lawfare things I like aren’t.”

[Riva]

Could you rephrase that in English?

[LawTalkingGuy]

You consider any legal action you do not like to be lawfare. Any action you do like is not lawfare. That’s basically your position. It’s hilariously transparent.

[Riva]

That's absurd and not my position or the position of anyone who objects to the Biden administration's weaponization of federal law enforcement powers. Where are you getting this? Something from CNN? Vox? the View?

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m getting this from reading your comments, dude.* But I’ll give you a chance to prove me wrong. Give me an example of a prosecution you don’t like, say a republican being charged with a crime, that you don’t think qualifies as “lawfare.” And then give me a prosecution you do like, say a democrat being charged with a crime, that you do think counts as lawfare.

*also why do so many right-wingers think that criticism of them must be because of media instead of a simpler explanation? I read what you wrote/heard what you said and think it sucks, and is a reflection of a worldview and values that I also think sucks. I don’t need to watch CNN to think you and your values suck!

[Riva]

Now you’re doubling down on stupid. You made the absurd accusation. Identify one comment where I claimed any legal action I don’t like is lawfare.

[Sarcastr0]

All the Trump legal stuff, you don't like it and so it's lawfare.
All the Hunter legal stuff - you like it so it's not lawfare.

Very simple, very bot-like.

[Riva]

The stupid is flowing freely here. Again, you gaslighting, lying piece of shit, identify one comment I ever made where I claimed “all the trump legal stuff” was lawfare because I didn’t like it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Identify one comment where I claimed any legal action I don’t like is lawfare.”

LMAO. Pro-tip: if you have to rely on an “I didn’t say the magic words” theory to defend against an accusation, the accusation probably isn’t that absurd. Imagine if your defense to a murder accusation was “oh yeah show me one comment I made where I claimed that I purposely killed him.”

It’s also notable you couldn’t come up with one example to rebut my point. It should be an easy task if you didn’t actually think the way you do.

[Riva]

Are you all aliases of the same moron? Just curious.

Pro tip: Don’t make shit up because you can’t back it up when called out. You made the jackass accusation moron. Now you’re throwing a tantrum hoping to distract from your own stupidity.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Okay. If I made it up, prove me wrong with an actual concrete example. You’ve had multiple chances to do so.

[Riva]

An actual concrete example of me NOT writing what you’re accusing me of writing? I never claimed that lawfare is any legal action I don’t like. You lied. Or, to put it in terms you might understand better, you just made that shit up.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No a concrete example of some legal act you don’t like but don’t think is lawfare.

“I never claimed that lawfare is any legal action I don’t like.”

Correct. Why would you?

“You lied. Or, to put it in terms you might understand better, you just made that shit up.”

No. I inferred it from your endless comments on the subject of lawfare. Every time there is a prosecution you don’t like it’s “lawfare” and every time there is one or you think there will be one it’s “justice or a reckoning” or whatever. Me having an opinion on your attitudes based on the things you say isn’t a lie it’s me having an opinion.

I will say this: I would love to have you a jury. A juror who doesn’t think someone can have a certain view or mental state unless they explicitly state it would be a huge gift. I hope you make some lucky defense lawyer’s dreams come true one day.

[Riva]

Try to have an ounce of intellectual integrity. I never claimed any legal action I don’t like is lawfare. No comment I ever made even suggested that. I doubt you could actually define “lawfare.” I would advise you to admit your lie and move on. Why is that so hard for a leftist?

[LawTalkingGuy]

I never claimed any legal action I don’t like is lawfare.

I KNOW. You can stop saying this over and over again. That was never my point.

“No comment I ever made even suggested that.”

All of them have in context! Every time there is a prosecution against Trump or someone in Trump’s orbit or e republican or anything you don’t like you call it lawfare. Any prosecution you DO like is something else. Literally look at this comment:

“You were just fine with the lawfare, as long as you thought your corrupt party could get away with it. Now, maybe a little worried about the reckoning and justice?”

Why is one thing lawfare and the other thing “reckoning and justice.” What’s the actual distinction other than you like the potential prosecutions Trump will bring?

“I doubt you could actually define “lawfare.””

Correct. And neither can you!
It’s a meaningless term that only signals one’s dislike of a certain legal act. That’s the point.

“I would advise you to admit your lie and move on. Why is that so hard for a leftist?“

Why is it so hard for you to understand inferences aren’t lies? Do you know what an inference is? Or context? Or subtext? Do you have any understanding of how humans communicate?

Christ almighty.

[Riva]

That was never your point? "You consider any legal action you do not like to be lawfare. Any action you do like is not lawfare. That’s basically your position. It’s hilariously transparent." That was your comment, wasn't it?

Pro tip no 2: Try not to BS lie in literally the same comment stream. Not very convincing. Do you lie this badly in other aspects of your life?

[Riva]

And, for your information, LawTalkingGuy, the lawfare I condemn is the abusive use of law enforcement authority to target, harrass and prosecute political opponents. It doesn't become lawfare because I despise it. I despise it because this gross perversion of the legal process for political advantage is an offense to the rule of law in our republic. You really are quite ignorant, aren't you?

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s been a fantastic week for cynical assholes that’s for sure.

[tylertusta]

Not just this week. This past month has been thoroughly enjoyable for me.

(Yes, I'm a cynical asshole).

[Malika]

"Yes, I'm a cynical asshole"

Wow. Maybe I don't spend enough time on the internet, but it's interesting to me to see a grown person say this kind of thing. Good for you!?

[tylertusta]

Given the prior comment, any response I make would have included the implication that I was a cynical asshole. I figured I'd lean into it rather than allow someone else. Besides, I fully admit that I'm cynical. And others here would consider me an asshole, so there's no real downside for me saying this.

Better that a grown person own up to their faults than hide them.

Wouldn't you, as a grown person, agree with that statement?

[Malika]

I get this is an "edgy" thing some people say. But I think it's profoundly sad that a grown up would identify as a cynical asshole. You rationalize it how you will, but I genuinely pity you and wish you the best in overcoming that.

[tylertusta]

"rationalize"

I suppose you can thank me for giving you that word today. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand what the word means.

Regardless, your pity is misplaced. Understanding one's own character isn't something worth pitying. Would you rather I live in benighted ignorance? Shall I pretend that the world exists other than how it is? Or are you merely upset that I am flouting convention by discussing myself this way in an open setting? Perhaps you're upset that I'm confident enough in myself to do so?

I can continue to speculate as to the underpinnings of your genuine pity, but only you can illuminate the reasons behind it.

[Commenter_XY]

FWIW, I don't think you're an asshole. I have rather enjoyed watching the back and forth with you and the other lawyers here. They seem to leave you alone.

[tylertusta]

Thank you for the kind words, but I've been on the receiving end of the lawyers here multiple times.

[Bwaaah]

Now you've gone and made Malika "profoundly sad." Malika "genuinely" pities you.

Behold the sincere, sensitive, concerned feelings of Malika. No cynical asshole there.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Some serious projection going on there.

[Bwaaah]

Not if you read what Malika wrote.

[Frank Drackman]

that's Dr. Asshole thank you

[Krayt]

It’s been a fantastic week for cynical assholes that’s for sure.

Week

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon (man!) Hunter was just another example of the Man keeping a Brother down! and Bo died in Iraq! Give me a break! (Man!)

[Mr. Bumble]

Among his other problems, Hunter couldn't seem to keep it down.
Will little Navy finally get a Christmas stocking this year?

[Malika]

Let's all remember that Bumble famously here demonstrated he doesn't understand how blow jobs work. So I get his jealousy/anger at Hunter's sexscapades.

[Mr. Bumble]

You omitted the link to the instructional video where you show how to do it.

[Malika]

Lol, Bumble famously tried to make a joke about Clinton "getting on his knees" to get a blow job.

Conservatives are often weird prudes/incels trying to be edgy. In the words of their cult leader: Sad.

[TwelveInchPianist]

To be fair, that's what the working definition would have required...

[not guilty]

Huh?? What "working definition"?

[tylertusta]

I believe that Hunter's pardon may have set a record as the most expansive pardon in US history. Last I checked, Nixon received a blanket pardon for about five and a half years.

Hunter's covered time period is 11 years.

[Mr. Bumble]

It would have been longer but they couldn't figure out how to include future crimes.

[Brett Bellmore]

The mass pardon of Confederates certainly exceeded it in scope, if not duration.

But I suspect another record is going to be broken: Hunter was, after all, pardoned for tax fraud... It's possible Hunter will receive a supplementary pardon on the 19th, just in case he decided to commit tax fraud one last time while Dad was still available to protect him.

[tylertusta]

I thought the confederates' pardons were for specific crimes that would have been committed during the Civil War.

I'm not aware of any single Confederate that received a blanket pardon for all Federal crimes, much less a blanket pardon that covered a time period longer than the Civil War + secession crisis that preceded it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Scope in terms of number of people covered, I mean.

[tylertusta]

Understood. I was referring to a single pardon. Perhaps there's a single pardon that has multiple individuals?

Edit: I was answered below by John.

[John F. Carr]

Carter's pardon of draft dodgers covered a period of only nine years but affected tens of thousands of people.

[tylertusta]

I had forgotten about Carter. However, that only affected draft dodging, and it wasn't a blanket pardon for all crimes.

[Malika]

So, is Trump already shaping how he will back off from his tariff's promises? And is that fine with his cultists here? Also, is he backing off from his deportation rhetoric, and the same question.

[Frank Drackman]

I heard there's going to be a $100/tube Tariff on K-Y, better stock up!

[Kazinski]

I am not a fan of tarrifs well except retaliatory ones to induce better behavior when you have a legitimate beef.

I don't want tariffs against China to keep Chinese goods out, but to induce them to close slave labor camps, quit encroaching on the South China Sea, and give up plans to invade Taiwan, or more likely punish them for refusing to change their behavior.

Tariffs on the EU for their war on tech companies and free speech, should also be considered.

Also Tariffs on the UK for becoming an Orwellian police state where police spend more time monitoring Facebook posts for wroongthink than they do fighting crime.

And I don't think there is any chance that Trump will back down from deporting as many illegal aliens as he can get his hands on.

[Malika]

I hope Trump gets the tariffs he claimed to want. But let's be clear, he will never and his cultists will be as ok with that as they were with his failure to get Mexico to build 'the Wall.'

[Brett Bellmore]

Forcing Mexico to pay for the wall would be as simple as enacting a high tax on remittances to Mexico, which would be levied by the companies handling them, such as Western Union.

The reason this couldn't be done wasn't that it wasn't possible. It was because Congress didn't want the wall built. Trump didn't figure that out until after he took office. At the time he said he'd make Mexico pay for the wall, he still thought Republicans in Congress were his allies.

[bernard11]

All a conspiracy.

It couldn't possibly be that it was an empty threat.

And BTW how are you going to tax perfectly legal remittances from US legal residents and citizens to Mexico? You're going to tax people on the money they spend on vacation?

Typical simple-minded Bellmore approach. World's dumbest idea.

[Absaroka]

"how are you going to tax perfectly legal remittances from US legal residents and citizens to Mexico?"

As mentioned, the proposal was to have Western Union etc. collect the tax on money being wired to Mexico, in the same way businesses collect sales or any other tax.

Here is a pro-tax source that says such taxes are common worldwide (but n.b. their footnote only references India):

"Remittance taxes are a common policy in many nations. Take India, for example. While India receives nearly $12 billion every year in remittances from the U.S., a migrant living in India must pay a 12.36 percent “service tax” on the fees charged by banks or financial agents for transferring money both in and out of the country."

Here is a source that isn't a fan.

I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other, but collection doesn't seem all that difficult. If a tax was high enough black market alternatives would probably arise, as with anything else, but probably not for lower levels.

[Nelson]

“ I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other, but collection doesn't seem all that difficult.”

Collection is never a problem. The government always finds a way to collect.

