Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Michael Resanovic]

The biggest problems with policing through most of the country are:

First, that a shocking number of people (including lawyers!) mistakenly think the fourth amendment actually confers powers on police.

Second, it is widely believed that simply following the fourth amendment will take care of any issues in policing. But being bad policy does not make something unconstitutional - plenty of harmful policy will not be and, as a constitutional matter, should not be stopped by judicial review or by the subjective views of judges.

Ultimately, policing is proving problematic throughout this country because no one is asking the necessary normative questions regarding police powers; no one is taking responsibility for answering them.

(Happy to discuss)

[Commenter_XY]

What are the normative questions regarding police powers?

[Brett Bellmore]

The biggest problem with policing is that we have too many laws, and way too many of them are victimless crimes.

Police normally rely upon victims to aid them in solving crimes, in the first place by actually reporting the crime, and then in giving testimony. Even in murder, there are usually people around the victim who didn't want the guy dead, and who will help the police.

But in the case of victimless crime laws, they get no cooperation from anybody involved in the crime, everybody involved is trying to keep the police in the dark. This makes it practically impossible to enforce victimless crime laws while still observing constitutional limits on police behavior.

So police resort to entrapment, and illegal searches. And the 'justice' system tries to achieve effective deterrence despite a very low clearance rate by ramping up penalties. Since official penalties are capped by the Bill of Rights, and convictions are difficult to obtain, they resort to imposing unofficial penalties by abusive behavior.

All in all, victimless crime laws drive the whole justice system in a pathological direction.

[apedad]

For victimless crime laws, your beef should be with the legislatures who create the laws, not police.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or prosecutors who twist the law in novel ways.
See Trump NY cases.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have adequate beef in this regard to share around. While the legislatures, or maybe the electorate, are the ultimate cause, it's still the case that it's the police who are responding to these bad incentives by acting in an abusive manner. They have agency, too, they don't have to go where the incentives lead them.

[ducksalad]

Apedad, it's worth noting that when the issue comes up in legislatures, law enforcement is often actively lobbying against decriminalization. Not always but too often.

[apedad]

Good note although I will nitpick and say it's not "law enforcement" which is lobbying but private organizations, e.g., National Sheriffs' Association, National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), which have every right to make their voices heard.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It must be nice to be able to be so confident about things you know so little about.

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

[windycityattorney]

Brett you will likely only hear me say this once a year at most: this is a very good point.

We are dealing with this mess in IL when it comes to vehicle searches after cannabis became legal. Multiple IL SUP CT opinions are now out and we have this absurd result: 1) odor of burnt cannabis in a motor vehicle is NOT probable cause to search and 2) odor of raw cannabis standing alone is PC to search.

Edit to add: the weed sold in dispensaries is not sold in odor proof containers.

The difference: a law in the traffic code says cannabis in a motor vehicle should be transported in an odor proof container.

So guess what every police report in the world is going to say when the case arises from a car search: I detected a strong odor of raw cannabis.

Which is the same shit we had prior to legalization where the odor of cannabis alone was PC to search so cops, who wanted to search, would just say "i smell weed get out of the car were searching."

Legislature can fix this by amending the vehicle code but so much damage has been done where the law says 'sure go buy weed its legal' and people do but when they do, they essentially forfeit their 4th amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search. Its fucked up.

[Michael Resanovic]

The glut of laws is certainly a problem.

[Michael Resanovic]

What *ought* to be law.

Btw, there are plenty of online dictionaries that could have told you what 'normative' means.

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

Knowing what normative means doesn't answer "What are the normative questions regarding police powers?"

Maybe you had trouble finding that in an online dictionary.

[apedad]

"The biggest problems with policing through most of the country are:

First, that a shocking number of people (including lawyers!) mistakenly think the fourth amendment actually confers powers on police."

Why is an ignorant population a problem with "policing?"

The problem is with the ignorant population, not the police.

[Michael Resanovic]

>>The problem is with the ignorant population, not the police.<>Why is an ignorant population a problem with "policing?"<<

Because we elect the ones who make the law governing it, and we're slacking on the job.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It is widely believed that simply following the Fourth Amendment will take care of any issues in policing.

I was not aware of this. Searches and seizures do not seem to be the only issue in policing. I was not under the assumption that people thought they were. For instance, many people think policing is done in a racist way. That would not just be a 4A issue.

Policing is a complex issue. This comment seems too limited.

[Michael Resanovic]

I'm not claiming it's the only problem, only that it's a big one.

And yes, there are a number of issues I don't address, including the fact that many things that are commonly done (e.g. Terry stops) are not authorized by law in many jurisdictions. That is, they've never been consented to by the people who live under them, or by their elected representatives.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

To be clear, you said this:

The biggest problems with policing through most of the country are

Biggest. And you cited two Fourth Amendment ones, including the false belief about 4A giving power to the police. And, you repeated your 4A focus in this comment by talking about Terry stops.

One concern is that I don't even think the first statement is completely a myth. The Fourth Amendment provides a guideline on how to obtain a lawful search and seizure. If police follow warrant procedure, the search and seizure is presumptively legal.

In effect, yes, that gives them a certain degree of power not otherwise present. Without the 4A, the police might be subject to a stricter regime on reasonableness.

[Noscitur a sociis]

First, that a shocking number of people (including lawyers!) mistakenly think the fourth amendment actually confers powers on police.

Can you give an example of what you’re talking about?

Ultimately, policing is proving problematic throughout this country because no one is asking the necessary normative questions regarding police powers; no one is taking responsibility for answering them.

What is the problem, and what are the questions were not asking?

[Michael Resanovic]

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4443409

Esp. pages 4-6, 55.

And more generally, do you live in the US? People constantly speak as if Terry, Summers etc. "authorizes" officials to do this or that. As if bills of rights could authorize... as if judges could grant powers...

>>What is the problem, and what are the questions were not asking?<<

I believe that "ought this be the law?" is not a proper part of a justice's inquiry in constitutional cases. And many justices in practice eg. Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, even Breyer define "reasonable" to mean "rational". The cases themselves agree: eg. CJ Roberts in Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro. Area Transit, 284 F.Supp.2d 145, 149 (D.D.C.2003). Likewise, the Atwater or Florence courts could hardly claim to have been asking whether what they called constitutional is in fact, sound policy; most of the country thought Florence was excessive and Atwater asinine. But that's fine - properly understood neither of those things is law simply because it is constitutional, and legislators *do* need to consider whether something is sound policy before they pass it.

[Lennyk78]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/06/us/oklahoma-officer-charged-joseph-gibson/index.html

"Oklahoma City Fraternal Order of Police President Mark Nelson said the organization is sympathetic to Vu and recognizes the severity of his injuries but expressed concern about the impact the charges will have on officers in the field.

“It is very disappointing to see a police officer face felony charges for actions taken in good faith while serving in the line of duty,” Nelson said in a statement. “Sgt. Gibson followed his de-escalation training and protocol when assaulted.”"

Body slamming an elderly man is the police union's idea of "good faith."

[Mr. Bumble]

Quiet this morning. Is everyone talked out?

[Commenter_XY]

The losers left, post-election. Licking their wounds. 😉

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump's been proposing loser after loser to run the government. It's an unprecedented kind of treason, but doesn't fit the Constitutional definition, so not much to talk about.

[Stephen Lathrop]

On reconsideration, maybe Buchanan supplies a precedent.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, I am going to restrain myself from being your salt farmer.

Our Republic will survive, and endure.

[Martinned2]

Probably, but why risk it?

[Commenter_XY]

There is no 'probably' about it, M2. The Republic will thrive.

For the last 250 years or so, people like you have mis-underestimated the United States of America. America is the greatest country that recorded history has ever known, and it is not even close. There is no other country who gives as much, does as much, creates as much, and sacrifices as much for the general betterment of humanity of the world than the United States of America.

Remind me again, how many dead American service members are buried in your country, who died defending your country?

While you're at it, maybe you can tell me the number of dead servicemembers from your country buried here in America, who died defending America?

[Martinned2]

There is no 'probably' about it, M2. The Republic will thrive.

Like the man said, "A Republic, if you can keep it". The quickest way to destroy your democracy is to think it can't be destroyed.

America is the greatest country that recorded history has ever known, and it is not even close.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

But seriously, now you're just trolling.

There is no other country who gives as much, does as much, creates as much, and sacrifices as much for the general betterment of humanity of the world than the United States of America.

You mean the America which is invading foreign countries at will, destroying the climate, blocking nuclear non-proliferation accords, and stealing data from consumers all over the world? (Just to mention a few things off the top of my head.)

Remind me again, how many dead American service members are buried in your country, who died defending your country?

Must be nice having an ocean between your country and everyone else's. Remind me, how did that come to be?

While you're at it, maybe you can tell me the number of dead servicemembers from your country buried here in America, who died defending America?

Not that it matters, but when Americans were busy insisting on their God-given right not to pay taxes, enslave black people and steal indigenous land, the Dutch were right there with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Anglo-Dutch_War

[Krayt]

You're welcome to imagine a world without America, where North America is another broken down continent of corruption, and Fortress Europe, if it even exists, struggles valiantly against the night.

And in that world, all diseases are cured, somehow, and you live like it's 2125.

Wow! Can I have harem of robot girls while we're at it?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm absolutely a believer in American exceptionalism, and think that on net even with all it's past bullshit from Asia to Latin America oto the Middle East, America's presence is a net good in the world.

But jingoism is silly and useless.
Just the mirror of the 'death to America the demon cracker nation' nonsense from the left.

[apedad]

I'll admit the word "greatest" is ambiguous (greatest at food? art? medicine? etc.), but it is undeniable that the US is the most powerful (military, diplomatically), richest, and currently most culturally influential country - and no one comes closes.

And please note, I'm not making a "this is good/bad" rating; I'm just pointing out the facts.

[Commenter_XY]

That is fair apedad...look at the facts. It isn't jingoism. And, greatest is not at all ambiguous.

Nobel Prize winners?
Net amount of private philanthropy given ex-US from American citizens?
Net amount of food, medicine, humanitarian aid given ex-US from America (government)?
Safest haven on the planet for financial assets for ex-US investors?
Providing a viable alternative in governance to totalitarianism, in the form of constitutionally based Republic?
Vaccines/Medicines to reduce deaths from malaria, HIV?

There are innumerable ways that America has bettered the world for humanity. US involvement ended two of the largest world wars known to humanity, apedad. Whenever there is disaster in the world, the world turns to the US.

Let's turn the argument around a little, apedad. Name a country in history that has done more for the overall betterment of humanity than America. Note...I might say Israel, but that is b/c they provided Torah and monotheism to the world (yes, I am biased...and blessed), and that is a very different matter.

[apedad]

I was responding to Martin and I definitely agree that we are great (and greatest!) in many things.

One thing to consider though . . . .

Lions . . . don't have to announce that they're . . . lions.

[Randal]

Name a country in history that has done more for the overall betterment of humanity than America.

India is easily the all-time #1.

Rome, of course, and Egypt and China. Babylon probably rounds out the top 5. Poor Greece.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you have a case to make, Randal?

[Randal]

Well, let's see. For hundreds of thousands of years, humans were dorking around in caves. Then some people were like hm, let's get civilized. And after just a handful of thousands of years, here we are. I'd say they were on to something.

[Commenter_XY]

Troll, my ass. Name a country that has done more for the overall betterment of humanity than the United States of America.

Name it. And make your case.

[SimonP]

I don't disagree, which is why I am saddened that we have elected a man as president who seems dead-set on breaking that longstanding record.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like he did during his first term?

[SimonP]

Bumbler - name one of America's greatest contributions to the "overall betterment of humanity," and then point to what Trump did in his first term to further it.

[Super Scary]

Biden is out in January so you won't have to be that sad for much longer.

[Michael Resanovic]

Britain

[Martinned2]

Part of the reason why it's a ridiculous question is that most of what is good about the US is rooted in things they learned from the Brits and the Dutch, just like the Brits in their turn learned much of what is good about their country today from the Dutch in the decades after 1688.

But giving the Dutch or the Brits credit for everything is just as stupid as claiming that the US is god's gift to mankind.

[Absaroka]

"Not that it matters, but when Americans were busy insisting on their God-given right not to pay taxes, enslave black people and steal indigenous land, the Dutch were right there with them."

I know, right?

Moreover, the US hardly returned the favor. We kept out of WWI and WWII when they were occupied, left them to the tender mercies of the USSR after WWII, and worst of all declined to help them reimpose their brutal colonization of the East Indies after WWII.

[Bob from Ohio]

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

So what country is your nominee?

[Martinned2]

It's a ridiculous philosophical exercise.

[Kazinski]

"but when Americans were busy insisting on their God-given right not to pay taxes, enslave black people and steal indigenous land,"

Then they said hold my beer, when the Dutch Afrikaners set up in South Africa.

And they must have been taking notes from the Nazis too, I mean really the Rawagede massacre in Indonesia in 1947? Massacring all 431 men in a village because they wouldn't tell where a rebel leader was hiding?

Indonesia and South Africa had a ocean or two between them and Dutch and it didn't help much.

[Martinned2]

Yes, some of my ancestors were pretty good at conquering stuff. We punched far above our weight, because we invented the concept of a capitalist republic before teaching it to the Brits and the Americans, who then ran with it and did even more conquering than we did.

The difference is that today we think colonialism and war crimes are bad, while Americans are not so sure about the former, and actively support the latter.

[Nelson]

“ America is the greatest country that recorded history has ever known, and it is not even close”

Martin, I disagree with XY about almost everything, and when I agree (like about Israel’s right to defend itself), I usually think he goes too far. But I agree with this 100%. That isn’t to say we’re perfect, but we get it right a lot more than we get it wrong and we change constantly (usually for the better). If you measure countries throughout history on political, economic, philosophical, moral, and impact, no country could match our total. Some may match or exceed us on one or two, but that’s it.

[zztop8970]

when Americans were busy insisting on their God-given right not to pay taxes, enslave black people and steal indigenous land,

I always get a kick when some Euro trash tries to claim the moral high ground on things like slavery and colonialism.
The Dutch insisted in their God given rights to enslave black people until 1863, the same time as Americans did, give or take a couple of years, and brutally colonized and stole indigenous resources in the "Dutch East Indies" as they pompously called Indonesia, and well after WWII! It took US threats of ending the Marshall plan in the Netherlands to get them to back off their attempts to recolonize Indonesia in aftermath of the war.

[Martinned2]

Yes, and colonialism and slavery is one of the many things Americans learned from their Dutch and English ancestors. The only difference is that today we think colonialism and slavery are bad, while in the US many people aren't so sure.

[zztop8970]

It took US threats of economic sanctions to get you to back off from recolonizing and brutalising Indonesia in 1949, yet more military threats from Indonesia to get you to keep your paws off New Guinea in 1963, and you only got around to abolishing your colony in Suriname in the mid 70s.
So if you finally recognized. the errors of your ways in the last 50 years, that's some progress, but you can certainly get off your moral high horse - you didn't get there on your own , it took military and economic threats to get you there, and you did so far later than other colonial powers.
And as to comparative contemporary attitudes toward racism, call us when you're done with your Zwarte Piet celebrations.

[Riva]

Charges of treason already? Next he’ll propose impeachment before Trump even assumes office. Why waste time?

Apparently Resistance 2.0 hasn’t quite got its footing yet. Give them time to fabricate something. Even the Russian collusion fraud took some time to set up. I’m sure their intel guys have one more letter in them at least.

[Sarcastr0]

Aw man, Riva just met Lathrop for the first time.

[Don Nico]

Thanks for my first laugh of the day.

[Riva]

He doesn’t seem any more idiotic than you Sarcastr0 or your little buddy Don. I fail to see much difference, other than that you outshine him from time to time. That’s not a compliment.

[Don Nico]

Thanks for the excrement, Riva.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0 — You want to use my name as a byword?

You know why some of what I write here sounds outlandish to you? It's because I am sometimes writing from historical perspective more than 2 centuries past. That is a context far less familiar than most commenters here are capable to suppose—which often turns out to be my point. Don't be so quick to join them.

[Frank Drackman]

You're just bitter that Pete Hedgesex gets more pussy in one night than you've had in your whole life, and drops more Sheckels during his typical happy hour than you make in a month. Let me know when 45/47 nominates a man wearing a dress to HHS or puts a Kleptomanic Tranny in charge of Nuke-ular policy, and you look up "Loser" in the Dictionary, you see Pete Booty-Judges picture!

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Guy in the audience points to somebody on the podium at the Olympics, and shouts, "You loser!"

[Commenter_XY]

LOL, exactly.

[Don Nico]

"unprecedented kind of treason"
Stephen, you are treason-obsessed and you don't seem to know what real treason is.
One can have arguments about most presidential appointees every four years, but "treason" isn't one of them.

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico...They're past denial, and have full blown, sputtering rage (not merely anger). Hopefully lathrop and people who think like him blow past the bargaining stage and go straight to the to the acceptance stage. 😉

[SimonP]

I think you should examine why it is so important to you that your political opponents have "full blown, sputtering rage" over Trump's re-election.

My support for Harris was never about making you angry, or making your life worse. I legitimately thought she would do a better job running the country than Trump. And while I think Trump is an idiot - I don't see how anyone can deny that, really - I can evaluate the decisions his transition team is making rationally.

I would invite you to focus less on how angry you think Trump is making Harris supporters, and more on whether you think Trump's picks for his administration so far show an interest in addressing the problems you cared about, in the election, or if they rather show a greater interest in attacking political opponents, creating economic chaos, and shoveling cash to political supporters.

[Commenter_XY]

SimonP, you routinely dehumanized and demeaned anyone who remotely supported Pres Trump. You have a rich, and colorful comment history. Don't run away from it now. 😉

(glad we agree about America)

[SimonP]

SimonP, you routinely dehumanized and demeaned anyone who remotely supported Pres Trump.

Yes, because you are all fucking morons who argue in bad faith, and some of you not-so-quietly want Trump to take a maximalist approach on prosecuting political opponents, deporting immigrants, violently suppressing dissent, curbing democratic accountability, and so on.

I am talking about my support for Harris. I did not vote for her because I expected her to direct federal funds away from red states that refused to cooperate with her policies, or because I thought she would direct the DOE to impose "liberal" views on red-state school curricula, or because I wanted to see the later-middle-aged trolls who populate these threads - most of whom I view as victims of generations of malfeasance and misfeasance by Republican and Democratic governments alike - suffer.

I am, and always have been, a "let's lift all boats" kind of person. This election was not about grievance or retribution, for me. The fact that so many of you are insufferable idiots is an entirely separate question.

[Commenter_XY]

Youi made my case for me. Thank you.

[SimonP]

Ditto, really.

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY — Who do you think comments on this blog in a way which resembles my commentary?

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

Hank. You may be more eloquent in your bloviating, but you spout the same crap in the end.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, I am capable to read the U.S. Constitutional definition of treason. Because I have also read and understood Chief Justice Marshall's opinions deciding the Burr treason cases, I am also better able to understand that definition than the many commenters here who have not read them. Some of course have read those cases, but do not like what they found, and respond by accusing me of ignorance without addressing any particulars.

I also have modest historical insight into English notions regarding treason, mostly from the 15th century through the 18th. Those provide a few illuminating parallels with American legal context, but also disagreements.

I do not recall you responding in detail to Chief Justice Marshall, as I quoted him. How about you do that now, and tell me, "what real treason is," if you think you know.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
I have actual work to do, so I'll pass on your assignment. However, I doubt any court would agree with your definition.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — That's sort of stupid, given that it is not my definition. The definition I cite is precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court. But keep dodging the citations, if you think they cramp your style. No doubt what you speculate carries more weight than anything Chief Justice Marshall wrote.

[Kazinski]

Did you ever get around to looking up the definition of treason?

I guess not.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Help me out. Give me your notion of what, "to levy war," meant in latter 18th century constitutional context, in the U.S.

[Commenter_XY]

The onus is on you, doofus, to make that case. Can you?

I doubt it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY — No, it is not on me. Chief Justice Marshall already did it, in pages and pages of opinions from the Burr treason trials. It was a habit of Marshall's before deciding a criminal case to recite with precision, and illuminate with examples, the elements of the crime charged. He was particularly skillful at that.

On this blog, I have massively quoted citations from Marshall's Burr decisions, repeatedly. That puts the onus on commenters here. Like you.

But I do not expect you to do the work to actually read anything which seems headed in a direction which might make you uncomfortable. Thus, I will summarize again the stuff from Marshall that so discomfits modern readers who grew up thinking mistakenly that they understood the 18th century language and context for the Treason Clause.

Here is a summary of that misunderstanding, in two sentences: To commit treason it is not necessary to wage war. One need only commit the less grandiose offense, "to levy war."

Marshall leaves no doubt about that. He distinguishes the contrary cases with examples.

According to Marshall, to levy war needs only a small conspiracy (not an army, not a foreign nation, not troops deployed in battle array) to use violence, to attack the federal government, or to forcibly obstruct its legitimate operations. Where such a conspiracy exists, one overt act in the direction of putting the violent plot in motion completes the crime.

No need for any actual attack, nor even a need to carry arms. A mere march by a few conspirators toward a place of rendezvous, with an eye to begin a violent attack will do it. On that basis, there can be no doubt that some among those who plotted the J6 Capitol attack could have been charged with treason, and likely convicted. With strong enough evidence to connect Trump to plans for violence, he would have proved vulnerable. The full extent of that evidence remains undisclosed. Some of it has already been broadcast on television, some in real time during the attack.

That, anyway, is my non-lawyer's reading of Marshall. I concede that there could have been subsequent decisions with which I am unfamiliar, and perhaps those have inflected the law since. If so, I wonder why none of the lawyers on this blog who have bypassed all my comments citing Marshall have not once chosen instead to mention citations to the contrary.

I think it may be that they all—along with their teachers—have supposed there had to be a great big foreign war to justify a treason charge. And being lawyers, they are embarrassed that they overlooked something so obvious as Marshall's clear opinion to the contrary.

[not guilty]

"According to Marshall, to levy war needs only a small conspiracy (not an army, not a foreign nation, not troops deployed in battle array) to use violence, to attack the federal government, or to forcibly obstruct its legitimate operations. Where such a conspiracy exists, one overt act in the direction of putting the violent plot in motion completes the crime."

Wrong. This conflates a conspiracy to levy war against the United States with the actual levying of war. That is precisely the opposite of what Chief Justice Marshall wrote. The key to understanding Marshall's opinion in Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), is that it effects a restrictive reading of what constitutes treason. "It is therefore more safe as well as more consonant to the principles of our Constitution that the crime of treason should not be extended by construction to doubtful cases, and that crimes not clearly within the constitutional definition should receive such punishment as the legislature in its wisdom may provide." Id., at 127.

"To complete the crime of levying war against the United States, there must be an actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design." Ibid. In other words:

To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the court have been committed, war must be actually levied against the United States. However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, the distinct offenses. The first must be brought into operation by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed.

Id., at 126 [emphasis added].

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not Guilty — Thank you for your particularized reply. I wish others had done as much. I thought there might have been a timely discussion, but it never kicked off.

In my judgement, the time for that debate has passed. You will not get from me now the detailed reply I would have given you months before the election.

Given the decrepit state of long-cherished norms of governance, coupled with the historic low in the capacity of the jointly-sovereign People to control government, to advocate now for restoration of the founders' law of treason would be dangerous. It would invite MAGA partisans in government to initiate illegitimate but deadly fantasies against leaders of any political opposition.

I suspect the nation will shortly have its hands full coping with MAGA militias goaded to action by government, and granted practical impunity to target whomever they please. If that happens, danger will extend right down to ordinary citizens among disfavored categories.

I could not hope more that I will be proved an alarmist. I judge this the most dangerous political moment to occur so far during my lifetime. But it has always been the business of the future to be dangerous, to one degree or another. Perhaps this nation will muddle through in better shape than I suppose. I hope so.

Thanks for your commentary.

[SimonP]

None of us are "losers," unless all of us are "losers."

You persist in thinking of an election like it's some kind of game or sports contest. It's not. It's a process by which the governed choose how they will be governed for the next few years. The election now completed, we have chosen our course.

As I have said elsewhere - I personally hope that those who supported Trump will prove correct in their prediction of how he will actually govern. They voted for saner immigration, lower prices, a healthy economy. I do not believe that Trump knows how to do any of that, and that the instincts he's so far demonstrated will tend to undercut precisely what is good about our economy presently. I also worry that he is bringing with him a team that have far more catastrophic plans for our country, which do not have the support of any but the most extreme conservative voters.