The justification for taxing money that people choose to transfer elsewhere? That is the problem. Because taxing money transfers will have vast and negative repercussions throughout the country. Do you really think people would just stand by and pay a tax on money transfers? Do you want to pay taxes when you Venmo? When you transfer money from savings to checking to investment to retirement accounts? When you get a mortgage or buy a car or start (and run) a business? Because that’s where else it would apply.

Never mind that paying billions to build a wall in a world full of ladders makes the military paying $400 for a toilet seat seem like a genius move.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The justification for taxing money that people choose to transfer elsewhere?"

That remittances from illegal aliens in the US to Mexico amount to a significant fraction of Mexico's balance of trade, so you can hit Mexico where they feel it.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/789522/value-of-remittances-mexico-by-means-of-transfer/

[Nelson]

“ Forcing Mexico to pay for the wall would be as simple as enacting a high tax on remittances to Mexico”

Without altering the tax code, how would one tax a person’s wealth? A wealth tax is a terrible idea. Taxing assets not yet realized is a terrible idea. Any tax on money held by a person and sent where they want to send it is a terrible idea.

The vast change in policy, and the ways such a tax could be used against every American citizen, is the opposite of simple.

Today I moved $10k from my investment account to the checking account I have with my partner. According to you, taxing that would be good, as well as simple. How would you justify that?

[Don Nico]

Keep it up with the "cultist" bullshit. They are your fellow Americans. Live with it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, they are not.

[Nelson]

We’ll see. When lumber (and everything that uses it, like homes and furniture) and cell phones and vegetables and steel (and everything that uses it, like commercial construction and autos) jump 25% as the tariffs kick in, I’m expecting a wave of buyer’s remorse. Sort of like the farmers who said, “Wait, you mean OUR illegals?”, but from everyone who buys stuff.

[Commenter_XY]

That buyers remorse on tariffs did not happen during 45's term. Why do you think it will happen now?

[Martinned2]

Any other countries whose laws you disapprove of? You seem to be on a roll there.

But seriously, this is why it is important for the EU to "cut the cord", so to speak, and explore how it can extricate itself from various US-based systems like Swift. There are too many crazies in charge in the US for it to be tolerable that the US can hold the entire European economy hostage.

[SimonP]

"I think that the American president should be empowered to unilaterally and unaccountably impose selective tariffs on American importers in order to achieve unrelated policy goals."

Legally, the president's authority is and should be limited to addressing specific economic harms caused by other countries "dumping" goods on American markets. It's not supposed to be some all-purpose tool for pursuing any particular foreign policy agenda. What a monstrously stupid idea that is.

[gVOR08]

I forget who to credit for this observation, but Trump follows the same cycle:
1 Trump says he'll do some outrageous thing.
2. Liberals object that the thing is outrageous.
3. Trump ends up not doing it.
4. MAGA give Trump credit for it anyway, and for owning the libs.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Justin Trudeau knows what to do. Praise Trump and flatter his ego, and he will back way off on tariffs for Canadian products. The smart actors know that will always work with Trump.

[Mr. Bumble]

In 1994, a crime bill authored by @JoeBiden locked Black men up for years for the same gun charge he just pardoned Hunter Biden for today.

This is the Democrat Party.

Again, why any Black person would want to be associated with the democrats is beyond me.

— Kimberly Klacik (@kimKBaltimore) December 2, 2024

[Malika]

Why'd they capitalize Black!

[John F. Carr]

Curse you, autocorrect!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? Many style guides call for capitalizing Black (but not white).

[Longtobefree]

Which is clearly racist.

[TwelveInchPianist]

More importantly, it's an indication that an organization doesn't wish to be taken seriously.

[Dr. Ed 2]

APA style manual explicitly requires it. "Racist" not to....
Go talk to the APA...

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities

It also requires it for white people.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why we will lowercase white

Hm, so, do they follow the style book, or the above?

AP VoteCast: How Donald Trump built a winning 2024 coalition

"The Republican candidate won by holding onto his traditional coalition — white voters, voters without a college degree and older voters — while making crucial gains among younger voters and Black and Hispanic men, according to AP VoteCast, a far-reaching survey of more than 120,000 voters nationwide."

Yeah, forget that style guide. They capitalize "Black" and don't "white".

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well seeing as the American Psychological Association (APA) is a different organization than the Associated Press (the AP) and they have different style guides I’m gonna guess the APA goes with the APA style guide and the AP goes with the AP style guide!

[Brett Bellmore]

I concede to your superior reading ability.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Don’t bring an engineer to a style guide fight.

[Brett Bellmore]

Georgia men who killed Ahmaud Arbery want a new trial

"BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — The only Black person who served on the jury that convicted three white men of murdering Ahmaud Arbery was called to the witness stand Thursday as defense attorneys sought to make a case that their clients deserve a new trial."

The style guide is a lie. They don't actually follow it.

[Michael Ejercito]

Georgia men who killed Ahmaud Arbery want a new trial
So did Scott Peterson.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"People who are Black have strong historical and cultural commonalities, even if they are from different parts of the world and even if they now live in different parts of the world. That includes the shared experience of discrimination due solely to the color of one’s skin...White people generally do not share the same history and culture, or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color."

I wonder what historical and cultural commonalities a guy from Atlanta shares with, say, a Nuer.

I hope no one relies on an organization like this for facts.

[Longtobefree]

White people generally do not share the same history and culture, or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color."

Well, they do now, at least in democrat areas.

[Bwaaah]

AP says, ""People who are Black have strong historical and cultural commonalities." And they go on to say, "Avoid broad generalizations and labels; race and ethnicity are one part of a person’s identity."

I guess you don't want to generalize about whites, but it's OK about Blacks. They're like that.

2020 will not be remembered as a good year for style.

[tylertusta]

Oh, they changed it? Last I heard they were refusing to capitalize the "W" in "white" because they were smoking from the DEI crackpipe.

[LawTalkingGuy]

For someone who is comfortable with initialisms like DEI, you’d think you’d be able to spot the difference between the APA and the AP.

[tylertusta]

Oh, you're right. I was thinking of the AP and not the APA. After all, it was a few years ago when it made the news.

For someone who is comfortable with initialisms like DEI, you’d think you’d be...

Have a nice day! Please make sure you don't choke on the DEI!

[Absaroka]

We recently listened to (audiobook) 'Facing the Mountain' by Daniel Brown (author of 'Boys in the Boat'). It is a wonderful book on the soldiers of the 442nd RCT (et al), switching back and forth between the soldiers and their families back home, many of whom were in internment camps. Despite fighting for a country that imprisoned a lot of their parents, they were one of the most highly decorated units of WWII.

Last night I was reading the NYT reader comments about the pardon, and there were quite a few that said 'of course a father should pardon a son'. That really contrasts with the advice that several of the fathers gave their Nisei sons as they went to war, which could be summarized as 'come back if you can, but do not dishonor yourself'. Especially since Hunter was facing a few years in Club Fed, not being KIA.

I have to wonder what parents of people convicted of the same crimes who weren't pardoned are thinking.

[Sarcastr0]

This is just moral hazard.

You can choose to be pissed you didn't get the same things others did, or you can choose to be glad for them.

[Absaroka]

"I'm glad that relatives of the well to do get sweetheart deals, even though my relative goes to jail".

Yay for the upper crust! The poors should just be grateful for the opportunities their betters get.

Got it.

(for the record, I condemn e.g. Trump pardoning Kushner as well, much less appointing him ambassador. But now I realize I should be glad patronage is being dispensed like that)

[Sarcastr0]

No, this isn't a class conflict thing. Way too small a population at work here to turn it into that. It's honestly pretty silly for you to suggest that.
There are lots and lots of ways the wealthy tilt the playing field in their favor; being the child of the President of the United States so you can get a pardon isn't really tops on that list.

Moreover, the practitioners on here have noted that in their experience the gun charge was *because* Hunter had a connection to the President, so Hunter's parentage is cutting both ways here.

As with all moral hazards, there is not cut-and-dried case to make; it's a choice to train your focused such that you will be outraged.

I also think pardoning your addict son is vastly more understandable than pardoning your executive father-in-law for his weird sex entrapment stuff.

If Trump Jr. gets in some trouble and Trump pardons him, will you be mad? I won't be!

There do seem to be some idealists on here who are disappointed; I'm not one of them.

[Absaroka]

Sure seems like the aristocracy taking care of itself to me.

"If Trump Jr. gets in some trouble and Trump pardons him, will you be mad?"

I'll add it to the list of things I despise Trump for.

[Sarcastr0]

Aristocracy would be if we put Hunter in charge of stuff.

I just can't demand of people that they don't pardon their kids, even if that's not fair. I mean, the pardon system is never going to be fair - that's not how it's designed.
-------------------------
Re: moral hazard. Yeah, I looked it up and I'm not using the economics term, but the ethicists one.

Basically, when someone gets a benefit and someone else does not, and they are in other respects equal, how do you feel about that? Do you call the person getting the benefit unfairly enriched, or the person not getting it unfairly passed over? Or do you focuse on the benefit happening?

It was the financial bailouts that made me think about it first. There, an additional element was deterrence which muddied the dilemma and made the answer easier. But we went with pragmatism not morality on that one.

It was the Covid bailouts, I think, when I decided once the benefit is out the door on any kind of thing, not to focus on those unjustly enriched or unjustly left out, but on those getting something good.
At least in the absence of a deterrence interest.

The ideal is to set up systems where that kind of thing doesn't come up - clear and fair selection criteria, etc. But that's not always going to be possible.

But given the imperfection of humanity and indeed the universe in handing out stuff fairly, I choose the sunny side of what are provably two equivalent framings.

[Absaroka]

"I just can't demand of people that they don't pardon their kids"

Fair enough; I can. Favored deals for family members just aren't OK in my book, whether it's steering a contract to a relative, or a cop tipping off a relative or a prosecutor declining to charge a relative when he would have charged someone else.

'A little bit of corruption is OK if family is involved' just doesn't cut it for me.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think we demand prosecutors charge their kids.

I think you're also pulling the frame a bit to include unjust enrichment and 'relatives' not direct family.

My concessions to the humanity of humans here is pretty narrow -
1) misery prevention
2) malum prohibitum or less
3) nuclear family

I feel like you're trying to seize the moral high ground by widening my push.

[Absaroka]

"I think you're also pulling the frame a bit to include unjust enrichment and 'relatives' not direct family."

1)OK, Senator Smith gets that classified briefing and calls up someone in their nuclear family and says "Just heard the F-43 is going to be canceled, dump your McDonnell-Douglas stock".

The family member in question does so and nets $20k. Your position is that this is sleazier than getting a pardon after failing to pay $20k in taxes? Not, mind you, a tax disagreement on some fine point in the tax law, I'm positing clear, deliberate tax fraud. Or perhaps you think that kind of self-dealing is OK?

2)I also am not even a tiny bit on board with your proposed nuclear family exemption.

3)"misery prevention": that seems to apply equally to any incarceration. The poors have parents and spouses and kids as well as prominent office holders. I suggest the right way to not impose that particular misery on yourself or your loved ones is to obey the law.

4)"malum prohibitum or less": whut? You get that when Hunter doesn't pay his taxes, other people end up paying his share? We punish tax fraud for a reason.

In general, should not your concessions to humanity apply to one and all, instead of just to those adjacent to great political power?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, my position is that insider trading is sleazier than keeping you addict son out of jail for his minor offenses.
One is greed, the other is mercy.

If a President pardoned a random drug offender for no particular reason other than he seemed nice and he thought about that kid's mom being sad, I'd also think there was something nice about that. You can't run the whole system like that -we punish people for a reason, but small mercies are just that.

The thing with nuclear family is you seem to feel there's something arguable about it, because you expanded that, purposefully or no, to any relative in your response.

You're taking the elements each by themselves. That's not what I communicated. No, I don't think any incarceration is legit.