But I see no reason to spend the next several weeks predicting he will fail or usher in a collapse of our democracy; it's just a waste of energy. He'll have the chance soon enough to prove himself, one way or another. If he succeeds, we will all be "winners." If he fails or gives in to the kakistocracy, we will all be "losers" - including probably the majority of MAGA supporters who comment on these threads.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

My hope is the same one I had in early 2017, and probably just as likely to be dashed. That he actually keep his campaign promise to significantly increase federal money going to improve infrastructure in this country.

[SimonP]

I think it would be politically savvy if he just lets the IRA and CHIPS Act play out - these are already significant investments in red-state economies - avoids dramatic movement on tariffs, leaves Obamacare largely alone, and cools it with any talk about the Fed. Continue claiming false victories, take credit for policies that predate him, avoid taking responsibility for spending the money previously allocated. He may find he inherits a thriving economy, just like he did the last time.

[David Nieporent]

But I see no reason to spend the next several weeks predicting he will fail or usher in a collapse of our democracy; it's just a waste of energy. He'll have the chance soon enough to prove himself, one way or another. If he succeeds, we will all be "winners." If he fails or gives in to the kakistocracy, we will all be "losers" - including probably the majority of MAGA supporters who comment on these threads.

This is a wonderful sentiment, but the country isn't a monolith. So it's entirely possible that no matter how bad his policies are (very very), there will be some winners to go along with the many losers.

[Commenter_XY]

Boy, does that have to suck = ...there will be some winners to go along with the many losers....>/i>

[Martinned2]

In case anyone wants to know more about the law of impeachment and insurrection in another country than the US, South Korea is currently in the process of figuring out what needs to happen to its President: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74x8xpz3j2o

[Martinned2]

The Guardian has a (non-paywalled) explainer: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/05/how-south-koreas-impeachment-process-works-after-yoon-suk-yeols-martial-law-bid

[Mr. Bumble]

Hopefully better than the US with a Democrat controlled Congress.

[Martinned2]

The Democrats didn't "control" Congress to the point that they actually managed to convict Trump on impeachment when that was plainly the right answer.

[Brett Bellmore]

In this case, it's uncontroversial that the SK President actually did order the militiary to attack the legislature. He pulled the classic, "If you strike at the Kinglegislature, you must kill himthem." gambit, and then blinked. (I'm glad he blinked, by the way.

In the US case, it's uncontroversial that there is no evidence at all that the US President ordered anybody at all to attack the legislature. If the opposing party had such evidence, they had years during which they could have prosecuted him for it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sorry about the closure error on the html.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett...If I am Kim Jong Un, there is no time better than right now to start messing with SK. Let's see what happens by EOY at the DMZ.

We get a lot of chips and phones from SK. It matters.

[Brett Bellmore]

OTOH, it's a bad time for NK to get in a tussle with the South, what with a significant fraction of their military currently deployed to Ukraine. Which may just be why they are pushing to further fortify their border with the South.

They're actually acting as though they expect a land invasion from the South. Maybe they thought the President would start (Technically, resume.) a war with them as a domestic distraction?

[Joe_dallas]

Fwiw - thank Truman for the two korea's, If Roosevelt had lived through Sept of 1945, there would only be one unified korea, and it would be all communist.

[Sarcastr0]

Historical counterfactuals are fun.

Don't pretend they're facts.

[Joe_dallas]

another inane comment from O

[Dr. Ed 2]

God help us if he'd died in 1944, i.e. before Truman was sworn in as VeeP. We'd all be communist.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You did write fwiw. And Sarcastro correctly implied what it was worth.

[Commenter_XY]

It is 10K troops out of 1MM....drop in the bucket.

The war isn't over, legally. Only an armistice is in place, and I think that has different legalities than a peace treaty.

The timing, though....if ever the time, this is the time.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Impeach and convict Trump for the wanting to investigate the crimes Joe just pardoned Hunter for!

lol good one

[Michael Ejercito]

Yeah.

all he did was ask for a second look into the firing of that prosecutor Shokin.

[Brett Bellmore]

CIA blocked feds from interviewing Hunter Biden’s ‘sugar brother’ Kevin Morris during five-year tax probe

There's some interesting speculation that the reason the intelligence community got so upset about Trump's interest in Shokin's firing, is that Hunter was actually working for them, using Burisma as a way to manipulate Ukrainian politics. And they were concerned that would be exposed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Toward what end -- i.e. was the CIA working in the best interests of the US or not?

I don't see how having the Ukraine as a kleptocratic state helped the US interest -- but maybe it did the Obama interest....

[David Nieporent]

You can tell that the NYP is a serious outlet because it puts random unverified, nonsensical allegations from unknown people in headlines as if they were actual facts. The CIA of course cannot "summon" people from DOJ or give them orders, so the story is obviously false.

[Mr. Bumble]

You do realize that your description of the NYP fits equally well with the NYT?

[Brett Bellmore]

Random unverified, nonsensical allegations from unknown people comprised about 50% of the coverage of Trump while he was in office. Now you're telling me they're worthless? [/sarc]

Notice I said "speculation". How dare I relate speculation and label it as such!

[David Nieporent]

I knew you were going to try to pull that, but all it shows is that you didn't read/understand the article you quoted. Yes, the NYT and other MSM use anonymous sources. But the anonymous sources are only anonymous to us; the NYT knows who it's quoting and whether those people are reliable. Here, the NYP is reporting on what someone who they themselves don't know supposedly told other people.

[Life of Brian]

the NYT knows who it's quoting and whether those people are reliable

Since you yourself don't know the identity of the sources, how can you confidently state NYT always does? Because they pinky swore to you?

[David Nieporent]

Because they know who they talked to? They're not passing along secondhand anonymous sources the way the NYP article was.

[Life of Brian]

Again, there's no way for you to know that since there's no way to pierce NYT's wall of anonymity and know whether there was an actual source at all, or if there was how many degrees of separation there were between that source and their ears.

If you're just blindly trusting the institution, that's of course your choice, but no need to pretend that puts them on some sort of moral high ground.

[Commenter_XY]

You have just described WaPo and the Old Grey Hag = ...it puts random unverified, nonsensical allegations from unknown people in headlines as if they were actual facts...

[hobie]

After seeing how calm and consequence-free declaring martial was for the South Korean president, I now fully endorse Trump's threat to implement it here. Will be wild...

[Sarcastr0]

I don't have the faith in the GOP's spine that you do.

[Riva]

Is hobie another example of the brilliant wit of the commenters on your side? Impressive.

[Bwaaah]

"I don't have the faith in the GOP's spine that you do."

As if that's somehow divorced from the implication that you don't have faith in the American people.

[hobie]

I think America is garbage and a failed nation. No wait, someone else said that before me

[Mr. Bumble]

Which is why 1/2 the world is trying to get here and those celebrities
who promised to leave if Trump was elected never do.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you really think that, hobie = it puts random unverified, nonsensical allegations from unknown people in headlines as if they were actual facts

[hobie]

Do you honestly want me to list all the derogatory things Trump called America during the campaign? You're not even a little bit ashamed of them? Of course, shame hasn't been what it used to be, yes?

[Riva]

Too much. Try to make the next fraud you fabricate against President Trump a bit more convincing. Less is more.

[Martinned2]

Donald Trump has announced that he will nominate Gail Slater as AAG for the antitrust division. I don't know her, but it looks like the idea is that she will continue the Kanter/Khan quest, albeit presumably in a more Trumpist way.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/04/us/politics/trump-gail-slater-antitrust-justice-department.html

[Riva]

You’re too eager. Try to calm down and pace yourself or when the AG Bondi and Director Patel really get to work exposing the corruption, you’re going to lose it completely.

[Sarcastr0]

You posted the same kind of 'this is too much' nonsense just 6 minutes before this above.

Bot needs more variety in their shitposting algorithm.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The Great Contribut0 Strikes Again!

It's past October and we're still getting sightings of The Great Contribut0!

We're so lucky this year.

[Riva]

Then maybe you and your little alter egos should take my advice rather double and tripling down on stupid? But you won’t because, well, deep down, you’re just f’ing stupid.

But please don’t forget that picture of you screaming helplessly to the sky when President Trump takes the oath of office. Was that you in the original 2017 version? Come on, own up.

[Martinned2]

In more personal news, the last case I worked on in private practice just ended in a remedies clearance: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-clears-vodafone-three-merger-subject-to-legally-binding-commitments

[mulched]

Last ever, like you're retiring? Or just the most recent?

Either way, well done!

[Martinned2]

I went back to the light side...
#RevolvingDoor

[John F. Carr]

Remedies clearance? We speak American here!

[Mr. Bumble]

Is Macaroon's invite (pleading?) with Trump to attend the re-opening of Notre Dame a slap in the face to the Biden legacy?
To anyone: What do you think about the restoration? From the pictures I've seen so far it seems pretty amazing given the damage done by the fire.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, pretty nice job, aside from Macron illegally insisting on replacing the completely undamaged stained glass just so he can 'leave a mark' on the building. At least he's not making sure to trash the old windows, so there's some chance of undoing that decision.

[Commenter_XY]

It is a tremendous security risk for Pres Trump to attend.

I don't see a slap to any Biden legacy. I mean, when you're the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter, and the entire country thinks you did a shitty job and voted your party out of power....what's the legacy?

Oh, and there is the matter of pardons, lol. Quite the legacy.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think Trump is actually safer in France; American assassins have more trouble reaching him there, and the French security will be pretty tight.

[Martinned2]

Fewer nutcases with guns generally...

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/12/04/nyregion/brian-thompson-uhc-ceo-shot

[Mr. Bumble]

Carlie Hebdo.

[Martinned2]

Fewer, not zero.

[Mr. Bumble]

Shade of "Day of the Jackal".

[Mr. Bumble]

Shades of "Day of the Jackal".

[Commenter_XY]

Anytime he leaves MAL, he is at heightened risk. There are plenty of leftist freaks out there, itching for their shot at fame. And that is just domestic.

I trust the FR even less than I do the FBI, DOJ and USSS.

[Martinned2]

Free tip: https://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Tin-Foil-Hat

[Commenter_XY]

M2, you seem to have forgotten 2 assassination attempts in the last 6 months, and identifying another half-dozen assassination plots or so, domestic and foreign. The USSS performed poorly, so poorly in fact, that many in America wonder if that poor performance wasn't 'accidentally on purpose'. Considering how Pres Trump was called a mortal threat to democracy by Team D, maybe not so far-fetched. And the FBI? LOL. They need to go find the DNC pipe bomber.

Yes, it is so 'tin foil' that POTUS Biden directly contacted Iran warning them that any assassination attempt against Pres Trump is an act of war.

[Brett Bellmore]

At the Butler assassination attempt, the assassin was actually setting up on a roof within view of the window of the SS command center. Literally, if they looked out the window they could see him setting up to shoot Trump. That's some pretty impressive incompetence.

If I were Trump I'd trust the SS about as far as I could throw them.

[Sarcastr0]

Once again Brett appeals to incredulity to find a conspiracy.

[Joe_dallas]

another asinine comment from O

[Sarcastr0]

Do you see how I criticized the substance of Brett's comment, and you just attacked me with no engagement?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The substance of Brett's comment was "incompetence".

The substance of your comment was "conspiracy".

Are those two the same things, Sacastr0?

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Do you see how I criticized the substance of Brett's comment, and you just attacked me with no engagement?

Your comment - as usual had no substance. It was your usual unwarranted attack on Brett. Its immature and old.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Oh the irony!

[Bwaaah]

The substance of Brett's comment was "incompetence".

The substance of your comment was "conspiracy".

What else didn't he say that you wish to assert, Sarc?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Bwaah: I know you think that you're quite the clever little commenter, but Sarcastr0's remark was clearly calling out Brett's fallacy.

He even labeled it for you: "appeals to incredulity."

Somehow, for reasons I'm sure aren't at all based on your being an asshole holding a grudge against him, you removed the logical fallacy complaint and shortened it to just "conspiracy."

Do you think other people can't see your dishonesty for what it is?

[Brett Bellmore]

They could literally watch the assassin setting up for the shot from their window, and missed him. You wouldn't call that incompetence?

[Michael P]

He probably thinks competence would have included shooting Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

1. I have no idea if your confidently stated fact is true, or just another 'it had to be thus' from you.

2. Even if it is true, the SS missing something is not shocking, nor is it evidence of a conspiracy.

3. You have taken to this new two-step between incompetence and intent.
To make it clear on this one: is it your belief that the SS in on a liberal conspiracy to assassinate Trump, or are they just bad?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's my belief that whether they're just that bad, or in on it, Trump would be foolish to place much trust in them until his own people are in charge. Either could get him killed.