You bottom line seem to be coming out against any mercy or humanity at all, unless it applies to everyone similarly situated.

Ignoring that Hunter is situated where he is at least partially because of who he is, I don't agree that mercy has to always be fairly distributed.

I'm all for reforming the law so lame duck pardons are illegal. But given that's not the system, I'm not going to demand my Presidents be cold machines.

[Absaroka]

"You bottom line seem to be coming out against any mercy or humanity at all, unless it applies to everyone similarly situated."

In the case of government officials, absolutely.

Here's my test: When the question is "Does X get a pardon?", "Well, it depends on who X is related to" is not an acceptable answer to me.

If you have kids some day, the legal system should treat them no differently than the president's kids. Including that part of the legal system that is the pardon power.

Mercy and humanity are fine, but not just for the president's kids.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Pardoning your addict son makes you a shitty President but a decent father.

[Sarcastr0]

If you have kids some day, the legal system should treat them no differently than the president's kids. Including that part of the legal system that is the pardon power.

Fairness is of vital import to justice. It is not the only important thing in justice, however.

Otherwise, why have pardons at all? Or why not have a fairness restriction on the power? Or restrict the discretion we give to prosecutors?

We don't have or want a justice of machines. Well, by and large we don't. I'm not sure if you do, but I have talked with some on here who look forward to our infallible robot overlords.

That was before LLMs came along and started citing fake precedents, I will note.

[Absaroka]

"why have pardons at all?"

Because a system run by people can - indeed will - generate miscarriages of justice.

Hunter's case just isn't an example of one. I read elsewhere here that Biden has given 25 pardons to date. The notion that if you lined up all the miscarriages in the federal system you'd find Hunter's case as the 25th most egregious ... seems difficult to support (a little Brit understatement there).

[TwelveInchPianist]

"keeping your addict son out of jail for his minor offenses."

Biden pardoned Hunter for any offenses he may have committed, minor or not. That's what gave the lie to the claim that he was merely trying to correct selective prosecution, and made this a naked act of nepotism.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Otherwise, why have pardons at all?"

I'm pretty sure it's not so that powerful people can keep their kids out of trouble.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"That's what gave the lie to the claim that he was merely trying to correct selective prosecution"

Otherwise Trump would be able to direct his DOJ to continue to look for anything they could charge Hunter with. I suppose since it's you, I should explain that would be covered by the term 'selective prosecution.'

My god you are a full-on partisan retard and you're so stupid you don't even realize it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"My god you are a full-on partisan retard and you're so stupid you don't even realize it."

Lol. One of these days I'll dig up one of your comments about the possibility of Biden pardoning Hunter before it became convenient for you to hold your current view, dipshit.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Don't you dare throw me in dat briar patch!

What exactly is my "current view" you dumb fuck? Have I expressed approval of the matter? No, I have not.

Biden promised he wouldn't do it, and he should have kept that promise as a giant "fuck yourselves right to the grave" to all the assholes like you who kneel down to provide mouth service to Trump and his blatant corruption and criminality.

You are an absolute retard. Reinforced yet again by your assumption as to what "my view" was because you don't understand the difference between explaining someone's actions and supporting them.

Someone should just pull the plug and put your brain stem out of its misery.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Aristocracy would be if we put Hunter in charge of stuff."

He wasn't in charge of anything? What was he doing on those corporate boards? Are you admitting here that it was just a straight handout for no work at all?

[Sarcastr0]

Government stuff. Aristocracies are a government thing.

Otherwise a lot of US businesses would be unacceptably run.

Also, since when was Hunter actually in charge of anything? One member on a coporate board does not an authority make.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This is just moral hazard."

How so?

[Absaroka]

I was puzzled as well; 'moral hazard' is a fairly specific thing that seems unrelated here.

To be clear, I am very much making a moral argument: I think it is immoral to use public office for private benefit. We expect a judge to recuse himself rather than preside at his son's trial, and we should expect a president to do the same.

If's not like the Office of the Pardon Attorney says a put Hunter's name in with the other people it thinks are deserving of clemency.

[Mr. Bumble]

When will Jim Biden receive his pardon or will he be thrown under the bus?

[Bob from Ohio]

Christmas.

[Frank Drackman]

I may be the only "Conspirator" who regularly listens to Steve Banyon's "War Room" but he starts every show with a Johnny Cash tune, with the lyrics
"There's a man going around taking names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Everybody won't be treated all the same
There will be a golden ladder reaching down
When the man comes around"

Frank "You know what happens before taking names"

[Malika]

As a huge, huge Cash fan, you know he's talking about God, right? Are you equating some political leader you currently like with God?

[Bwaaah]

Or is this just your knee-jerk attempt to invalidate a metaphor you can't enjoy?

[John F. Carr]

For all of you worried about the chaotic politics of Trumpland, things could be worse.

Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte said Saturday she has contracted an assassin to kill the president, his wife and the House of Representatives speaker if she herself is killed, in a brazen public threat that she warned was not a joke.

https://apnews.com/article/philippines-president-marcos-duterte-assassination-0946ce72c2475b58a2daf54efa32fe45
Sara Duterte is the daughter of Rodrigo Duterte.

[Mr. Bumble]

"... not a joke."
Did she steal that line from Biden?

[Brett Bellmore]

A suitable reminder that US politics are still pretty boring compared to much of the world.

My wife informs me that her concerns about being killed for exposing corruption are not unreasonable.

[John F. Carr]

The statements have given her political opponents an opportunity.

The impeachment bid filed by several prominent civil society activists in the House of Representatives accuses Duterte of violating the country’s Constitution, betrayal of public trust and other “high crimes,” including the death threats she made against the president, his wife and the speaker of the House of Representatives.

https://apnews.com/article/philippines-duterte-impeachment-complaint-marcos-073f5ae8bf4bec1af48bdd24dec70635
That's more like the American way.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, not quite: Here in America we give political enemies incompetent security, in the Philippines they take it away entirely.

[Sarcastr0]

Another unsupported conspiracy added to the Brett cinematic universe!

[Frank Drackman]

You're right, the incompetent DIE SS isn't a conspiracy

[Brett Bellmore]

It's pretty uncontroversial that Trump's security at the event where he got shot was incompetent, the best you can do is claim the SS are just that bad, that it wasn't deliberate.

[Bored Lawyer]

I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice.
Pres. Biden, when pardoning Hunter Biden.

This is what is called in the law an admission. It's a gift to Trump, even if Biden does not realize it's a gift. Trump and his appointees can now cite this to support cleaning out the DOJ. Even the Democratic president admits that raw politics has infected the justice process.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The claim that Trump has to clean out the DoJ because Trump politicized the DoJ during his first term has a certain quality of chutzpah. In any case, the Durham prosecutions are over. The Weiss prosecution of Hunter Biden (which I’m not sure was in fact politically motivated) is over as well. So what’s left to clean out?

I think it’s obvious that Trump wants to politicize the DoJ, not depoliticize it.

[Commenter_XY]

The DOJ is an Augean stable, waiting to be cleansed.

[bernard11]

Why do you believe this crap?

Where is your information coming from?

[Bored Lawyer]

The president of the United States just publicly stated that his own DOJ is "infected" by "raw politics." And Joe Biden never lies.

[Sarcastr0]

"The claim that Trump has to clean out the DoJ because Trump politicized the DoJ during his first term has a certain quality of chutzpah."

[Mr. Bumble]

" And Joe Biden never lies."
No, Joe Biden always lies. No joke.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Where is your information coming from?"

Joe Biden.

[Bored Lawyer]

Try reading again. It's the Biden DOJ that is politicized. As admitted by the Chief Executive.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You might want to check your own comprehension first.

Pay attention to the use of "this" versus "that." I suggest you get an adult to help you.

[Brett Bellmore]

By "politicized", he meant "Not politicized enough to stomach letting my felonious son totally off the hook."

[Swede425]

The First Crackhead got pardoned by daddy.
Which everybody knew would happen.
Except for some of the diehard morons here who actually believed it wouldn't happen.
And government officials who Dementia Joe just threw under the bus.
And lots of MSM cheerleaders who Sharp As A Tack Joe also threw under the bus.
When does this stop being fun?

[Lennyk78]

Food for thought on the pardon power. A lot of people went after Trump in an unjustified manner. Suppose, once he takes office, he encourages his supporters to kill these people while in D.C., and promises an immediate pardon.

No state would be able to prosecute because the crime occurred in the District, barring some exceptional circumstances.

Other than impeaching him, is there any recourse?

[Brett Bellmore]

Payback in kind?

It's an interesting legal puzzle, but nothing more. The rules break down and stop mattering at that point.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do you know what the term “in-kind” means?

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you know why Trump has a scar on his ear?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Because a kid with no discernible ideology other than: “I am a stereotypical wannabe mass shooter” had the easy access to a weapon Republicans wanted him to have.

The idea that Crooks was ideologically on the left let a lone a loyalist democrat is of such dubiousness that even the right wing insanity factories didn’t really press it.

So again, I don’t think you know what “in kind” means. Which considering your admitted and demonstrated inability to read and understand things isn’t surprising!

[Commenter_XY]

LTG, we don't know much of anything about Crooks. Interesting.

[Mr. Bumble]

Kind of SOP for the FBI.
Still looking for the Jan. 6 "bomber"?

[bernard11]

The idea that Crooks was ideologically on the left let a lone a loyalist democrat is of such dubiousness that even the right wing insanity factories didn’t really press it.

Or an agent of some Democratic plot to kill Trump.

But Brett knows.

[Brett Bellmore]

Apparently "stochastic terrorism" is only a thing for one side of the political spectrum.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wouldn't the DC self governance act come into play here -- the argument I would make is that the Federal government has ceded its authority over DC and hence the POTUS doesn't have the ability to pardon.

Of course this WOULD BE impeachable, I'd vote to impeach him.

[Brett Bellmore]

That would be a total loser argument. DC, constitutionally, has no self-governance, such as it does have is purely statutory in nature, and statutes can't limit the President's constitutional power as a co-equal branch to issue pardons.

[Lennyk78]

I'd vote to impeach him depending on whom the target was.

[Michael Ejercito]

Wrongful death lawsuits.

[Frank Drackman]

There's a 50 square mile "Zone of Death" in the Idaho part Yellowstone where you could kill someone without being prosecuted ("The Perfect Crime" Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 93, No. 2, 2005
MSU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 02-14) as the Idaho portion is in the Wyoming Federal District, but Article III section 2 requires trials to be held in the state the crime was committed, the trial would have to be in Idaho, however the 6th Amendment requires the jury to be from the State and Federal District the crime was committed in, unfortunately (or not) nobody lives in the Idaho portion of Yellowstone.
I understand that's where the Revolting Reverend Kirtland was headed.

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

I am amazed at the amount of discussion on Hunter Biden's pardon. Is it really worth the amount of time spent on here? I could understand one thread but there are so many. Hunter seems to be living rent free in so many people's head.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its trivial but really show your side's hypocrisy.

Plus its right after Thanksgiving, slow news weekend.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean that’s not an accident. There have been at least 6 straight years of right-wing obsession with him that led to sitting US representatives showing pictures of his penis in public congressional hearings multiple times. It led to news outlets trying to turn a dad’s message of love and support to his struggling son into a scandal. It led some people to think that they were justified in viewing and disseminating what they believed or knew to be CSAM because it allegedly involved “Hunter Biden.”

Multiple threads on the merits and politics of a controversial pardon is actually a tame reaction comparatively!

[Brett Bellmore]

"I mean that’s not an accident. There have been at least 6 straight years of right-wing obsession with him"

This is reminiscent of Hillary's "Vast right-wing conspiracy". She claimed that Republicans had, early on, identified her and Bill as potential Presidential material, and started constructing one fake outrage after another from their earliest days in Little Rock.

Alternatively, she was corrupt from her earliest days in Little Rock, and people kept noticing...