What I suspect was going on is that the upper management were placing a really low priority on protecting Trump, compared to past practice for Presidential candidates. Not because they actively wanted him dead, just because keeping him alive wasn't terribly important to them, so they weren't going to move Heaven and Earth to make sure it got done.

His security detail had been complaining about being starved for resources for years prior, you know:

Secret Service says it denied Trump additional resources in recent years even as his team complained

[Sarcastr0]

Yep. You're pushing a conspiracy with no evidence again.

Can you think of any reasons why Trump might have been demanding extraordinary resources from his security detail?

Yet again, you take a fact, assume it can ONLY imply the one thing you believe, and therefore decide your belief is validated.

At this point, the only fact value to what you suspect is about what you want to be true.
And you really really want to be oppressed by liberals.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Can you think of any reasons why Trump might have been demanding extraordinary resources from his security detail? "

Because he was getting lots of death threats on account of being portrayed as ultra-Hitler, existential threat to democracy in America?

[Dr. Ed 2]

So you are saying that the USSS was THAT incompetent without motive? That's even worse...

[Sarcastr0]

While in general a single error isn't proof of broad incompetence, in this case there is plenty of other evidence that the Secret Service has been known to be a shitshow for well over a decade.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Brett literally said "incompetence", but you shoehorned in a strawman.

Classic Gaslightr0.

[Commenter_XY]

Once again, an ignoramus offers his orts and droppings.

[Commenter_XY]

Hence, it is very unwise to leave MAL at this time, Brett.

Think about it. What happens, constitutionally, if he doesn't take the oath because of incapacity (or death)?

[not guilty]

Per the Twentieth Amendment, § 3, "If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died, the Vice President-elect shall become President."

In the case of incapacity of a still living President-elect, it is less clear. I surmise that the Vice-president-elect could be sworn into office as Vice-president and then invoke the provisions of the Twenty-fifth Amendment, § 4: "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."

[not guilty]

The Twenty-fifth Amendment was submitted to the states on July 6, 1965. There may have been concern about what could have happened if JFK had survived the assassination attempt but was left incapacitated to discharge his duties.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How is it that you're so ignorant that you ask questions which are plainly answered in our own Constitution?

Even a wild-ass guess would have come up with the right answer here. JFC.

[Michael P]

He hasn't forgotten, he is actively trying to deny them and overwrite history.

[bernard11]

There are plenty of leftist freaks out there, itching for their shot at fame. And that is just domestic.

And there are plenty of right-wing freaks as well, and more of hem have violent tendencies.

[Frank Drackman]

I think the velvet walled Luxury Suites are a bit over the top

[Brett Bellmore]

You pay extra for an indulgence, you expect some perks.

[Mr. Bumble]

Looks like the Netherlands has had an epiphany:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/12/dutch-government-cap-countrys-population-20-million-people/

[Martinned2]

LOL, you only discovered now that the Netherlands has a populist right-wing government these days? As usual with right-wing populists, the announcement discussed there does not explain a) how they're going to do that, or b) why it would even be a good idea.

[Michael Ejercito]

Do not indigenous people have a right to resist colonization? /sarc

[John F. Carr]

Should we give the Low Countries back to the Celts?

[Mr. Bumble]

Back to the sea?

[Bwaaah]

The sea having seniority, of course. But impractical.

Reparations for the oceans!

[santamonica811]

...sea-nority...

[Rimshot]

[Martinned2]

Fortunately nobody is trying to colonise the Netherlands.

[Riva]

Is it too late for them? For Europe?

[Martinned2]

You must all be wondering about art. 49(3) of the French constitution. Remember, the basic intuition of the entire constitution of the Fifth Republic is that De Gaulle thought that in the 4th (and 3rd) Republic parliament had too much power. So in the constitution of the 5th Republic ultimatley the President and the government (appointed by the President) can push through almost anything, if they're willing to pay the political cost.

And what we're now seeing is how that system can reach the end of the road, with the President's party holding only 159 of the 577 seats in the Assembly, and no clear opposition who might for a government instead.

The Prime Minister may, after deliberation by the Council of Ministers, make the passing of a Finance Bill or Social Security Financing Bill an issue of a vote of confidence before the National Assembly. In that event, the Bill shall be considered passed unless a resolution of no-confidence, tabled within the subsequent twentyfour hours, is carried as provided for in the foregoing paragraph. In addition, the Prime Minister may use the said procedure for one other Government or Private Members’ Bill per session.

https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/as/root/bank_mm/anglais/constiution_anglais_oct2009.pdf

[Martinned2]

Helpful thread on Bluesky:

1. Lots of French political parties and MPs are calling on Macron to resign as a way out of the crisis. However, they have absolutely no power to force him to do so and it is not in his interest. He won't go.

2. As has been widely reported, Macron cannot call early elections again. Art. 12 of theFrench Constitution requires 12 months pass before new elections after the President dissolves Parliament (which happened on June 9th this year).

3. A logical consequence of (2) is that the '3-bloc' Parliament between (centre)left, (centre)right and far right is here to stay.

So ANY new govt. (including a left-wing alternative) will be extremely fragile, as is would require 'inter-bloc' cooperation to survive.

4. While the Barnier govt. is obliged to resign after a vote of no confidence (Art. 50 of the Constitution), nothing prevents Macron from re-appointing Barnier (or a clone).

In fact, from the perspective of constitutional law, it is not even very clear if Macron has to accept Barnier's resignation.

5. And Macron has not shied away from acting in the letter rather than the spirit of the law...

Like when he appointed Barnier and a centre-right govt. after the left-wing coalition emerged as the largest political force after the general elections (to loud but ineffectual protest from the left).

6. I wouldn't be surprised if Macron threatens Parliament with using emergency powers to govern by decree (Art. 16), to try to rally support for his next PM.

This would be *very* controversial, but he'd be hard to stop - even the Constitutional Court could only be asked to weigh in after 30 days.

7. Ultimately, the opposition cannot get around Macron or his extensive constitutional powers e.g. to appoint the PM and govt. (Art. 8).

They have no way force him to go before his term ends in 2027.

https://bsky.app/profile/tomtheuns.bsky.social/post/3lck7hswtis22

[Mr. Bumble]

Yeah, we are all wondering.
Hahahahaha.

[Commenter_XY]

FR is transitioning into Algeria, or Lebanon. A pretty significant proportion of their population already proudly self-identifies as antisemitic.

[Martinned2]

Well yes, that's why they vote for the neo-Nazi party. That's hardly new. Just because you don't normally pay attention to anything that doesn't involve the US or (apparently) Israel, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[Brett Bellmore]

The last 50 years of history would be amazingly different if we'd been as serious about deNazification in the Middle East as we were in Germany.

[Martinned2]

Are you under the impression that, after the war, the US and its allies stopped former Nazi's from running West Germany? Because in that case I have some news for you...

In the Middle East, on the other hand, we have marvellous cases of statecraft like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification

I'm not sure what either of this has to do with France, but sure.

[Krayt]

"After all, a lot of Germans just joined the Nazi party the same way Americans join the Democrats or Republicans, wouldn't you say, General?"

Patton, offhandedly, "Yes...that's about it." The reporters look at each other, smirking.

Go watch the movie to see what the headline they produced was.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's true -- just like the French collaborators. Lots of people join the winning side -- just look at colleges today...

[Brett Bellmore]

France is just lousy with immigrants from Nazi influenced areas in the Middle East, that's the connection.

[Sarcastr0]

Nazi influenced areas in the Middle East

For fuck's sake, there was a small amount of that...70 years ago.

Quit trying to make all the stuff you don't like the same big villain.

France has fucked itself all on it's own; no need to blame immigrants.
Especially since the populist policy pushes behind this are things you fervently agree with.

[Brett Bellmore]

There was a freaking huge amount of that 70 years ago, and we're still dealing with the consequences today.

From Hitler to Hamas: A Genealogy of Evil

And the immigrants are a large part of how France went about fucking themselves.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and for a while there you were doing so well in ignoring Il Douche.

[Sarcastr0]

I am aware of the cottage industry talking about Muslims being modern Nazis.

It's reductive history - ignoring Middle East culture to foreground a European villain.

Makes things smooth; doesn't stand up. CERTAINLY doesn't stand up 70 years later.

Do you have any proof French politics is driven by the opinions of immigrants? Seems to go against the anti-immigrant populism that everyone else sees. And which, again, you agree with.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, leftists like Sarcastr0 will never admit that FR did themselves in with poor immigration policy. Not in a million years. Because then, we'd have to have a conversation about our current immigration policy under POTUS Biden.

As for the antisemitism, it is a fact of life in FR. Aliyahs continue from FR apace. I am sure a significant percentage of the FR population is quite happy to see the Jews leave, and hope they die in Israel. They are quite open and honest in discussing their judeocidal beliefs; just ask them.

It isn't just FR, either. The Jews of europe are leaving. It is happening again, in front of our eyes. Thank God there is Israel (and America).

[Sarcastr0]

Brett with the counterfactual. And based on vague 'what if X was done more seriously.'

It's like he didn't learn anything from out ME adventurism or the Arab Spring.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's like you ignored the context: Denazification at the end of WWII. Which, sadly, DID skip the Middle East, or else there might be no Hamas today, since the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood, direct predecessor of Hamas, would have been too busy in Nuremberg.

[Sarcastr0]

Lotsa ifs there.

Your history is partisan and Eurocentric. Gets you where you want to go, just not at the truth.

[Commenter_XY]

Uh huh. You'd fit right in, in 1937 Germany.

[Riva]

Good riddance to bad rubbish. I guess they shouldn’t have cleaned up their mail in ballots. Now they can’t rely on fraud to save them.

[John F. Carr]

I read that France does not have government shutdowns due to failure to pass a budget bill.

Once again I am impressed with the speed with which foreign countries make political moves. France took four weeks to elect a new parliament and five months to decide the government wasn't working. And Korea is going from misconduct to impeachment in the time it takes the House of Representatives to consider the rules for a vote to appoint a committee to recommend whether the House should vote on impeachment.

Unfortunately the power of incumbents is so great in America that we couldn't make snap elections work.

[Krayt]

Well, choosing the election date is to game the system, "hopefully", to maximize your continued power. Is this really a value to praise?

Here, we can't short circuit a drop dead requirement like parliments can.

And before people huff and puff with short-sighted virtue signalling as to how great that would be, rememer Bush the Elder would have flown to re-election at year 2 ot even 3, as he was riding high after Gulf War I. Indeed, it took another year and "it's the economy, stupid", an order to Dem talking heads to change the tide and get Clinton elected. SNL even had a joke that summer about workers assembling the DNC stage sighing and saying, "What's the point?" It was far from a possible thing, much less sure thing, as late as the summer.

Oh, and no Perot to split the ticket. That, too.

Snap elections? Say bye to Clinton, and hence none of the downstream stuff of Gore, Hillery, and Biden. "W" may still have happened. So don't be so hasty to say, "Yay, parliamentary systems!"

[John F. Carr]

In France a snap election does not replace the President.

I'm thinking if the House can't act on a bill to fund the government, or choose a Speaker, or perform some duty to be defined by the Constitution, it gets sent home. We may need multi-member districts for the new election to produce a different result. Or disqualify all current members from running in the special election.

[Bob from Ohio]

"French constitution"

About 500 people in the whole USA care about the French constitution.

The empire does not bother with minor details from the colonies.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

In the past, that's reliably been the beginning of the end of the empire.

[Krayt]

I remember from my history of ancient Greece and the middle east, that empires form then get old and sclerotic. A new core of empire forms on the outskirts.

In this way, the center of empire slowly marches across a continent. It started in the breadbasket of the middle east, between the Tigris and Euphrates, then over, then to Greece, then Rome, then Britain (large stops, others along the way), leapt the Atlantic to the US. Now, where's next? An ancient, old empire, reinvigorated through trade and economic openness, China?

This is not inevitable, but under Clinton the powerful assumed it was, and started mouthing the US turning weak. We suffer this disability from our own leaders on the left.

And now, on the right. One side trade barriers encumbering things, the other ever increasing regulatory burden, beginning to ape, more and more, the plaguelike effects of corruption burden on "shithole" countries.

Pulling the silo, sorry, wool over eyes for millenia.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What's with the head of United Healthcare being assassinated in NYC?!?

[Frank Drackman]

and with a suppressed weapon! Considerate of the shooter to limit the noise that early in the morning. Maybe they should put some kind of restrictions on Suppressors, I don't know, maybe require a background check, tax stamp. The victim was looking at charges for insider trading, having recently cashed in $15,000,000 of his Portfolio (I'm a Doc, you know how we feel about the "Suits" who have taken over medicine) And shows you what tightwads these CEO's are, makes $10,000,000/year and wouldn't spring for a simple Level 3 vest.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why wasn't he staying at the hotel his convention was at?
College kids pay extra to do that, and he could afford it.

[Frank Drackman]

I hate when people end sentences with "at"
"Where is the meeting at?"
"Where is your car at?"
"Where is the game at?"
it marks one as an idiot, like a Simian Crease.
Now don't even get me started on "How Come?" which makes even Professor Kingsfield sound like Carl the Greenskeeper
and a 5 Star Hilton to these Corporate CEO's is like a Motel 6 to you and me, he was probably in a B&B or pulling a Hunter Biden, "Married Father of 2" or not.
and I think this was a "Law & Order" Episode, Briscoe and Green will have the guy in an hour.

[NvEric]

Sometimes 'at' is used at the end after a contraction, such as when 'it's' is used. Ending 'Where it's', referring to something, doesn't work too well, so 'at' is inserted to lengthen the lazy writer's contracted sentence.

Another is using 'so' before something such as, 'I'm so sorry your wife died in a mine-shaft explosion.' Extra emphasis or a pause while thinking that they forgot to send flowers or a sympathy card, or maybe the garbage needs dumping.

[Krayt]

Never liked "so" in that context. But I'm far less a fan of "I screwed your wife, can you forgive me?", which puts the burden on the victim to approve your apology. Compounds the rudeness.

[Bwaaah]

Your wife was such a good fuck. I could really use some of your forgiveness around now. Feel me?

[bernard11]

I'm not a fan of phony apologies, which most are.

Apologies with no atonement. Repeated apologies for repeated behavior. "I apologize if I offended anyone." Apologies released by press agents or other announcements, rather than offered personally to the person harmed.

I may have this wrong, but I believe Judaism requires the apology to be offered in person, the offender to atone and make the victim of whatever it was, whole. At that point, and only then, the victim is required to forgive.

I welcome correction from those more knowledgeable.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, I'm sure Beck would have won even more Grammys had he properly titled the song "Where It Is". /sarc

I'm afraid you may be paddling a bit upstream on this one.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I hate when people end sentences with 'at'"

OK.

Why wasn't he staying at the hotel his convention was at, asshole?

Better?

[Life of Brian]

LOL

[David Nieporent]

"Convention"?

[Commenter_XY]

Somebody was very, very angry at Brian Thompson.

That was indeed a professional assassination. Just look at the escape route. The only thing you know is that it was a white guy, roughly 5'9" and maybe 170 lbs. Reddish brown hair, cut low. Fit. He could move. Knew how to clear a weapons jam, and calmly finish the job.

Money or sex. Or both. Take your pick.

[John F. Carr]

The coverage I saw said it didn't look professional. The guy brought his cell phone along and fired from too far away.

[Commenter_XY]

Substitute 'motivated' for 'professional'

[Moderation4ever]

This will be an interesting case. I have seen boards with everyone suggesting that some disgruntled healthcare consumer or relative of a healthcare consumer killed the CEO. But this looks too much like something professional. If I was on the case, I would be looking over the books of the company or looking at the social media of the man. I just think this is deeper than someone pissed off by getting a healthcare claim denied.

[Brett Bellmore]

You'd actually think anybody that pissed off about getting a claim denied wouldn't be able to afford a hit man. They'd have just spent the money on the care, after all.

Yeah, I'd say an intense audit is in order.

[Sarcastr0]

I am not going to speculate on hitman or no; I have no idea what a professional hit looks like versus an amateur.

But just based on opportunity and expectations, randos do seem less likely to hire hitmen, even if they could afford it.

[Moderation4ever]

Clearly this was not an amateur, the gunman was someone who knew how to kill a person. They also knew how to escape. If this had been a person upset about a claim denial, I think you would be looking for a crime of passion. The person likely would have confronted Brian Thompson and shot him face on. They also would likely not have thought beyond the killing and not planned an escape.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It appears that he ejected at least one live round when clearing the weapon, I doubt that a pro would do that. It appears that he did NOT have a silencer, this weapon has a long barrel. So why did it jam so often?

Now what if he is caught, goes to trial, represents himself and argues jury nullification? "I was sending a message for everyone who has been screwed by an insurance company" -- a lot of folk wouldn't vote to convict.

[not guilty]

A jury has the right to nullify a criminal prosecution. Arguing to the jury in support of nullification, however, is verboten. More subtle appeals such as "You are the voice of the community," "Conviction here would be unjust," and "Do the right thing" would probably fly under the radar, though.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Blackstone's "pious perjury" is still perjury.

In contrast to mainstream prolifers' denunciation of Tiller's murder, I've heard support for the murder of this healthcare executive.

Sentiments which I hope don't taint the jury pool, because we don't need to be freeing the killers of unpopular victims, as in the Jim Crow South...and Weimar.

[not guilty]

"Blackstone's 'pious perjury' is still perjury."

Argument to the jury of counsel or a pro se litigant is not perjury. It is not sworn, nor is it evidence. Argument should be based on evidence or the absence of evidence, along with inferences that can be drawn therefrom, but perjury does not apply.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You really need to polish up on your Blackstone.

Discussing the common law's capital punishment for certain thieves (stealing property over a certain value), Blackstone says:

"It is true, that the mercy of juries will often make them strain a point, and bring in larciny to be under the value of twelvepence, when it is really of much greater value: but this is a kind of pious perjury, and does not at all excuse our common law in this respect from the imputation of severity, but rather strongly confesses, the charge."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp

You see, Blackstone believed it was perjury for juries to swear to give verdicts according to the facts and the law and then violate that promise.

[David Nieporent]

randos do seem less likely to hire hitmen

Random people hire hitmen all the time; it's just that those hitmen are invariably undercover cops.

[not guilty]

"Random people hire hitmen all the time; it's just that those hitmen are invariably undercover cops."

The ones we hear about, at least.

[bernard11]

And there are probably some who take the money and don't even try to do the job, and we don't hear about those.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Someone whose PARENT'S claim was denied and died is my thought, and I'm thinking someone military, he was good..

[Frank Drackman]

Teacher says, every time a bell rings, a Corporate CEO gets his wings!

[Moderation4ever]

I would suggest more than just military. This wasn't an average soldier, this guy knew how to kill and how to escape.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Point gun, pull trigger, get on bike and ride away"? I'm thinking most soldiers could handle that drill.

[bernard11]

I'm not so sure.

Up close and personal introduces a lot of variables.

[Bwaaah]

Brett: "You'd actually think anybody that pissed off about getting a claim denied wouldn't be able to afford a hit man."

What if you denied the claims of the now dead wife of a now angry hit man? Could be a pro bono job?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or someone who had been on active duty and couldn't even see his wife before she died....

It may have been 4-5 years ago.

[Krayt]

One would assassinate like this, it seems, more to protect against him spilling the beans, than someone angry at a bill.

Also, a bike through Central Park? Sounds like trying to avoid omnipresent road cams and the low-level Eye in the Sky i.e. on poles. Any NYers know the cam state of the park w.r.t. the panopticon?

[Nelson]

There are cameras all over Central Park.

[hobie]

Well, there's probably at least 50,000,000 suspects. As the hilarious Dr. Glaucomflecken skits regularly, United Healthcare is despised and for good reasons

[Frank Drackman]

Probably an East Coast/West Coast Beef, those Humana guys don't play

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I had United Healthcare for a few years, and in that time my daughter had serious health issues that required many hospitalizations and procedures. It was a fucking nightmare! Believe me when I say they make their money from trying to deny payment for critically necessary things, lifesaving things. They have almost certainly been responsible for deaths among their policyholders. This guy became rich through denying payment for necessary healthcare.

[hobie]

One good thing is that a national conversation is now happening about this insurance company's practices. It may not last long but hopefully it will. I realize Trump is filling up his administration with corporatists so United is safe, but maybe RFK has some sympathy for the little guys

[Dr. Ed 2]

Latest blurb is that this guy was trying to make United Healthcare friendlier and more responsible. Right....

[Reallynotbob]

1) There were words etched into the casings. That means the shooting is protected First Amendment activity. The Second Amendment purists know what I'm talking about (wink, nudge).

2) If the assassin's family member is dying because UHC denied coverage, does this become a defense of a third person justified shooting?

#badtakes

[hobie]

If only people could categorize their devotion to guns as being some sort of religion. Then shooting things on 5th Avenue could be considered a 'sincerely held belief'

[not guilty]

"If only people could categorize their devotion to guns as being some sort of religion. Then shooting things on 5th Avenue could be considered a 'sincerely held belief'"

I don't know what is stopping any criminal defendant from asserting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or its corresponding state statutes as a defense to prosecution. As Garry Wills observed in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, the gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily. https://www.nybooks.com/online/2012/12/15/our-moloch/

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You sure you want to bring up a god to whom people sacrificed children? What about your favorite "sacrament"?

[Lennyk78]

Kind of like your devotion to killing third trimester fetuses and cutting off little boys' penises and telling them that their girls.

[Frank Drackman]

I wouldn’t vote to convict him

[John F. Carr]

Were the words along the lines of "I hate CEOs"? Precedent upholding hate crime laws says there is an exception to the First Amendment for speech aimed at the victim in the course of a crime.

[ThePublius]

For anyone who's still following this on this thread:

It's frustratingly difficult to get details of the assassination from the "mainstream media," as, for example, the caliber of the handgun. And, the NYPD is releasing some speculation of details that is likely wrong and sloppy analysis, as, for example, the type of gun; they are saying it was a very rare and expensive single shot, a Brügger & Thomet Station Six.

Also, the backpack was found. What was in it? The gun?

For a comprehensive analysis based on what we know now, check this excellent article over at TheFirearmBlog:

A Closer Look At The Murder Of Brian Thompson

Summary of key points:
- not a pro (first round into victim's calf, second into back; only two rounds on target);
- poorly configured semi-auto pistol no Nielsen device) with potentially homemade suppressor;
- 9mm is the caliber;
- was spotted by cameras before entering and after exiting the park, but not in the park;
- likely left NYC on a bus, seen entering the Washington Bridge bus terminal and not exiting.

[ThePublius]

Sorry for the unbalanced parenthesis, there should be an open parens before 'no Nielsen device' at bullet 2 in the summary.

Too bad the edit window times out so quickly, and there's no 'delete comment' function (so I could repost it, correcting the typo).

[ThePublius]

Also, the last two bullets aren't info from the linked article, but from other news sources.

[apedad]

Justice Department Finds Civil Rights Violations by Memphis Police Department and City of Memphis

This is one of 12 investigations into law enforcement agencies opened by the Justice Department under Section 12601 since April 2021. In 2023 and 2024, the department issued findings reports regarding five of those investigations: the Louisville, Kentucky, Metro Police Department, Minneapolis Police Department, Phoenix Police Department, Lexington, Mississippi, Police Department, and Trenton, New Jersey, Police Department. The five other ongoing investigations cover the Louisiana State Police; Mount Vernon, New York, Police Department; New York City Police Department’s Special Victims Division; Oklahoma City Police Department; and Rankin County, Mississippi, Sheriff’s Department.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-finds-civil-rights-violations-memphis-police-department-and-city-memphis

Since today's blog started with a comment about policing and police powers, I think we can agree it's a good thing when police departments are investigated and reforms implemented for allegations of civil rights - and criminal prosecutions when applicable too.

[apedad]

And yes, someone has to police the feds too and to use an "Enemy of the State" quote, "We knew that we had to monitor our enemies. We've also come to realize that we need to monitor the people who are monitoring them."

Here's the latest DoJ Office of the Inspector General, "Semiannual Report to Congress April 1, 2024–September 30, 2024," which lists audits and investigations of DoJ operations and facilities.

https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/semiannual-reports/SARC_April1%2C%202024-September%2030%2C%202024.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

I would just add that the Trenton, NJ DOJ report was no surprise to any resident of the People's Republic. Fitting that it was the state capitol.

The Memphis investigation was started and completed (with report and agreement) in 17 months. Is that 'fast' by government time?