Which came first, the cocaine and kickbacks, or the 'right wing obsession'? I'm pretty sure it was actually the cocaine and kickbacks, and you're just complaining that Republicans had the gall to notice that Biden's son was a corrupt drug addict.

[LawTalkingGuy]

And none of that explains the unhealthy levels of obsession that lead a congresswomen to show someone’s penis multiple times in a hearing or people to proudly admit they viewed and sought out CSAM. A point you conveniently ignore.

And yeah the right actually did and does have an unhealthy obsession with Hillary! Prominent and not-so-prominent people on the right think she’s had dozens of people murdered!

[Nelson]

“ you're just complaining that Republicans had the gall to notice that Biden's son was a corrupt drug addict.”

Everyone knew Hunter was a corrupt drug addict long before the right glommed onto it as a way to attack his father. I’ve lived in Delaware since 1996 and it’s been common knowledge here for decades.

The complaint is that attacking Joe because of things that Hunter did makes no sense. There is nothing about Hunter’s shady life that implicates Joe, except in the fever dreams of the right.

Do you people really think Joe was unaware of his son’s character? There’s a reason he was constantly associating publicly with Beau (who was an amazing man who died way too young) and never with Hunter. He’s always known how shitty Hunter was and insulated himself from it as much as possible.

But to the right, guilt by association (with no actual proof of any wrongdoing) is apparently acceptable politics.

Hunter Biden is a scumbag. And that has nothing to do with Joe Biden, except for the fact that he has refused to stop loving his son (even though he’s a scumbag).

[Brett Bellmore]

"There is nothing about Hunter’s shady life that implicates Joe, except in the fever dreams of the right"

And the 10% the Big Guy got, of course. Or Hunter putting dad on the phone when discussing said shady deals with his business partners.

This is just denial, like pretending Biden wasn't going to pardon his son right up until the moment he did it.

[Sarcastr0]

And the 10% the Big Guy got,
Riva levels of ipse dixit here.

Hunter putting dad on the phone when discussing said shady deals with his business partners.
You added shady there. Because otherwise it's nowhere near supporting the bullshit you want to believe.

This is just denial
Sure is!

[Riva]

Actually that’s what the evidence says, evidence that includes the laptop emails and witness testimony and bank records. Is that what you mean by ipse dixit? That phrase doesn’t actually mean what you think it means.

[Nelson]

Witness testimony and bank records? Funny, those things don’t exist except for in the mind Riva, the Russian paleocon troll. You rival Dr. Ed for making transparently false statements.

[Riva]

Former Hunter business partners James Gilliar and Tony Bobulinski have identified Ol’ Joe as the Big Guy who wanted his 10 percent and have testified to the same. Contemporaneous emails also confirm that Joe is the Big Guy. It’s absurd at this point to deny this. The Washington Post confirmed $4.8 million in payments from CEFC to entities controlled by Hunter Biden James Biden during 2017 and 2018. Financial records of the Biden crime family obtained by the House Oversight Committee detail millions going to the Biden Crime family from a number of foreign companies, including Chinese and Romanian sources.

Anything else you want to add ignorant smart ass?

[David Nieporent]

Bot spewing same tired long-refuted/irrelevant talking points that was fed into it years ago.

[Riva]

Refuted by whom Crazy Dave? Nothing has been refuted. The word you're looking for is corroborated. But maybe I missed it. Did ol'Joe get more intel pukes to lie in another letter?

[Riva]

Why do you think the Big Guy extended the blanket pardon back to 2017 you frigging clown? See above if you’re still confused.

[John F. Carr]

Me too. It's not as bad as pardoning Clint Lorance or Marc Rich. On the list of things presidents ought not to have done it ranks pretty low.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Looking forward to the threads on the Robert Bales pardon.

[John F. Carr]

Don't forget the January 6 pardons. Who is in? Who is out? Tourists only or conspirators too? Commutations or full pardons? Will prosecutors resign in disgust?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Larry Householder is going to be a good one.

[Frank Drackman]

Not as many a 45/47 has been, and he ain't got no job, how he supposed to pay that rent?

[Moderation4ever]

I spent Thanksgiving evening at Lambeau field watching the Packers and the Dolphins game. Yes, it was cold. Of course, not so cold that the vendors had any trouble selling "ice cold" beer in the stands. I like many have been critical of the new kickoff rules, but seeing them live on the field I was little more appreciative of the idea to increase run backs and to prevent injuries. I think the new rules seem far more sensible now and that the TV views of the kickoff distorted what was happening to me.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s only one of the most exciting plays in Foo-bawl, and eliminates another exciting play, the onside kick

[Moderation4ever]

What do you mean? The Dolphins tried an on-side kick in the fourth quarter.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, but if I understand correctly, the kicking team has to tell the Ref's they're going to do an on-side kick, maybe next they'll have to tell the defense what play they're going to run

[ReaderY]

In light of the series of posts on symmetry considerations in constitutional decision-making, I recognize one of my tendencies is to see symmetries in disparate-seeming topics. So why don’t I being up one of my perennial ones.

It seems to me, and has for a long time,that there is considerable symmetry between abortion and immigration. In both cases, the constitutional status is similar (I would argue the same). So far as the constitutional is concerned, the Bill of Rights lacks “application” to either. It lacks both “extraterritorial application” (Johnson v. Eisentrager) and “prenatal application” (Roe v. Wade). (This aspect of Row was not overruled by Dobbs). Liberal abortion and restrictive immigration are justified in remarkably similar terms. They are justifiec morally in terms of the sovereign power and right of nations to determine who shall become part of the national family, and the individual autonomy and right of persons to decide who shall become part of their own families. They are justified practically in terms of the negative effects that unwanted immigrants or children can have for people’s goals in life, as a society or as individuals. And they are justified ontologically by a belief in a personhood binary: there exist only full persons and objects. And since both fetuses and foreigners aren’t really fully people in one or more of various senses, they can justifiably be treated as objects. Thus, for example, supporters of liberal abortion have opposed laws against race- or sex-selective abortions more or less on grounds that phrases like “racism” and “sexism” apply only to persons, and one can’t be a racist or sexist about an object.

Similarly, opponents of abortion and supporters of open immigration have a lot in common in their arguments. These are people (the other side of the personhood binary), so it follows that they must have full rights and be treated no different from everyone else. Further, the desire ro be choosy about whom to bring in and when is characterized in very negative moral terms. Women who want abortions are selfish. People who want restrictive immigration are racist.

As I see it, people who favor both liberal abortion and open immigration, or who oppose both, and that’s most people, all use arguments to support their position on one issue that are nearly identical to the arguments they reject on the other, and vice versa. People who ridicule people who oppose race or sex-selective abortion denounce people who support race-specific immigration. People who say that restricting abortion will result in lots of unwanted children and increase abuse and crime ridicule people who make these same arguments about unwanted immigrants. Etc.

There is, as I see it, a huge amount of symmetry between the two issues, symmetry that each side seems completely unable to see.

[not guilty]

Much of the strident opposition to immigration is a fig leaf for old fashioned racism. Does anyone find it peculiar that there is little discussion in right wing circles of immigration from Canada and Europe?

[Mr. Bumble]

STOP conflating legal immigration with illegal immigration.
Legal is fine where ever they come from. Illegal is not where ever the come from.

[ducksalad]

Legal is fine where ever they come from

Which definition of "fine" are you using?

a. Legal immigrants are fine, because they obeyed the rules so legally we're forced to let them stay. But they're taking our jobs, going on welfare, committing crimes, and changing our culture. We need to cut down on the "loopholes" like those visa thingies so we get less of them.

b. Legal immigrants are fine, and therefore we need to accelerate approvals, raise the quotas or have no limits, and go to a shall-issue regime for visas.

I think most of the anti-immigrant commenters here are in the "a" category.

[ReaderY]

I’ll push the symmetry. Why isn’t sex-selective abortion old-fashioned sexism? Why do people who favor liberal abortion oppose laws against it?

And why doesn’t the answer for one - the concepts of “racism” and “sexism” apply only to those who have full constitutional rights and just don’t apply to those to whom the word “person” as used in the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply - work for the other? If it just isn’t racism or sexism to want the right to be completely arbitrarily and capriciously choosy about who enters your family, the concepts just don’t apply, why is it racism or sexism to want the right to be equally arbitrarily and capriciously choosy about who enters your country?

[ducksalad]

I think pro-choice who are trying to be intellectually honest (rather than just trying to score points, reflexively contradict their opponent) would admit that sex selective abortions are sexism. It's just that they consider abortion to be core right, so in the same way you'd say someone is "allowed" to be sexist when exercising their freedom of speech or religion, women are "allowed" to be sexist when choosing to have an abortion.

Also, it appears that only a small fraction of abortions in the US are motivated by race or sex selection, so that (alone) not a particularly good reason to ban it. There are other stronger reasons but this isn't one of them.

On the immigration side, you're up against the fact that the 14th Amendment says the government shouldn't be racist, and various laws and court decisions have partially extended that to say the government, in many contexts, shouldn't be sexist. And most of that isn't limited to the government actions with respect to citizens.

Even most of the anonymous immigration opponents here would be embarrassed to openly say we ought to let in whites but not non-whites, even though they're strictly entitled to say it. But on the other side almost all of us agree that it's acceptable for looking to "import" a spouse to prefer one race over another.

Shorter version: you're conflating an individual decision with a collective one. There is, and should be, more freedom in the first situation.

[ReaderY]

The 14th Amendment applies only to states, not the federal government. Immigration is perhaps the most salient case where this difference matters. And the 5th Amendment, indeed the entire Bill of Rights. lacks “extraterritorial application,” just as Roe said it lacks “prenatal application.” It no more applies to would-be immigrants than it applies to fetuses.

That’s a key part of the symmetry argument. A pro-lifer could just as easily say the 5th and 14th Amendments “really” and “obviously” apply to fetuses as you say they really and obviously apply to would-be immigrants. But like it or not, the Supreme Court said it doesn’t have “application” in both cases. Hence the symmetry.

As to individual vs. collective, sure individualists think individual decisions are important. But nationalists think that national decisions are important. The constitution lets the country make certain decisions as a nation, and immigration is one of them. Sure, you can say your priorities are more important. But each side doesn’t use language like that to describe the other. They describe the other as immoral and unAmerican, not as having misplaced priorities. To each side, what makes other people’s different priorities, ones the constitution in fact lets them pursue if they can get a majority to agree with them, unAmerican?

[apedad]

Had friends visit last week and we took them into DC to see the Mall, museums, and monuments.

The Archives are always my favorite.

We talk about the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and amendments, and their meaning, applicability, etc., but it's always refreshing to see them in person.

FYI, parts of the Air and Space Museum are being renovated so not everything will be available until 2026 - so plan accordingly.

The scaffolding at the Capitol and White House for the inauguration was already stated to be built.

Any bets on a J6 repeat?

Just kidding....

[Mr. Bumble]

Trump should choose to be sworn in at Mar-A-Lago.

[apedad]

That's actually not a bad idea.

He'd get a bigger crowd too.

[Frank Drackman]

How big will Cums-a-lot and Sergeant Major Pepper Waltz's crowd be?

[Sarcastr0]

My favorite building in DC is the Library of Congress. In contrast to the dignified classical stuff designed in the early Republic or in the WH rebuild after it got burned, it is a riot of color, with content everywhere.
And you play your cards right, you can take the tunnels from there to the Capitol for a tour.

The Capitol is very good - you can feel the history of where you're walking more than anywhere else I've been in the US. And if you contact your reps and time it right, you can get House/Senate gallery passes.

I toured the WH once long ago and didn't get that feel - I was unimpressed, but hear I should go again I must have been in a bad mood.

Bureau of engraving and printing is always well reviewed from DC visitors, but I've never gone.

And finally, don't sleep on the memorials. The Einstein->Lincoln->FDR->Jefferson is a pretty good, and surprisingly short, walk. And it's a banger night or day

[Don Nico]

I claim that the Lincoln is best at night.