[apedad]

Each investigation is different, e.g., # of alleged infractions (and seriousness/complexity of each infraction), # of people involved (suspects and victims), # of people cooperating with/hindering the investigation, etc., so it's difficult to say if an investigation was fast or slow.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, that is fair. I can understand that.

[CountmontyC]

I am of the opinion that part of what we need is a Federal Department of Internal Affairs (FDIA) whose sole purpose is investigate and prosecute federal agencies and agents who abuse their given authority. I want the people working there to have the same authority as the DOJ to investigate and prosecute.

I would base it outside the DC area by at least a couple hundred miles, possibly use people from state and local law enforcement and would ban anyone who employed there from working for any other federal agency for at least five years after their employment there ended

I would also want an independent citizen review board with subpoena power to overlook federal agencies actions.

[Sarcastr0]

When agencies are found to be acting outside their authority by IG, GAO or CBO they step back in line, already.

Don't know what more enforcement will do on that front.

[CountmontyC]

The IG has no power to prosecute. Nor does the GAO or CBO. There must be criminal charges when government agencies and agents abuse their power.
Fauci has simply retired with a massive government pension. Same with Comey and Lois Lerhner. They have faced exactly zero consequences for their bad behavior.
And the FBI has been practicing lawfare for years and is even now looking to avoid the consequences.
But of course you support the misbehavior, the criminal conduct because it has been directed at your political opponents and in your pathetic mind that makes it acceptable so you oppose any attempt to reign in the abuses by government.

[Sarcastr0]

If you have proof of government lack of compliance to their determinations, then a bigger hammer might be useful.

Until then, it's a solution in search of a problem.

From the names you put out, it sounds to me more like you want to harrass people you've decided are bad than deal with actual government overreaching beyond their authority.

[CountmontyC]

Can you cite an IG report in the last 30 years that have led to criminal charges?

[apedad]

I linked the latest IG report above and starting on pg 6 (# listed on the page, not the actual page count), there are several examples of IG investigations that led to criminal charges and prosecutions.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Engaging in “bad behavior” and “practicing lawfare” are not crimes.

Who prosecuted people from the FDIA when they do something wrong?

[David Nieporent]

This is one of 12 investigations into law enforcement agencies opened by the Justice Department under Section 12601 since April 2021.

I assume all of those will be shut down under Trump. Given that his attitude is that law enforcement needs to be nastier to people not named Donald Trump.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Since today's blog started with a comment about policing and police powers, I think we can agree it's a good thing when police departments are investigated and reforms implemented for allegations of civil rights - and criminal prosecutions when applicable too.

If a police department is doing a bad job, it’s good for things to be fixed (and wrongdoers prosecuted, if warranted). If the police department isn’t doing a good job, it’s not a good thing for D.C. bureaucrats to start micromanaging them.

[Martinned2]

The new European Commission, which started its term on 1 December, is stepping in to stop Russian influence campaigns from influencing the second round of the Romanian presidential elections this weekend the way they did the first round.

In the context of the ongoing Romanian elections, the Commission has stepped up its monitoring of TikTok under the Digital Services Act (DSA). This relates to the exercise of the Commission's competences under the DSA and does not address the Romanian electoral process, which is a matter for the Romanian authorities and ultimately the Romanian people.

The Commission has issued a ‘retention order' to TikTok under the DSA, ordering the platform to freeze and preserve data related to actual or foreseeable systemic risks its service could pose on electoral processes and civic discourse in the EU. This is done to preserve available information and evidence in the event of a further Commission investigation of TikTok's compliance with its obligations under the DSA.

TikTok must preserve internal documents and information regarding the design and functioning of its recommender systems, as well as the way it addresses the risk of intentional manipulation through coordinated inauthentic use of the service. The Commission is ordering preservation of documents and information regarding any systematic infringement of TikTok's terms of service prohibiting the use of monetisation features for the promotion of political content on the service. The retention order concerns national elections in the European Union between 24 November 2024 until 31 March 2025.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_6243

[ducksalad]

I don't see that "foreign influence" is something an ostensibly free country should even be trying to crack down on.

If an American wants to read Russian or Chinese propaganda, or even come here for some Dutch propaganda, I think that's their right. And you obviously read plenty of foreign stuff every day, even when an election is coming up. Why shouldn't Romanians enjoy the same freedom?

[David Nieporent]

Presumably the concern is undisclosed Russian propaganda. Putin is free to try to convince Americans to vote for Trump (or Romanians to vote for Trumpu or whatever), and Americans are free to listen to him if they want, but Putin doesn't have any right to covertly spread the message.

(The Russian government doesn't have any 1A rights, of course, and while Americans may have a 1A right to read/hear Putin's message, it's nonsensical to suggest that they have a right to be fooled as to whose message it is.)

[ducksalad]

Wasn't specifically talking about, or limiting myself, to the 1st Amendment as interpreted by US courts. In general a free country should not try to isolate its population from information, and furthermore an important type of free speech is anonymous speech.

But since you brought up the 1st Amendment, I disagree with whole approach of starting from who is speaking and is the person protected. I think the starting point is denying Congress (and by extension all government) authority to make laws about speech. It's the speech that's protected, not just the citizen, and not just so the citizen can run the mouth, but so that others can listen.

And while courts and government shouldn't really be ranking speech, if they are ranking levels of protection, criticism of the government needs the highest level of protection.

[Michael P]

Iraq's parliament approved the Prime Minister to send what some might call a "special military operation" into Syria, to fight rebels that are backed by ... apparently no one, except maybe Turkey halfheartedly (Turkey designated them a terrorist group but sees HTS-held stable areas as a reason to send back Syrians who had sought refuge in Turkey). HTS used to be part of ISIS, then affiliated with al Qaeda, have now broken ties with both groups, but still seem to be pretty hardcore Islamists who want sharia law. On the other hand, Syria's official government is run by Bashar al-Assad, has used WMD on its own citizens, and is backed by Russia and by Iranian front groups like Hezbollah.

Why can't they all lose?

[Martinned2]

For the last few years, they have all been losing. The only side in the Syrian war who hasn't been losing is Russia, who got a nice naval base out of the arrangement.

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

[Michael P]

In what ways has HTS been losing? (Beyond military gains, the NYT, NPR and others are relatively complimentary on how its "technocratic" administrators are setting up functional government in the territory it holds. If we ignore the brutal oppression, maybe that's a kind of a win for the public there.) Or the Kurds in the northeast of Syria?

Iraq is now rolling in to bolster the Assad regime because they see extremists imposing sharia as worse. Are the Assad losses more than short-term setbacks?

[Martinned2]

They spent the last few years holed up in the desert being shot at from two sides. That's not my idea of winning.

[Mr. Bumble]

All the better to evacuate their troops from Syria.

[Commenter_XY]

A better outcome from a US perspective is that the problems in Syria somehow make their way to Tehran.

[Michael P]

In theory perhaps, but I don't see how that happens in a way that is good in the long term. The rebels that are succeeding in Syria now seem to be particularly callous towards women and social minority groups. I don't think they would make a better Iranian government than the current set.

[Sarcastr0]

The neocons are back in the GOP, if you haven't noticed.

Lotsa 'bomb Iran' hope from those who are sure THIS time Middle East adventurism will bring Democracy for all.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Haha yeah, President Trump whose brought more peace during his four years, then the Democrats have lied about doing for 4 decades "brought back the neocons".

You're f'n delusional. Your people are trying gin up WW3 to "Trump proof" the Washington FOREVER WAR.

[David Nieporent]

Trump did not bring any peace during his four years. In fact, he massively expanded U.S. military operations, though mostly in the form of drones rather than troops. It's true that he did surrender to the Taliban, but he took care to make sure that the actual end of the war wouldn't happen until Biden was in office.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...but he took care to make sure that the actual end of the war wouldn't happen until Biden was in office."

Duh. He didn't plan on losing to Slo Joe.

[Commenter_XY]

A secular government in lieu of theocratic mullahs with nukes is infinitely preferable, MP. How that happens....well, sometimes there is blowback from actions you take. The Mullahs are merrily supporting terror throughout the region. maybe the Mullahs need to worry about matters much closer to their homes.

I do not advocate taking an active role in exporting Syria's problems to Iran, but I certainly would not take steps to stop it, either. That is called non-interventionalist, I believe.

[apedad]

Actually, they all are losing (re-read your comment), and no group will ever be the winner - especially with US, Iran, Russia, China, (Saudi Arabia?), backing one group over another.

There's also the geo-political issue where the Middle East is located; in the middle of the Euro-Asian landmass (so easy for armies to invade from either side with no significant geological barriers), navigation ports (including the Mediterranean Sea, easy for naval powers to invade), then add oil and religion and it's no wonder the region was, is, and will continue to be fucked up.

[Don Nico]

And yet Assad has asked Israel for help saving his dictatorship.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

He should just wait and ask President Trump, with Assad's pal Tulsi ensconced in power.

[Don Nico]

ADW,
What you claim, "Assad's pal Tulsi ensconced in power" is an outright lie.
I find it pathetic that you can only smear an officer who served in a combat theater.

[David Nieporent]

It's not a lie, although it is premature since she hasn't even been formally nominated let alone confirmed and we see that Trump is winging the transition and will toss someone under the bus in a heartbeat.

[Mr. Bumble]

...like Nancy did to Joe?
That worked out well, at least for most of us.

[Don Nico]

Of course it is a lie, David.
Give us incontrovertible evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

This: "Give us incontrovertible evidence."
Is not the standard for
This: "Of course it is a lie."

[Don Nico]

The claim "with Assad's pal Tulsi" is a lie. What is the problem with asking David for his evidence that it is not a lie.
You've got to do better than that when you jump into the middle of a disagreement

[Sarcastr0]

1. You're the one that said it was a lie unless DMN could provide incontrovertible evidence. That's the wrong standard, and you know it.

2. She said Assad was a brutal dictator in 2019...Why did she say that? Well.....

Gabbard has faced criticism for her controversial meeting with Assad in 2017 and her subsequent refusal to call him a war criminal. She said at the time of her meeting with Assad that she thought it was “important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we can achieve peace.”

When asked about Assad during her CNN town hall in March, Gabbard said, “I think that the evidence needs to be gathered and, as I have said before, if there is evidence that he has committed war crimes, he should be prosecuted as such."

What evidence of Assad's war crimes in March of 2019????
Being Assad's pal seems well within a legitimate opinion based on her past performance.

[David Nieporent]

As Sarcastr0 said, you're moving goalposts all over the place. I don't even know what could be "incontrovertible" evidence in an era where people claim that the 2020 election was stolen and that Joe Biden got money from foreign countries — but regardless, something is not a "lie" just because someone, somewhere disputes it.

As for Gabbard's coziness with Assad (and Putin), those are well known, and you can google them for yourself if you inexplicably are unaware of them, but here's a quick overview: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c14l6jpykmjo

[Commenter_XY]

It is a lie. You know better.

[John F. Carr]

I have read that Qatar is a major supporter recently.

[Michael P]

In an update about the worst genocide ever, the population of the Gaza strip is now reportedly 2% higher than it was on October 7, 2023.

Truly the worst genocide ever.

[Riva]

The ICC has fortunately immunized itself against facts and reason with some good old fashioned antisemitism. The fuel of Jewish bigotry is indispensable in their efforts going forward.

[Commenter_XY]

Israel is on the proverbial clock. It must aggressively hunt down kill more hamas members faster. January 20th is not so far away.

The idea that Israel will ever agree to the PA + hamas running gaza is delusional.

I want our American hostages back, just like the Israelis want their people back. We will see if Pres Trump's explicit promise to visit severe hardship on any country or entity involved with taking our hostages makes a difference or not.

I personally don't think hamas and their associated groups in gaza give a shit what Pres Trump says. hamas is prepared to kill all the hostages, and die themselves; they've said so many times. I believe them.

[Brett Bellmore]

The American hostages aren't coming back, save perhaps in body bags. That's why Hamas has been so intransigent when offered ridiculously disproportionate offers to trade their captured members for hostages: They've killed them all, probably by torture.

It's who they are, after all.

[Martinned2]

Reported by who?

[tylertusta]

Politico reports that Biden and the White House are contemplating additional preemptive pardons of "current and former officials." I would speculate that those pardons will be additional blanket pardons, and the pardons may also cover substantial periods of time akin to how Hunter Biden was pardoned for Federal crimes that he may have committed over an 11 year period of time.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/04/biden-white-house-pardons-00192610

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck it, I'm in.