[ducksalad]

That night battle scene at the Lincoln Memorial in Civil War was memorable.

[Frank Drackman]

Love the scene in "Nixon" where he talks to the hippies at 4am, talking Foo-bawl, not Politics

[MoreCurious]

When I was in college we used to go to D.C. because the drinking age was 18. One beautiful night I remember wandering half-drunk into the Jefferson Memorial and memorizing the words etched high up in the rotunda. Without cheating, I believe this is pretty accurate: "I have sworn upon the altar of the Lord eternal hostility against any form of tyranny over the minds of men." This would have been more than fifty years ago.

[Absaroka]

You were real close: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

I had the same experience (albeit sober 🙁 ), and it has stuck with me as well.

[MoreCurious]

How come I can't remember where I left my car keys three hours ago?

[Absaroka]

🙂

[Frank Drackman]

Of course even when the Memorial was built in 1943 they were politically correct, editing Tommy the J's writings (who edit's Tommy the J?)
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." - Jefferson's Autobiography

[Jmaie]

Agreed on the Library, very interesting architecture - reminded me of drawings from the 1000 nights stories...

Bureau of engraving and printing was one of our favorites, because they had a tour guide who provided interesting asides.

Also not greatly impressed by the WH, but I'm glad we went if only because I now have a golf towel with the presidential insignia.

Cheers.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm more a Smithsonian guy, but my absolute favorite isn't in DC, it's Udvar Hazy. That place is a aerospace nerd's dream.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I'd go, but my passport doesn't work above the Mason-Dixon line and I don't feel like getting a visa for Satanland.

[ducksalad]

You do realize that all of DC is 50 miles south of the Mason-Dixon line....

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Not on my map.

[Mr. Bumble]

Need a new map.

[Nelson]

A new brain would be a better route.

[Frank Drackman]

You do realize it's the Mason and Dixon line?

[Joe_dallas]

likely to be similar to the protests jan 2017
with added anti Israel protests

[Nelson]

You mean largely unseen and unattended? It always cracks me up when Jan. 6th apologist insist there were raging riots in DC in 2017.

[Frank Drackman]

I'd call 1,000,000 women on the rag wearing pussy hats "Raging"

[not guilty]

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has now granted the Appellant's motion to dismiss the government's appeal as to Donald Trump. The appeal will proceed with the remaining Appellees Waltine Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.81.1.pdf

Briefing in the case was completed last week. Here's hoping the Court of Appeals will rule within the seven weeks remaining before Trump takes office. Trump will no doubt pardon Nauta and Oliveira once he takes office, but Judge Cannon's execrable opinion cannot stand.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...but Judge Cannon's execrable opinion cannot stand."

And if it does?

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean it will stand in the sense it’ll be on WestLaw, Lexis and the Federal Supplement. But it’s still only persuasive authority. It’ll never come up again because we’re probably done with special counsels for a while. And given her reputation in the legal community, including in her own circuit, I doubt people will cite it favorably for any reason ever.

[tylertusta]

... we’re probably done with special counsels for a while.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Donald Trump might insist on visiting pain on his political enemies, and Special Counsels are a mighty fine way of going about that.

[LawTalkingGuy]

They only need to do that if they’re concerned about the ethics or propriety or appearances of the politically appointed attorney general prosecuting a case. If they don’t care about that then there is no need for a special counsel.

[tylertusta]

If they care about just one out of those three, a Special Counsel is definitely something they would want.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah. But they don’t.

[not guilty]

Per 28 U.S.C. § 528:

The Attorney General shall promulgate rules and regulations which require the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice, including a United States attorney or a member of such attorney's staff, from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof. Such rules and regulations may provide that a willful violation of any provision thereof shall result in removal from office.

I would not be at all surprised to see Pam Blondie appoint a passel of Special Counsels to go after those folks who investigated and prosecuted Donald Trump in regard to his shenanigans of November 2020 through January of 2021 and in regard to the documents secreted at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump has declared his intention to nominate Todd Blanche -- his lead defense counsel -- as Deputy Attorney General, the official who traditionally has run the day to day operations of the Department of Justice. That poses a huge conflict of interest for Blanche. The participation of any DOJ official under Blanche's line of command would pose at least the appearance of a conflict -- what better way to curry favor with Main Justice than to act as Trump's avenging angel demon against his erstwhile enemies?

[LawTalkingGuy]

What makes you think they care about that at all?

[not guilty]

I didn't mean to suggest that I do think that they care about it. With that having been said, I would observe that the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 528 are mandatory. I wonder whether Ms. Blondie will attempt to comply.

Absent the appointment of a Special Counsel, (or at a minimum, Todd Blanche's recusal,) a criminal defendant charged with committing an offense where Trump is an alleged victim may have grounds to seek disqualification of the Department of Justice.

As I have said before, now that Trump is out of immediate danger, I doubt that his administration will be keen on their ability to appoint Special Counsels being limited.

[John F. Carr]

I believe 28 CFR 45.2 is the corresponding rule.

Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

Is Trump "substantially involved in the conduct" of our hypothetical prosecution? Does Trump have a "specific and substantial interest" in the outcome?
The regulation concludes

This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.

As written it's a rule to keep honest people honest. One could argue that the statute's mandatory language allows a court to second-guess the department despite the disclaimer.

[not guilty]

If Donald Trump is an alleged victim, he would indeed be "substantially involved in the conduct" of any such prosecution.

The Attorney General, in addition to being "the head of the Department of Justice[,] . . . is the hand of the President in taking care that the laws of the United States in protection of the interests of the United States in legal proceedings and in the prosecution of offences, be faithfully executed." Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 262 (1922).

No attorney who has previously represented the President in regard to the very conduct for which a citizen accused is subsequently prosecuted can be expected to act fairly and objectively toward the accused under such circumstances. Any attorney answerable to such a compromised figure is likewise suspect.

[Commenter_XY]

Why is that the presumption? = No attorney who has previously represented the President in regard to the very conduct for which a citizen accused is subsequently prosecuted can be expected to act fairly and objectively toward the accused under such circumstances. Any attorney answerable to such a compromised figure is likewise suspect.

NG, I thought attorneys provided legal representation to anyone who needed it, regardless of the political (un)popularity. You're all Officers of the Court. I thought attorneys were expected to put aside any personal feelings in representing their client and defending their rights in a court of law. And that aspect was something positive, not negative. I thought that was called professionalism. You tell me...am I thinking wrong about the ideals of the legal profession?

So...Where is actual legal conflict of interest with Blanche? (Appearance of conflict very much depends on the eye of the beholder, it seems to me. What you might say is an appearance of a conflict, I might say, BFD.)

[not guilty]

A federal prosecuting attorney owed certain duties to the accused. He need not (indeed, should not) be impartial, but he needs to be objective and fair and to exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of his client, "a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).

"A prosecutor exercises considerable discretion in matters such as the determination of which persons should be targets of investigation, what methods of investigation should be used, what information will be sought as evidence, which persons should be charged with what offenses, which persons should be utilized as witnesses, whether to enter into plea bargains and the terms on which they will be established, and whether any individuals should be granted immunity." Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S. A., 481 U.S. 787, 807 (1987). An attorney who has previously represented the victim of an alleged offense (as Donald Trump perceives himself to be) would be sorely tempted to let improper, extraneous factors influence his professional judgment.

For example, in Young, a civil litigant had obtained an injunction against trademark infringement. The District Court appointed two attorneys who had represented that litigant to prosecute a criminal contempt on behalf of the United States for alleged violation of that injunction. The Supreme Court, exercising its supervisory authority, held that counsel for a party that is the beneficiary of a court order may not be appointed to undertake contempt prosecutions for alleged violations of that order. 481 U.S. at 790. A plurality of the Court opined that appointment of an interested prosecutor is structural error, requiring reversal without conducting harmless error review, in that it undermines confidence in the integrity of the criminal proceeding. Id., at 810.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, so Young is the closest case on point? It still leaves wiggle room, and it was a plurality, not majority - correct?

Thx again for the detailed explainer. It is fascinating to read how these different cases from long ago are still timely and relevant today.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Matt Gaetz is about to be Special Counsel Thanos.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Matt Gaetz is on cameo. He’s cooked lol.

[LawTalkingGuy]

And FWIW, at least in the MCU, Thanos died twice, sacrificed the only person he truly loved in pursuit of power, and his work was all undone five years later.

[John F. Carr]

The war in Syria is evolving with anti-government forces advancing rapidly. But it's not government vs. anti-government. From the point of view of the U.S. government there are three main players:

The government of Syria is allied with Iran and Russia. Down with Assad!

The PKK is a designated terrorist organization and made of Kurds. That means Kurds are terrorists. When the State Department and Turkey are looking the other way the U.S. military kind of likes them anyway.

Assorted Muslim insurgents. Al-Qaeda and ISIS are Muslims. Al-Qaeda and ISIS are terrorists. Therefore, the other insurgents must be terrorists too. Erdogan loves these people but we hate them. Assad is the devil we know.

Inviting Turkey into NATO made sense at the time. I don't know if the partition of the Middle East after WW1 ever made sense.

[Moderation4ever]

I think the partitioning of the Middle East after WWI made sense to those western powers (France and England) looking for influence in the region. Of course it doesn't look real good today, but back then hell yes.

[Jmaie]

Made sense to Messrs. Sykes and Picot...what could possibly go wrong drawing straight lines through the desert regardless of tribal political alignments?

Bringing Turkiye into NATO made sense only assuming that Ataturk's legacy would be preserved. Then Erdogan came along and decided that sectarian was the way to power and here we are. Another example of "Why we can't have nice things."

[John F. Carr]

Turkey brought NATO right up to the Soviet Union. Turkey blocked expansion of the Warsaw Pact to the south. Turkey provided a base for intelligence operations and missiles. America would have worked with a 1950s version of Erdogan as long as he was anti-communist.

[Absaroka]

That's my take as well. Among other things, 1952 (when Turkey joined) the B-52 wasn't in service, nor ICBM's. When you start drawing range circles for B-47's you can reach places in the USSR that you can't reach from West Germany.

[tylertusta]

There's one other wrinkle to Turkey joining NATO: it allowed Greece to join at the same time. That was a massive blow to Soviet interests in the region since the Russians have had positive relations with the Greeks for a few hundred years.

If Turkey joined but Greece did not, then Greece would, over time, gravitate into the Soviet sphere of influence, which would have been very, very bad for NATO.

[Absaroka]

That's an interesting point: Greece and Turkey are both in NATO, but have come pretty close to hostilities several times over the years.

[tylertusta]

Yup. And a Warsaw Pact Greece next to a NATO Turkey would probably have been the spark that set the whole thing off.

[John F. Carr]

Would it have been a B-36 or B-47 in 1952? The B-47 was entering service but (according to stats on Wikipedia) didn't have the range of the older plane.

Edward R. Murrow described riding along in a B-36 launched from Maine or Alaska to nuke Moscow, using aerial refueling to get the range. See "A-Bomb Mission to Moscow", Collier's Magazine, October 27, 1951, page 19. https://archive.org/details/colliers-1951-10-27

[Absaroka]

I dunno. Was the B-36 capable of aerial refueling? At least some sources say no. At least initially the plan, I think, was to fly over the pole. I have only heard of shorter range stuff at Incirlik, but I could sure be wrong.

[tylertusta]

I think Turkey was important less as a base for strategic bombers and more for nuclear-armed tactical aircraft, soon to be followed by the first generation of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. The Black Sea coastline of the USSR was simply less important compared to the area around Moscow & Leningrad, and those were already accessible by flying over the North Pole.

[Absaroka]

"I think Turkey was important less as a base for strategic bombers and more for nuclear-armed tactical aircraft, ..."

I concur. ISTR various accounts of F-XXX pilots standing nuclear alerts there. Also U-2's, RB-47's, Slick Chicks, and other recon types.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

It did up until around 2000….and that’s why we invaded Iraq because the global economy needed their oil and Saddam’s presence made it impossible for the world to maximize oil production.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Joe Biden just claimed that the DOJ acted in a politically motivated fashion against him.

Will the Democracy Defenders attack him for saying the DOJ is partisan?
If it's possible that the DOJ is partisan in this case, is it possible they are just as partisan in others? Or of all the work the DOJ does, this is the one and only time the DOJ acts in a partisan fashion?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The Durham prosecutions were a very obvious Trump directed partisan witch-hunt.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hey Sarcastr0, are you still getting that extra $5k/mo in COVID hazard duty pay to stay at home and "work"?

[Sarcastr0]

This is a good question - what do folks think about work from home/hybrid/full telework?

I for myself like it in the office. It brings focus. And even the commute is like a ritual that lets me slowly ramp up and back down from the workday.
But most of the folks under me really like the telework. And for most of them don't have much of a differential in productivity or quality at this point.
But but, professional development is 10 times better in person.

The way I thread the needle:
I get folks to come in altogether about once a month and come up with some kind of training or brainstorming or other to justify it.
I also get one-on-ones another about once a month each, for more 'how's it going' discussions. I try to have those out of the office in a cafe or something.

Note that this works for a small (~18 person) office. When higher offices try 'everyone come in for a day' it suuuucks.

Anyone else have thoughts about navigating the post-Covid world?

[Jmaie]

I would hate to be a newby in the remote universe. How do you get noticed for superior work product, and how do you find mentors? So much is based on in-person perceptions...

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, for bigger offices it’s gotta be rough.

[Commenter_XY]

I'll go out on a limb, here.

Another way to thread the needle. Make it fun, Sarcastr0. Be creative.

Are there any good cooks? Have instant pots? Have Kitchenaid stand mixers with attachments? Have an indoor parking lot? Have a portable grill? Extension cord for power? There are many options here. To share food together, as a group, has something of the sacred to it. It builds team cohesion. Mom's swap kid stories. Have a seating chart, and arrange for people to sit with, interact with people they normally wouldn't (be careful here, tho). You don't need a lot of prep work for this.

There is much made of outdoor team building exercises. But you know what, there are effective indoor team building exercises, too. Solve a problem together, make recommendations to those 'higher-ups'. This approach takes a lot of upfront prep work to do it properly.

I participated in an exercise like this to discuss client retention strategies for a client whose contract was up the following year (it was a large contract, 8-figures). The group identified 20-30 specific things (meaning, things that had people names next to it, for producing) we could do at low cost (analytics, deliverables, etc), and would be higher value to the client (and that client did not ask or pay for, but we knew the client would find useful to their business outside the scope of our contract).

In identifying the specific deliverables, the group also identified additional business areas of the client where these deliverables would help in our pitch to expand the contract. The client was retained, the business expanded. Many reasons, pricing was key. But you know what, some of that retention decision was based on the work of one team, in one day (albeit, with significant upfront prep work).

Everything I wrote here works on the private side. That would include non-profits.

[EscherEnigma]

It's fine.

We've used fulltime telework to retain senior developers who were moving away, situational telework to maintain productivity in adverse circumstances, and all the while enough people prefer to come into the office that the newbs aren't suffering from a lack of direction.

If your actual work is amenable to telework, but your office is hostile to it, then your boss is just an over-controlling micro-managing twat.

And frankly, if the majority of your employees would rather telework then come into the office, then you should probably look into why your office is so undesirable.

[Nelson]

Two of the companies I worked for were based in Miami and Portland, OR. I wouldn’t have moved for either job and having to fly to the office periodically sucked, but they got more than their money’s worth. My direct reports worked in Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Georgia, Tennessee, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Florida. There is zero chance I could have assembled that team locally.

Telework is vastly preferable to in-office for a lot of people. Commuting sucks, gas cuts into your earnings, and there’s not much you can do in-person that you can’t do through Zoom or Slack or any one of the myriad telework solutions.

Some people have to be in an office to be effective. Those people aren’t able to motivate themselves or be productive without oversight. That’s called an inferior employee. Development is easy in a remote environment. I not only developed my replacement when I retired (who continued the steep trajectory of our growth), but trained up four other people who moved on to other companies because we didn’t have room for them to get promoted. Each of them enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) a great deal of success in their careers.

In-person work is overrated and costs the employee in dollars and quality of life. Some jobs require it, but any that don’t should switch ASAP.

[TW]

We saw Red One in the theaters after Thanksgiving and my family and I really liked it. The reviews have not been kind although most of them have focused on the cost of the movie ($250 million) and some of Dwayne Johnson's behavior on set (e.g. showing up eight hours late to film) but the movie itself was very enjoyable.

[Sarcastr0]

I may end up checking it out.
I hear The Rock doesn't wink at the camera once - treating it as a Totally Serious Action Movie.

That's a good push.

[Commenter_XY]

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/12/suspect-in-shooting-of-chicago-jewish-man-found-dead-in-jail-cell/

Oh well. No great loss. On the positive side, now taxpayers won't need to support the cretin.

[Mr. Bumble]

Family will sue the city and they will pay out.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The article doesn't give a lot of info on possible motive. Was he connected to some kind of terrorist cell? Why not interrogate him...oops, too late.

Maybe it's a lone nut and a genuine suicide, I'm simply saying that the article doesn't prove this.

[Nelson]

Five years ago today, a man fell ill in Wuhan, China. He would become the first confirmed case of Covid-19.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The COVID Report just released by the House lets the cat out of the bag, that he fell ill from illegal US funded gain-of-function research at that Wuhan bioweapons lab.

[Paladin_44]

Give this a fuc..in break, for God's sake.
As my elementary school always said, please show your work.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://oversight.house.gov/release/final-report-covid-select-concludes-2-year-investigation-issues-500-page-final-report-on-lessons-learned-and-the-path-forward/

How can you people not get pissed at your mindmasters for keeping you so low information?

For real. you people don't know shit.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I’m pee peeing my panties!?! The Chinese made a bioweapon!?! You are such a pussy!

[Commenter_XY]

We have all been changed by Covid-19, Nelson. By all, I mean every human being on the planet. We lived through it.

I hope we tell our stories of the pandemic for our descendants.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, technically, I was changed by the collective freakout, not the virus. The virus just gave me a bad head cold for a couple of days.

[Commenter_XY]

You don't know that yet, Brett. We barely understand today how Covid-19 interacts with our body at the molecular level, or the long-term impact. The jury is still out for a while.

Absolutely Yes on the collective freak out. We were all changed. I will never forget losing my 1A rights, or being classified as essential or non-essential, or being forcibly imprisoned in our homes by governmental edict.

I really hope we find a way to tell and document our Covid-19 stories for future generations. A collection of stories, with video, from the people who lived through it. I don't want AI to change our stories, either.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've got a pretty clear understanding of both the virus and the vaccine for a layman, thanks to four years of human biology, and keeping up my reading. And in terms of long term effects, the latter scares me more than the former, even though I think MRNA vaccines are an important development. Humans have co-existed with coronaviruses our whole evolutionary history, which is something you can't say of MRNA vaccines.

But I find the legal and social response to that pandemic more frightening than either. It was terrifying how quick political leaders in nominal democracies were to let their dictator flags fly.

[Sarcastr0]

Incredible how your clear understanding aligns with your priors.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hm, maybe that's because they're actually "subsequents"?

[Sarcastr0]

Come on, man. You're not one with a subtle or complicated worldview.
Your take on the response to Covid as another example of government tyranny was extremely predictable.
So of course once you got it your clear understanding became that vaccines are useless if you've already gotten it.
And of course now you're anti-vax curious.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, it's not that I don't have a subtle or complicated worldview. It's that every time I, (Or anybody really who disagrees with you.) try to explain a bit of nuance, you dismiss it as inconsistency. You're not capable of perceiving subtly in people you disagree with. Or not willing, anyway. All you see is moving 'goalposts', as what people say diverges from your cartoonishly simplified understanding of their views.

OF COURSE the government response to Covid was tyrannical. Businesses were ordered to shut down for extended periods, many went bust. Landlords were prevented from kicking out deadbeat tenants. People were told not to congregate in large groups, and often were subject to legal penalties if they did so anyway.

Maybe all that would have been justified if Covid had been the biowarfare agent they suspected it was at first, or if the lockdowns had actually saved very many lives.

But they didn't! Subsequent data analysis has shown that.

Why do COVID Deaths Vary by State?

Go down to the analysis of deaths vs 'stringency index'; Once you account for age, obesity, and the vaccination rate for people over 65, the correlation between stringency, the lockdowns, and death rates, is only R2 0.03. That's indistinguishable from random! (The correlation between lockdowns and subsequent poverty, OTOH? That was pretty robust.)

You know, when people are saying, "This is bullshit!" at the time, and the data subsequently proves they were right, maybe you should adjust your perception of their rationality up, and the rationality of the people promulgating the bullshit down?

Now, vaccines? They're great, where appropriate, which is not in all cases.

Same source, the data on vaccination: Vaccination has a high correlation with age adjusted death rates, (Negative, of course!) R2=0.4. That's great!

But most of that correlation happened to come from co-variation between vaccination rates and obesity. Once you controlled for obesity R2 declined to 0.144.

Which isn't chopped liver! That's actually pretty decent.

But the data show that most of that correlation derives from vaccination rates for people over 65, NOT the general population's vaccination rate.

The truth of the matter is that if you didn't have a comorbidity such as diabetes or just being elderly, the vaccine did virtually nothing to improve your outcome, because your odds of dying from Covid were so low to begin with.

This wasn't the Great Influenza epidemic, where people were being killed in the prime of their lives. This was an epidemic that picked off the vulnerable, and passed over the young and healthy.

Now, maybe you could justify vaccinating the healthy young to protect the elderly? Whoops, by the time we had the vaccine, half the population had already been exposed to Covid. The vaccine didn't suppress spread, it was too late. It just reduced deaths among the vulnerable.

Which is great, but it's no justification for forcing people who won't actually benefit from the vaccine to take it anyway.

So, yeah, tyranny. And not even productive tyranny!

[Sarcastr0]

So yeah, your priors. But with lots of words. And a cite to one specific website that I don't know. Though I do give them props for noting:
"Note that such comparisons cannot, on their own, be used to identify causal contributors to cumulative age-adjusted COVID deaths. Many features are highly co-linear and may serve as an imperfect proxy for underlying causes. However, these plots can be useful for hypothesis generation, and can support (but not prove) the lack of a strong causal relationship when there appears to be no association at all. We recommend bearing in mind the ecological fallacy."

Too bad Brett didn't listen!

The website disagrees with you and finds vaccines were useful after adjusting for obesity and age. You note that the correlation rate goes down, but ignore that it sure doesn't go away!

The website agrees with you on the utility of closure. As do I. But that's hindsight.
Originally we didn't expect a lot of Republican chuckleheads would think flaunting state restrictions would be badass.

Now, maybe you could justify vaccinating the healthy young to protect the elderly? Whoops, by the time we had the vaccine, half the population had already been exposed to Covid.
Here we are, back to no numbers just priors. See also your point about young people dying at acceptable rates. No numbers; no attempt to adjust for vaccination rate. Just assertion.

If you were trying to show that your position was based on the information you had at the time, and not your priors, you did a very bad job.

[Brett Bellmore]

You: "The website disagrees with you and finds vaccines were useful after adjusting for obesity and age."

Me: "Once you controlled for obesity R2 declined to 0.144.

Which isn't chopped liver! That's actually pretty decent."

You: "The website agrees with you on the utility of closure. As do I. But that's hindsight."

Me: "You know, when people are saying, "This is bullshit!" at the time, and the data subsequently proves they were right, maybe you should adjust your perception of their rationality up, and the rationality of the people promulgating the bullshit down?"