Plenty of evidence of intent to go after people based on not liking them, not any crime being identified. Might not hold up in court, but it'll be a ton of time money and trouble.

The incoming FBI Director just sent a legal threat about an opinion piece in MSNBC.

Fauci, Raskin, Schiff...plenty of others there's enough for me to support pardoning them preemtively. The right will go mad with conspiracies, but they've pegged that needle.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Pardoning them for what?

[Brett Bellmore]

Just like Hunter, he doesn't have to say, he'll pardon them for absolutely anything, from double parking to mass murder, that they might have done in the last decade or two.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I love his unstated acknowledgement that the system can be used to pursue political enemies, even when not guilty of any particular crime. I was trying to Socratically tease that out of him.

He's just confirming what we've been saying about the lawfare against Trump, but he's too stupid to realize it. Which is expected as he's a govie, and the Federal Government does not attract the best and the brightest.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Rand Paul WILL subpoena Faucci and a pardon will preclude a 5th Amendment claim.

Question: Does a Pardon eliminate CIVIL liability? Does the 5th Amendment protect you from it? Civil fines can be big enough to destroy someone all on their own...

[John F. Carr]

Pardons are only for federal crimes. If I sue Fauci for giving bad advice a pardon won't save him. The Westfall Act will.

[bernard11]

For any BS his "Let's get even, the law and the facts be damned," his DOJ and FBI dream up. Both Bondi and Patel have explicitly promised to prosecute a lot of people, whether they did anything wrong or not.

Of course Trump and his bootlickers consider opposing Trump to be sufficient grounds.

[Riva]

Try to put more effort into your lying BS. They never claimed any such thing. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, the party that tried to legally destroy the opposition candidate is now going to legally mass immunize their own people, in anticipation of being on the receiving end of their own tactic.

[SimonP]

Brett - if Biden issues such broad pardons, Trump would have no legitimate complaint, being opposed as he is to using the DOJ to prosecute his political opponents on baseless charges. Right?

You really seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here. Broad pardons issued to protect people from malicious prosecution by Trump's DOJ would, indeed, be extraordinary. But your comment here seems to vindicate the concern behind such an extraordinary exercise of the pardon power. It's almost like you want Trump to double-down on the kind of treatment he (falsely) claims to have received.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Hunter pardon didn't pardon Hunter for baseless charges. In fact, if you issue a pardon that doesn't specify the charges, how can you say the charges were baseless?

[SimonP]

I am not going to play word games with an engineer, Brett.

I will just surmise you have no substantive reply to my accusation that you want Trump to prosecute his political opponents on charges that lack sufficient merit, or whatever term you would use to describe the criminal cases against Trump.

[Mr. Bumble]

Someone bite your dick this morning?

[SimonP]

I await your reply to my other comment, Bumbler.

[Mr. Bumble]

Trump was President for four years and didn't break America's streak of being a great nation. What makes you think he will do so in the next four years?

[SimonP]

I contend that he did do lasting damage to one of America's greatest 20th century accomplishments, and that he began work on eroding some of our other great contributions to "human betterment" in the world.

So, in order to debate the point effectively, we need to find a point of agreement - i.e., a specific area where America has contributed to the betterment of humanity - and consider the argument whether Trump helped or hurt that specific contribution. I have asked you to name one of your choosing, in fairness, so as not to "stack the deck" in my favor.

Waving hands about some "streak of being a great nation" is a vapid, unspecific, and unserious reply. I am giving you a chance to engage in an actual discussion, not just repeat talking points.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey Simon. With all due respect, go suck a dick.

[SimonP]

Bumbler, your flat inability and/or refusal to name one thing that the existence of America has done to better all of humanity is not surprising. There are many things we could agree to. That you refuse to approach the discussion like there could be any room for reasonable disagreement with you is, in my view, just a symptom of America's decline.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can surmise all you want, but what I want Trump to do is investigate Washington in general, both sides of the aisle, and prosecute every charge that has merit without fear or favor.

Then sow the ruins with salt.

I don't expect that, but it's what I want.

[David Nieporent]

So… your position is that Trump shouldn't have been prosecuted for any of his many crimes, but everyone else should be?

[bernard11]

Yes. That's his point, because he considers Trump, whom he absolutely loathes and voted for out of desperation, to be blameless, not mention a business genius and all-around benefactor of mankind.

[Life of Brian]

I am not going to play word games with an engineer, Brett.

Of course not. Word games are strictly reserved for lawyers.

[not guilty]

"The Hunter pardon didn't pardon Hunter for baseless charges."

Actually it did. It pardoned him for all conduct occurring during the specified time period, whether criminal charges would have been well-founded or not.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, Brett's being Brett, but what he's saying here is that it's impossible to assess whether any other charges would've been baseless because it's an open-ended pardon for all potential charges.

[Commenter_XY]

David, we are talking about Hunter Biden. Are you really so sure about baseless? Not from what I see, vis a vis convictions.

[Don Nico]

"enough for me to support pardoning them preemtively"
Good to see that you support abuses of power even early in the day.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"The incoming FBI Director just sent a legal threat about an opinion piece in MSNBC."

Anything to say about that part? Of course not.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Omg that's so fascist, Kash felt someone defamed him on TV and then sent a notice for them to stop!

OMG, IT'S NAZI GERMANY ALL OVER AGAIN!

[SimonP]

Cool. Now do, "government bureaucrats ask Facebook to enforce its own policies on misinformation." Fascist tactic?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I'd be happy to if that was what happened in the actual universe and not your fantasy one.

[SimonP]

No matter how you spin it, nothing in the Twitter Files rises to the level of "potential future FBI director attacking mainstream media outlet openly and publicly for its unflattering coverage."

[Sarcastr0]

This seems to either be a strawman or a failure to read what I wrote.

If the abuse of power I'm anticipating is likely, wouldn't a pardon be called for?

[tylertusta]

Peanut, you're 80% of the way there. I look forward to the day when you go the rest of the way.

[Sarcastr0]

Outside of fantasy fiction, I don't enjoy smug and cryptic.

You mean pardoning Trump?

[tylertusta]

You mean pardoning Trump?

On lawfare generally.

Outside of fantasy fiction, I don't enjoy smug and cryptic.

I do. You'll just have to suffer. I'll sit back and enjoy it.

[Sarcastr0]

No one here likes lawfare (as in abuse of law to persecute people). The question is what's lawfare and what isn't.

There's far too many people treating that word like a talisman that wins their argument for them.

As for the rest, I can't be mad at such an amusing and direct response.

[tylertusta]

The question is what's lawfare and what isn't.

That's the 20% you're missing. Someday I hope you'll get there.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He thinks when Dem's do it, it's not lawfare, when Republicans do it it is Lawfare.

It's his old "Hearts of Gold & Pure Intentions" foundation he's built his entire worldview upon. Democrats have Hearts of Gold with Pure Intentions, therefore everything they do is constitutional and lawful.
Republicans are sour creatures with hatred in their hearts, therefore everything they do is unconstitutional and immoral.

[Sarcastr0]

From elsewhere here, you seem to believe the Washington Times/NY Post version of events.
I'm not one for believing the NY Times/Washington Post version of events uncritically, even if they do check their sources a lot more than your media of choice.

Meanwhile, your definition of lawfare is being applied to lies and half-truths you're just swallowing without critical examination.

First step, expand your media choices.

[Commenter_XY]

The Sarcastr0's of the world will never, ever get there. They are captive to soul-less, soul-killing agenda. Let them fall by the wayside.

[bernard11]

XY,

There is nowhere to get. The willingly misinformed are the Trump cultists, who swallow every lie the NYP, Breitbart, John Solomon, the Federalist, and the Washington Times put out.

And I have no idea what your notion of a "soul-less, soul-killing agenda" is, or why anyone should believe your evaluation.

The biggest "soul-less, soul-killing agenda" I can think of is Trump's mass deportation plan for people who are doing nothing wrong and in most cases have lived here and built lives for a decade or more.

Talk about soul-less, and you love it.

[tylertusta]

Part of the time's he's just trolling. The rest of the time he's a lost soul worthy of saving.

[Sarcastr0]

What's your definition of trolling? I'm pretty sincere in what I wrote; I don't post stuff I don't believe just to get a rise out of people.

I have Commenter blocked, but bringing the lostness of my soul into the discussion seems out of left field, overly personal, and inappropriate.

[tylertusta]

You said this yesterday:

"Posting it as truth is a lie by omission. You should be careful!"

That was despite my previous qualifications on the tentative truthfulness of the article.

I haven't been keeping a record of your past trolling, but I can if you want me to highlight future examples as I come across them.

but bringing the lostness of my soul into the discussion seems out of left field, overly personal, and inappropriate.

Here's what XY said: "The Sarcastr0's of the world will never, ever get there. They are captive to soul-less, soul-killing agenda. Let them fall by the wayside."

Perhaps that gives context for my reply; I was following his metaphor.

And yes, I will try to bring you around on this.

[Sarcastr0]

I appreciate the link - these can be long threads.

You were very strong about there being lies by omission. Your proof is the Washington Times like. I don't care if you said allegedly, you were treating that as true - it's load bearing for your rebuttle of DMN's point!

Is it a lie? Not in my book - I was ribbing you by your own standards.

Nothing in what I said was in bad faith. It's common to call people on the Internet you are annoyed by trolls; resist the temptation.

I am *all for* sincere attempts to convert people to your PoV. That's how you get legit discussion, whether or not it ends in a meeting of the minds.

I will try and be a bit less facile with you, since you seem to sincerely be a serious poster with a different perspective and that's both rare and what I come here for.

Blanket morality statements about one side or the other being soulless rubs me the wrong way. In my experience, bringing metaphysics into political discussions is all heat no light.

[tylertusta]

Your proof is the Washington Times like

That was the proof I offered- unverified outside of that article- of Comey running an illegal operation against the Trump campaign prior to the official start of Crossfire Hurricane. It's a Big if True™ story, but I'm waiting for additional information. Given the conduct of the FBI during Crossfire Hurricane I wouldn't be the least surprised that they tried to pull that kind of crap.

If you're looking for details on the rest, you can either start reading my posts down below. I'm pulling my information from the DOJ Inspector General report on the Carter Page warrant. You're welcome to read it, but it's a bit lengthy at over 400 pages, which is why I'm summarizing it so any layman can follow. You can also read the FISC order made in response to the IG's report, which I have linked to David down here.

Besides detailing the omissions in the warrant applications, the IG spells out the FBI's obligations along with the unconvincing and frankly insulting excuses used by the FBI to try to justify their actions.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a Big if True™ story, but I'm waiting for additional information.
Good on your for that.

Given the conduct of the FBI during Crossfire Hurricane I wouldn't be the least surprised that they tried to pull that kind of crap.
I have some difference of facts with you on the issues with CH, and in general I don't like propensity evidence as too subjective and easy to bootstrap into narrativism.

That being said, for the general proposition that the FBI doesn't play well with others, including their nominal bosses up to the President...yeah I don't disagree.

But lies by omission by the FBI as an organization are not established.

[tylertusta]

But lies by omission by the FBI as an organization are not established.

The whole FBI was not involved in the FISA warrant applications. There were at least three teams involved, plus their supervisors, managers and bureau directors who had varying levels of involvement.

Would you think it's fairer to say that those groups involved with the FISA warrants lied by omission, or faced some other form of culpability of allowing case agents to not place required information into the warrant applications?

[Sarcastr0]

here were at least three teams involved, plus their supervisors, managers and bureau directors who had varying levels of involvement.

Would you think it's fairer to say that those groups involved with the FISA warrants lied by omission,

You haven't even established negligent supervision, much less that this one dude was speaking for all these groups who were 'involved.'

I don't think you've overcome DMN's characterization by just noting that people are in suborganizations within the FBI.

Now, if we want to talk FBI reforms, the Flynn damned-no-matter-what-you-do thing is bad practice. It's common, and legal, so all the Flynn-specific caterwauling was special pleasing. But if anyone wants to legit reform the FBI that seems an easy push.

[tylertusta]

I don't think you've overcome DMN's characterization by just noting that people are in suborganizations within the FBI.

Which characterization? I am unclear what you are referring to.

You haven't even established negligent supervision, much less that this one dude was speaking for all these groups who were 'involved.'

Which one dude? Clinesmith? If so, I'm not arguing that Clinesmith's altering an email indicts the FBI in lies-by-omission.