I'm saying that when people you disagreed with turn out in hindsight to have been right, and people you agreed with turn out in hindsight to have been wrong, you need to respond by adjusting your confidence levels in who you agree with.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/politics/debanked-the-financial-suppression-of-bitcoin-businesses-must-end

>In yet another troubling manifestation of "Chokepoint 2.0," a Wyoming company was summarily debanked in early November, 2024, by Mercury, a banking platform operated with Evolve Bank

Don't worry Democrats, Sarcastr0 has never heard of any of this, therefore this isn't real!

[Sarcastr0]

Bitcion magazine says bitcoin company is totally on the up-and-up.

Nothing to see here, the bank getting jumpy musta been because of the government!

White knighting fintech and bitcoin. How do you feel about payday lenders?
Are you turning into Todd Zwicky before our eyes?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Haha yeah, 30+ of these is just a one-off! Operation Chokepoint is a myth! It says so in Wikipedia!

FYI, I'm shining a light on how evil the Den of Sarcastr0's is in DC.

Remember how you said this wasn't happening?

You've got like 3 working brain cells, and they're all fighting. Sad.

[Sarcastr0]

What that is, and a bitcoin company having their bank get jumpy, are not the same thing.

Did you miss this from 8 hours ago?
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/02/monday-open-thread-82/?comments=true#comment-10820314

You seem to have trouble following the conversation.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't care who thinks they're on the up and up. If they're not breaking the law, which is determined by charging them with a crime and convicting them, they're 'on the up and up' enough that they should be allowed to have normal banking services.

I regularly drive by the house of a "psychic advisor", which is of course total nonsense. I'd be outraged if a bank up and decided to close her account just because they agree with me about it being nonsense.

Fifty years ago, this wouldn't have mattered in a cash economy. Today? You can't be part of most of the economy if you don't have access to banking services. This is just a backdoor way of making political enemies unpersons.

[Sarcastr0]

Banks are private actors.

You also appear to be arguing that the government can never investigate anyone.

[Brett Bellmore]

Motels are private actors, too. That didn't help the Heart of Atlanta, now, did it?

Live by public accommodations, Sarcastr0, die by public accommodations.

And, besides, FDIC banks are so heavily regulated in this country it's kind of a joke to call them private actors.

[Sarcastr0]

Changing the subject pretty hard, there.
Under current law, banks are not public accommodations with respect to banking services, required to take every bitcoin client or rando trying to get a small business loan. They get to make risk determinations.
Nor are they so heavily regulated that they've got no discretion, as this case itself shows.

If you're going to complain again that our law doesn't align with BrettLaw's take on the Commerce Clause, that's as much as an admission you've got nothing as anything else you could say.

You should look into fintech and bitcoin more before you defend them. They're current unregulated state has made them scammy as hell.
Bitcoin has weathered it's ups and downs because of Tether, which has cultivated a huge baseline demand from people seeking to launder money. That's the case Number Go Up made pretty convincingly.
Fintech, meanwhile, also exists specifically because it's not regulated and lets unscrupulous people meme their way to bilking people out of their money.

I know, I know - since you won't personally be effected you don't care.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm perfectly entitled, just as much as anyone else, to advocate changing the law. By, for instance, requiring any bank that wants FDIC status to accept being a public accommodation. (Which is a hell of a lot more choice than most 'public accommodations' get.)

You know, this general topic used to be a matter of common debate among libertarian theorists: We're all for private property, and the absolute right of property owners to bar trespassers, but how about if all the property owners around you agree that you aren't allowed across their property? Suddenly you've become their prisoner!

The answer is that there has to be at least SOME land everybody's entitled to use, to which trespassing doesn't apply.

The same sort of reasoning applies to banking services, in an economy where, if you don't have access to them, you can't participate in the economy. You need at least SOME banks that serve all comers.

But, we don't even reach that level of argumentation in this case, because the banks in question weren't spontaneously deciding not to serve these industries! They were being coerced into denying them service by regulators threatening adverse regulatory action if they didn't comply. "Nice bank you've got here, be a real pity if we decided you couldn't be trusted to run it..."

Just like the insurance companies in the case of NRA v Vullo. The 'private' company was being coerced into acting as an agent of the state, in order to violate somebody's rights in a manner the state could not legally itself do.

This comes up all the time now, in our heavily regulated and increasingly concentrated economy. Regulators have enormous leverage to covertly force 'private actors' to do on behalf of government things government itself is barred from doing.

But I suspect that you're never going to care about that until the shoe is on the other foot.

[Sarcastr0]

You can advocate whatever you want.

But you need to be clear when you do so that you're not describing the law, you're describing BrettLaw.

Of course if you do so, no one will care or listen to you.

You need at least SOME banks that serve all comers.
No, you don't.

the banks in question weren't spontaneously deciding not to serve these industries
Yet again, not everything you disagree with is due to a liberal plot.

And do you see how you shifted from ought to is (albeit an utterly unsupported 'is')? Argument gumbo like this ends up just being sophistry.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No, you don't."

I'm not writing a novel here. It was a conditional imperative: "You need at least some banks that serve all comers if we're not going to have people cut off from the economy just because somebody doesn't like their legal activities.

I guess you LIKE having that cudgel handy for your enemies, but that doesn't mean everybody likes to have the threat of being cut off from most of the economy if the wrong person dislikes them looming over them.

"Yet again, not everything you disagree with is due to a liberal plot."

Sure, I don't like lots of things that aren't liberal plots. But this literally was proven to be a liberal plot! Liberal, like conservative, plots are a real thing. They actually happen.

[Sarcastr0]

To strip it down for clarity -

Above you argue hypothetical A means there OUGHT to be regulation B. Fair enough; straight advocacy.

But in your same post you also argue liberal plot C means hypothetical A IS not only real, but being required by the government.

And that this plot IS something the government has no authority to do without any need for further regulation.

So yeah, you're not even overdetermined, you're in conflict with yourself.

[apedad]

"Nice bank you've got here, be a real pity if we decided you couldn't be trusted to run it..."

Brett,

We all agree our govt of checks and balances is a good (and maybe the best we can get) form of govt.

So why isn't checks and balances of private businesses a good thing?

Especially in light of the enormous damages (economic, environmental, and personal), private industries have caused in our country?

Do you really want to trust private industry more than trust our govt?

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I said, "live by public accommodation laws, die by public accommodation laws." I'm fine with getting rid of them entirely, and freeing the economy from the shackle of government regulation.

But if that's not happening, we need to limit what the government can leverage said shackles to intimidate nominally "private" companies into doing. Even if that means formally prohibiting them from voluntarily doing the government's bidding.

[Sarcastr0]

Your libertarian desire for more regulation strikes again!

According to Brett, Civil Rights accommodations are tyranny, but the LACK of regulations requiring banks serve bitcoin and fintech regardless of risk is also tyranny.

[Brett Bellmore]

I never said "regardless of risk".

Nobody's going to say, "OMG! My bank lets crypto bros cash checks, I'm out of here!"

The 'risk' here, 'reputational risk', is imaginary. The only reputation that's on line is the bank's reputation in the eyes of the regulators as compliant to unconstitutional demands.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

World Chess Championship is ongoing between Ding Liren of China and Gukesh of India. Tied 3-3 through 6 games, next game tomorrow morning, I believe 4AM Eastern Time - they are playing in Singapore.

[Jmaie]

I just went through game six...lackluster play to be charitable.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes, that was a dull game. No push from white at all. Some of the games have been exciting, like the finish of game 7 I just watched, that also ended in a draw. Even in the decisive games, the level of chess has been less than top notch. Mistakes from both players.

I guess that's the nature of the beast in match play. But I think the level here doesn't quite match up to prior championship matches. I recently finished Timman's book about the marathon Karpov-Kasparov matches, 'The Longest Game.' The level of chess being played there is just unbelievable. And literally over months and months.

[Martinned2]

Just to return briefly to actual legal news, Elon Musk lost again in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The court wouldn't "revise" its judgment from January following the shareholder ratification vote. https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=372420

[Commenter_XY]

Next stop, DE Supreme Court.

[Martinned2]

Yes, when there's $56bn at stake (or more, depending on how you look at it), that was always pretty likely.

[Commenter_XY]

So now Tesla is (or soon will be) re-incorporated in TX, under TX law.

What happens if TX law conflicts with DE law, such that, under TX law the two shareholder votes (70%+ in favor) are decisive, and the pay package is allowed?

When Elon originally negotiated that package, people called him crazy, stupid, and worse. Very few thought he could ever achieve the performance benchmarks. I am not sure why this DE judge is substituting her judgment (1 person) for the judgment of shareholders (millions of people who collectively expressed their will via a recorded vote - twice).

[John F. Carr]

As I see it, the litigation is over Tesla the Delaware corporation. If Tesla the Texas corporation wants to give Musk money then Tesla the Texas corporation should do something to make that happen.

[Martinned2]

There are much more entertaining possibilities. For a while people talked about the possibility that the Delaware court might forbid Tesla from re-incorporating in Texas. But I think it's too late for that one now.

I am not sure why this DE judge is substituting her judgment (1 person) for the judgment of shareholders (millions of people who collectively expressed their will via a recorded vote - twice).

Fortunately I linked to the judgment, which explains exactly why this happened. You don't have to agree with it, but there's a coherent logic there.

[Bwaaah]

Why did a Delaware judge reject a shareholder decision? It's evident in the opening line of her January opinion: "Was the richest person in the world overpaid?"

For some people (like me), she opens there with the irrelevant and all fruit falls from that tree. For others, her open is the point. I call it "class warfare." They call it "fuck-'em-it's-Elon-Musk."

Shareholders? You speak of shareholders? Step aside. This judge speaks for them now, negating their decision-making process. She does so in Delaware, heretofore known for its prudent adjudication of corporate law.

(grrrrrrrrr)

[Martinned2]

Delaware competes against other states to attract companies. Its main competitive advantage is that it has a large body of settled (case) law that strikes a reasonable balance between "company management can do whatever it likes" (which is helpful for Delaware because company management decides where companies are incorporated) and "there are checks and balances within the corporation" (which is helpful for Delaware because it allows companies to signal that they're serious investment propositions by incorporating in Delaware, as opposed to Texas or Nevada).

If you think that company CEOs should be able to put their brothers and (other) friends on the board and then have the board nod along to a multi-billion dollar paycheck, you're welcome to invest in Nevada-incorporated companies only. But if you do that, you shouldn't be surprised if you get your pockets picked.

That said, the whole point of investing in an Elon Musk company is that you hand over all your money and don't ask questions, so it seems a bit unreasonable to pretend that Tesla giving Elon Musk tens of billions of dollars in return for nothing at all is somehow out-of-character.

[Brett Bellmore]

Don't CEOs routinely put each other's brothers and friends on the board?

[Life of Brian]

It's evident in the opening line of her January opinion: "Was the richest person in the world overpaid?"

And yet she cheerfully signed off on a $345M attorneys' fees award at an effective rate of over $17k per hour the firm worked on the case. I suppose spreading the wealth around within the top 1% still scratches the righteous activism itch on some level.

[Bwaaah]

That $345 million charge against shareholders would be added to this judge's contributions to ... err ... the shareholders.

Looks like Little Miss Helpful is on the war path, and shareholders will be paying for her remonstrations.

That kind of thing was much more palatable when it was just Mom making me stay in my room for the night. Now she's out running an automobile company. Mom, somehow, is never out of her league.

I could never adopt the enormity of that attitude. Where does that certainty of valuation in the judgement of one person come from? Who thinks that way? Who is able to presume that way, at that scale?

Geniuses, I say. Geniuses. So many geniuses.

(I am thankful that there are people who make cars.)

[Martinned2]

In Ireland they finished counting the votes following Friday's election.

https://www.rte.ie/news/election-24/results/#/national

The governing coalition of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael came just short of a majority (48 and 38 seats out of 174, respectively). The expectation seems to be that they'll continue to rotate the Taoiseach position, and that they'll try to do a deal with Labour to get to a majority. If Labour won't play, they will try to get their majority from the 16 independents who were elected.

And for those keeping track, the far right (Aontu) and the slightly less far right (Independent Ireland) didn't exactly do great. They got 2 and 4 seats respectively.

[John F. Carr]

The intermediate appeals court of Washington (state) upheld a $35 million fine against Meta for inadequate disclosure related to political ads. The court distinguished Washington Post v. McManus, 944 F.3d 506 (4th Cir. 2019), which struck down a similar Maryland law. The court rejected a First Amendment challenge and found that Meta did not have enough evidence that classifying ads as political or not was too hard.

The award includes attorney's fees and costs of $3.5 million, tripled because the violation was considered intentional.

The law basically requires Meta to say who bought which ads and who saw the ads. One of the violations was aggregating ad impressions statewide. If the platform collects more accurate data on targeting (this ad with a Subaru should be pitched at middle-aged lesbians in Seattle) that data must be provided on request. It need not be collected. If collected it must be provided.

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/846612.pdf

[Bwaaah]

That's a chilling law they have there in Washington state. It's almost as if the government is intent upon creating a Twitter Mob Toolkit.

"Who said that? Who'd they say it to? Why? Records! We want records!"

In the hands of people who want less speech [of some kinds], transparency rules are just another bludgeon.

[SRG2]

Pardoned criminal Dinesh D'Souza has been forced to admit that his documentary "2,000 Mules" was bullshit.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/dinesh-dsouza-apologizes-false-claims-150554547.html

And the apology: https://dineshdsouza.com/statement-on-2000-mules/

[Life of Brian]

What's your basis for "forced to"? Some excerpts from your second link:

I now understand that the surveillance videos used in the film were characterized on the basis of inaccurate information provided to me and my team. If I had known then that the videos were not linked to geolocation data, I would have clarified this and produced and edited the film differently.

* * *

Again, I apologize to Mr. Andrews. I make this apology not under the terms of a settlement agreement or other duress, but because it is the right thing to do, given what we have now learned. While I do not believe Mr. Andrews was ever identified by the film or book, I am sorry for any harm he believes he and his family has suffered as a result of “2000 Mules.”

[SRG2]

What's your basis for "forced to"?

My reading of "Again, I apologize to Mr. Andrews” etc. I take this as a standard disclaimer,

But even if he is being truthful here, the point is that he got it wrong and the documentary was bullshit. Plenty of people were taken in by it, of course, and kept posting as though it were true - and I suspect many of them still believe it's true somehow. Indeed, D'Souza himself still believes that there was fraud. Giuliani expressed that position best - "we know that fraud occurred, we just need to find the evidence" (or words to that effect.)

[not guilty]

The "forced" is way overused on these comment threads. That is unfortunate.

[David Nieporent]

He was forced either by fear of liability or by a guilty conscience. Either way, "forced" isn't really inappropriate here, but is tangential to the point, which is that even convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza admits the whole thing was bullshit from the outset.

[ThePublius]

What's the legal basis for a blanket pardon, such as Joe Biden bestowed upon Hunter? It seems it is supposed to cover any and all crimes Hunter may have committed over an 11 year span, regardless of whether they were detected or not, or if he was charged and convicted. Seems goofy to me.

[SRG2]

"Legal basis" is inapplicable. There's a political basis. Biden evidently believes, from Trump's and Patel's stated position, that the Trump admin would continue to go after Hunter notwithstanding the current conviction. According to the US Constitution, Biden - or indeed, any president - can pardon with no explanation nor limit (cf Ford's pardon of Nixon.) I doubt that the FFs envisaged how political the pardon power would become.

[apedad]

I'd argue the exact opposite and state the FF knew precisely that investigations and court proceedings could be highly political and it's exactly why they included the pardon.

[Brett Bellmore]

True. But I strongly suspect that this is only a brief time out in Hunter's legal problems. Being pardoned didn't magically transform him into a law abiding guy, he's predictably going to place himself in legal jeopardy again, and he won't have dad to shield him after January.

Also, the laptop revealed a number of state crimes, and the pardon is only good against federal.

Ultimately, I think, the problem is that he'd all along gotten too many 'pardons' from dad, rather than the tough love he really needed to straighten him out.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, you've posted you very very much expect future Hunter crimes about half a dozen times now.

It's getting as much a badly hidden hope as Ed, but for this addict to fall of the wagon instead of civil war 2.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, then, I'll shut up about it, and we'll see what his legal situation is in a couple years. I'll actually be quite happy if he takes this opportunity to go straight. Surprised, but happy.

[Commenter_XY]

The pardon covers criminal liability. The pardon does NOT cover civil liability.

Hunter (and James) can be sued civilly.

[SRG2]

Federalist #74:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed74.asp
Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel

And see
https://csac.history.wisc.edu/2021/01/04/pardons-and-reprieves/
According to Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law (1765-1769), pardons were intended to assure justice in cases where the courts (judges and/or juries) rendered decisions that resulted in the miscarriage of justice.

etc.

[apedad]

What's the legal basis?

It's a presidential official act and the Supreme Court just said that's all that's required to make it legal.

I hope Biden goes full Trump.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://x.com/JudicialWatch/status/1864007325775806580

BREAKING: The Superior Court in Fulton County entered an order granting a motion for default judgment against DA Fani Willis in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit for communications Willis had with Special Counsel Jack Smith and the House January 6 Committee (1/3).

If Fani & Smith colluded on their prosecutions of Trump, did they violate the law?

[Mr. Bumble]

Will she comply?

[not guilty]

In that the relief ordered by the Superior Court merely tracks what the Open Records Act already requires, https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-50/chapter-18/article-4/section-50-18-71/ , I assume that she will comply.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

But she didn't before. Which is why this lawsuit was brought.

I thought you were a lawyer, lol, but you couldn't somehow figure that part out. wow

[Stella Link the dog]

Apparently, she declined to respond to a records request, behavior for which there appears to be no consequences. JW sued and she declined to respond to the lawsuit, the only consequence is being held in default, and she was. As a result of the default, she has been ordered to comply. If she fails to comply, she can be held in contempt and consequences will ensue. That is why she will likely comply.

This has been neither rocket surgery not brain science.

[not guilty]

No, she didn't decline to respond to the records request. According to the order of default, the Plaintiff's complaint indicated that the Plaintiff received a response the next day from Kaye Burwell, Open Records Custodian in the Office of the County Attorney, stating that Ms. Willis did “not have the responsive records.”

If the requested records are not in her possession, she cannot produce them. Judge McBurney stated in the order, "The Court expects that such production will include the correspondence identified by Plaintiff in its complaint. If it does not, Defendant is further ORDERED to provide an explanation why such correspondence does not exist in Defendant’s records (or why it is being withheld). Beyond that, no other relief, injunctive or otherwise, is necessary at this time . . ."

If the Plaintiff pursues any contempt proceedings based on a future alleged violation of the order, it will be his burden to show that the records are in fact in Ms. Willis's possession or control and that she has willfully refused to produce them. If criminal contempt sanctions are sought, the Plaintiff will need to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt through evidence other than the testimony of Ms. Willis, who would have a constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.

[Stella Link the dog]

All right then, I guessed wrong.

[not guilty]

Is anyone surprised that JHBHBE linked only to a press release? The actual order is here: https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/JW-v-Willis-default-judgment-002805.pdf

The relief awarded by the Court is as follows:

By finding Defendant in default, the Court has in effect declared that she has violated the ORA. The Court also hereby ORDERS Defendant to conduct a diligent search of her records for responsive materials within five business days of the entry of this Order. Within that same five day period, Defendant is ORDERED to provide Plaintiff with copies of all responsive records that are not legally exempted or excepted from disclosure. If Defendant is required or decides to withhold all or part of a requested record, she should follow the procedures set forth in the ORA (see O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(d)). If the records are stored electronically, they may be produced electronically in a commonly used format such as PDF. The Court expects that such production will include the correspondence identified by Plaintiff in its complaint. If it does not, Defendant is further ORDERED to provide an explanation why such correspondence does not exist in Defendant’s records (or why it is being withheld). Beyond that, no other relief, injunctive or otherwise, is necessary at this time (to include striking Defendant’s answer, which is of no effect based on the Court’s finding of default). (Footnote omitted.)

"If Fani & Smith colluded on their prosecutions of Trump, did they violate the law?"

Uh, no. Why do you ask, JHBHBE? And how long have you been on a first name basis with "Fani"?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What legitimate purposes would there be for Fani to collude with Smith and for her lover to collude with the White House (according to the WH logs) in their prosecutions of Trump?

P.S.

Would you mind publishing your posting criteria and requirements, and also your response time requirements so I can schedule my time around your needs?

TIA

[not guilty]

"What legitimate purposes would there be for Fani to collude with Smith and for her lover to collude with the White House (according to the WH logs) in their prosecutions of Trump?"

Your question above was "If Fani & Smith colluded on their prosecutions of Trump, did they violate the law?" Once again, it would not. Why did you ask?

I have no idea whether there was or was not any such "collusion", but they were representing different sovereigns investigating and prosecuting the same conduct. If they did compare notes, so what?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Would you mind publishing your content requirements and response time rules?

You keep judging me by these hidden requirements of yours, how cany anyone meet your standards if you don't publish them?

[not guilty]

Here are a few rules of thumb:

Don't make shit up.

If you are speculating, say so.

If you don't know something, say so. There is no shame in admitting that.

Link to original source materials where available, not sketchy second hand sources.

When challenged to provide supporting facts for a controversial allegation, don't run away like a scalded dog.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think the word "collude" means what you think it means. But "why would various lawyers consult with each other when targeting a common defendant?" is a pretty bizarre question.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Just the other day a bunch of you choads were saying "No they aren't colluding",

now you're all, of course they are! Why wouldn't they! It's totally legit and cool.

P.S. Team Obama and Team Pelosi have come out against the Kamala nom, so you can go back to thinking she's a dipshit instead of worshipping her as the next coming of the Talmud.

[not guilty]

Who on these threads was asserting that Jack Smith and Fani Willis were not colluding? And who now is saying "of course they are"? Please name names, JHBHBE.

If they were communicating, though, that would be totally unremarkable.

[SRG2]

FWIW if you were to list the 10 worst presidential pardons of all time, I don't think Hunter's would come close.

[Mr. Bumble]

No, it's in a league of its own.

[santamonica811]

Agreed. And that league is about 2 levels below despicable ones (eg, Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich). Bumble, do you think the actual pardon was so awful? I mean, you have lifelong Republican politicians saying, "Hey, if it were my child, I would have pardoned him too." It's not in the top 1,000 of bad pardons.

Is it Biden lying about his willingness to issue the pardon? If so, then I'm with you...Biden lied and shame on him for doing that. It tarnishes his legacy. Permanently.

But, Bumble, it seems silly to feign outrage over a rather anodyne pardon, for--relatively speaking--crimes that were not that dramatic. (And, re gun charges, a crime that he never would have been charged with if not for his "Biden" last name.)

[Well-off people intentionally not paying their taxes pisses me off A LOT, and I would have been perfectly happy having Hunter spend a year or three incarcerated for this, even if it had been merely under house arrest.] Well-connected people getting a different tier of justice. Dog bites man.

[Mr. Bumble]

The pardon covers more than the crimes he was convicted of or plead to but includes anything he may have done for a period of 10 years.

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed, the worst aspect of it is that open ended scope; Like I said, he could literally have committed mass murder in a federal park, and be off the hook.

It's clear that Dad is well aware that his son is no innocent. A hundred years from now, Biden is primarily going to be known for that pardon.

[Nelson]

He’s always known his son is a dirtbag. Everyone knew it for decades. It isn’t some recent revelation, it’s very, very old news.