I'm saying that wholly separate from Clinesmith's actions, other FBI employees, supervisors, and managers at various levels knowingly excluded information that was supposed to be included in the FISA warrant application.

Clinesmith could have never touched Crossfire Hurricane and the other agents/supervisory agents/etc took those actions all on their own.

What Clinesmith's overt lie-by-commission does is reinforce a pattern of behavior of excluding required information detrimental to a finding of probable cause from the warrant. In my view, he knew what everyone else was doing with hiding information from the FISC, so why not just one little bit more? It's not like anyone around him felt like it was wrong.

I was hoping you'd read through the OIG report on this part, but if you need me repeat the relevant sections here I suppose I can copy/pasta.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Fuck it, I'm in."

LOL at Mr. Norms here.

[Sarcastr0]

I do like norms!
What norm are you talking about here?

[Bob from Ohio]

Not giving blanket pardons to outgoing officials who have not been convicted or even charged.

{Yes, Nixon but a special case over 50 years ago]

Its a gift to Trump, he can encourage all sorts of illegal behavior and just promise a pardon. How can you reasonably complain then?

You and your side had strokes about the Trump immunity decision. You are encouraging absolute immunity for all sorts of people but "Fuck it, I'm in"!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The SCOTUS immunity decision was an abomination because of the amount of power granted to the executive with no constitutional basis. The pardon power is clearly within the President's constitutional power.

And if Biden were to take this action, it would only protect people from Trump's DOJ. If they were such bad actors, they would still be subject to state charges.

Don't get me wrong. It would clearly be an abuse of power, just as all recent Presidents have abused their power with the pardon. We should abolish it completely.

[Don Nico]

"We should abolish it completely."
Not happening; so move on.

[Sarcastr0]

Not giving blanket pardons to outgoing officials who have not been convicted or even charged.
Address your complaint on that to Ford.

Its a gift to Trump, he can encourage all sorts of illegal behavior and just promise a pardon.
'This will just allow Trump to flaunt the law!' You LOVE Trump for not caring about this shit. He'll do what he wants regardless, and you know it.

You are encouraging absolute immunity for all sorts of people but "Fuck it, I'm in"!
1) Pardons are not immunity
2) The immunity decision has a different scope to the pardon of an individual.

In the end, pretty bad job with your charges of hypocricy, Bob!

[Bob from Ohio]

A blanket pardon means immunity for the time period involved.

[Commenter_XY]

You're a hypocrite, Sarcastr0. Why should we listen to you now? What argument do you advance this is data based. None. You offer nothing to support your specious contentions.

[David Nieporent]

Not giving blanket pardons to outgoing officials who have not been convicted or even charged.

I agree that this is not the norm. But, then, neither is an incoming administration vowing retribution against everyone who isn't part of the cult that supports it, either.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hey, good thing that only happened in your addled brain.

[Life of Brian]

an incoming administration vowing retribution against everyone who isn't part of the cult that supports it

Man, it's going to take a LONG FRICKIN TIME to sign ~75 million pardons -- hope he already started a few weeks ago! LOL

The fact that Team Blue can't even come up with a mildly plausible fig leaf on this is sadly hilarious.

[Commenter_XY]

Uh huh. David, be honest. What you are really upset about is the price to be paid by (D)emocracy. You are right. It is not the norm.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I do like norms!
What norm are you talking about here?"

The soon to be norm where Presidents give blanket pardons to members of their administration and other supporters.

Biden will have created the norm too late for his guys to act on the incentives that this norm creates, but that won't be the case for the next administration.

[Kazinski]

"The incoming FBI Director just sent a legal threat about an opinion piece in MSNBC."

Heh.

"Patel demanded on Wednesday that his former colleague in the White House, Olivia Troye, “publicly retract defamatory statements” by way of a public statement after she called him a “delusional liar” on MSNBC on Monday."

By legal threat you mean sue for defamation, well let her file a counterclaim then, she has as much power in that 4egard as he does.

[Sarcastr0]

Threats to make anti-opinion defamation claims sure say something about the incoming FBI Director's methods, seems to me.

I fully expect you to support whatever awful shit he does, of course.

[Bob from Ohio]

"incoming FBI Director's methods"

Good Lord yes, he hires lawyers to send letters! The bastard!

Next step is Auschwitz I'd say.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, and the guy shooting someone is just moving their finger.

Just the lamest bad faith from you these days. Years ago, you were a trip your performative lack of morality.
These days, that's just normal MAGA.

[Bob from Ohio]

It was a letter!

Even if he follows up with a suit, he's entitled, possible FBI head or not.

[Reallynotbob]

NRA v. Vullo much?

[Commenter_XY]

Sniff, sniff...a letter. Oh, the horror.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"make anti-opinion defamation claims"

On what planet are "delusional" and "liar" opinion?

Wasn't one of E. Jean Carroll's claims against Trump that he falsely said she was lying?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

If Patel really thinks being called a delusional liar is legal defamation, he's too ignorant to be FBI head.

[Absaroka]

I dunno...I kinda think that being called mean things goes with the territory of holding high office. If being called a delusional liar gets under your skin, high government offices aren't the right career for you.

[Sarcastr0]

Not just the thin skin, but the litigation being the go-to. That's not great for the FBI Head.

[David Nieporent]

If being called a delusional liar gets under your skin,

Also, if being called a delusional liar gets under your skin, you probably shouldn't delusionally lie.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Omitting just a bit of context there, aren't you Kazinski? That's not even beginning to address your clearly inadequate (or shall we say: utterly lacking) knowledge of the law.

Not only is Troye's opinion of Patel absolutely protected by the First Amendment, but she also referenced the remarks of other people such as Mark Esper - again squarely protected by the First Amendment.

There is only one reason to send such a legal threat, and it is to try and cow people into submission and obedience - and this guy thinks he should be the next director of the FBI.

The behavior he has exhibited is beyond anything you dipshits have complained about, and here you are cheering his actions on.

You people are a clear and present danger to this country.

[Commenter_XY]

And jason cavanaugh....what would you like to do with these people who allegedly represent a clear and present danger to the country?

By all means, be specific.

[bernard11]

what would you like to do with these people who allegedly represent a clear and present danger to the country?

I would like for them not to hold high office. Unlike Trump, I don't think they should be arrested or subjected to investigations barring reasonable cause.

Which is a far cry from what you and your fellow cultists would like to do to those who oppose Trump.

[Noscitur a sociis]

We love the rule of law so much that we must destroy it to save it!

[Sarcastr0]

Pardons are powerful things, but I don't think they're 'destroy rule of law' powerful, on an individual basis.

I take your point, and reasonable people can disagree on this. But I did lay out my case for the necessity.

[Commenter_XY]

You actually did not lay out the case for necessity, Sarcastr0. I invite you to do so. I am listening.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Plenty of evidence of intent to go after people based on not liking them, not any crime being identified. Might not hold up in court, but it'll be a ton of time money and trouble."

An admission that the process is the punishment, and wrongful accusations, issued by ham-sandwich grand juries, can ruin lives?

Why wasn't Biden told about this before? He could have promoted reform of the criminal-justice system to protect citizens from Justice Department abuses.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not for nothing I've said that, 50 years from now, Biden will primarily be remembered for his pardons. They may actually end up being so egregious that a constitutional amendment results, like FDR causing the 22nd amendment.

[tylertusta]

I think Biden will be known for his pardons, but I doubt there is sufficient energy to consider an amendment to reign in the pardon power.

Democrats and Republicans just see things too differently.

[Brett Bellmore]

They do, but I think Trump might be eager enough to bring down the status quo, to push Republicans to go for a constitutional convention. That only needs a majority vote in Congress to declare that enough states have called for one.

Which enough states have, if you ignore all the constitutionally dubious caveats states have tried putting on their requests for a constitutional convention.

[tylertusta]

I highly doubt that once in office Trump is principled enough to give up an extremely useful tool like the pardon power, especially since he thinks that Biden has given him a precedent on how he can use it.

[Don Nico]

Brett, there is not going to be any convention. And that is for the good.

[Noscitur a sociis]

They do, but I think Trump might be eager enough to bring down the status quo, to push Republicans to go for a constitutional convention.

The only thing more delusional than this suggestion is your thinking you might be happy with the result if it did happen.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, all I will say in response to a call for a constitutional convention....be careful what you wish for. What happens if you get what you want?

Don't assume it is utopia.

[Bob from Ohio]

50 years from now, Biden will not be remembered. A footnote in the 1,000,000 Trump bios.

Does anyone recall Benjamin Harrison these days?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

He was in The Beatles, right?

[Reallynotbob]

Pop quiz: who won the 1932 German election?
There's a lot more than 1,000,000 bios about the next guy tho.

[Bored Lawyer]

I have the suspicion that Biden or someone on his team (Dr. Jill) has decided that they are going to take revenge on the Democratic party. The Hunter Biden blanket pardon was bad enough; a blanket pardon of numerous officials would devastate any remaining credibility the party has. And they could not even use the "loving father" excuse.

[tylertusta]

If not for the incessant puritanical scolding on ethics that we've received from Democrats over the past eight years this wouldn't be anything more than a minor scandal, one that would fade quickly over time.

[Sarcastr0]

someone on his team (Dr. Jill)

You're just getting more and more steeped in MAGA.

[SimonP]

"MAGA head thinks his opinions about the credibility of Democratic party are accurate or relevant."

Sure, Jan.

[Don Nico]

BL,
The pathetically stupid thing is that if Biden just said, "what father wouldn't help his son." there would be no hoopla about the pardon. What was damning was the crappola about selective prosecution by his own DoJ.

[Bored Lawyer]

Which will be made an order of magnitude worse if Biden pardons a dozen people in his administration.

[bernard11]

The pathetically stupid thing is that if Biden just said, "what father wouldn't help his son." there would be no hoopla about the pardon.

Most naive comment on the Internet this year. Do you pay any attention to RW lunacy all?

[tylertusta]

My own opinion is that additional pardons are necessary for the good of the country. Besides Democrats being pardoned, Biden should just go the rest of the way and pardon Trump and people in his orbit as well.

It's the only way out of our lawfare trap before it's too late.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Truth and reconciliation" without bothering with the truth part? or the reconciliation, for that matter?

[tylertusta]

Who said we can't find the truth nor 'reconcile' if people are pardoned? If you're looking for revenge, then I hate to break it to you, but the worst offenders are either safely past the statute of limitations already or immune from prosecution. Nothing short of a Constitutional amendment can change that, and that isn't happening.

While it would feel nice to drive away our enemies before us and to hear the lamentations of their women, we don't need to pursue endless criminal prosecutions to find the truth nor to reconcile.

Pardoning everybody makes finding the truth much easier. Much like how there is talk of hauling Hunter in to testify under oath since his pardon, we would be able to do the same for everybody else that is pardoned since they can no longer assert a 5th Amendment privilege.

As far as reconciliation goes, we can best reconcile by reforms to prevent the abuses from ever happening again. We can look at FISA, federal law enforcement, DC's courts, grand juries, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

What I'd like to see is a change where in order to pardon somebody for something, you have to specify the something. That's the "truth" part.

Yes, I'm aware that prosecutors usually have a half dozen charges they could bring for the same act, but that's a separate problem in need of a solution independent of any pardon issues.

Specify the crime, or no pardon.

[tylertusta]

I don't agree. I think blanket pardons- as noxious as they are!- are the only way to completely remove someone from a prosecutor or judge's ire.

If a judge or prosecutor has it out for somebody, then they will find a way to get them sooner or later. The current anti-Trump lawfare crowd is proof enough of that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, you can get rid of abusive prosecutions by getting rid of prosecutions in general, but I think that's overkill.

[tylertusta]

Until we have a better solution, reducing the pardon power isn't a good answer to anything.

[Commenter_XY]

No, name the crime. That matters.

[bernard11]

No. As we all know, a zealous prosecutor can create a new crime out of old facts forever, and Trump's appointees have explicitly promised to do so.

I suppose a pardon could exclude some things (Is that right?), like violent crimes, that are specifically identified, but that's as far as I would go.

[David Nieporent]

In theory, a pardon could say something like, "A pardon for all non-violent crimes committed between dates X and Y," yes. The problem is that "non-violent" is not a legally defined term, and in fact there has been a ton of court cases over the years on what qualifies as a "crime of violence" because that's relevant to sentencing. It would not do a very effective job of protecting the pardon beneficiary from a bad faith prosecution.

[Brett Bellmore]

Granted, nothing but a total pardon can protect one from total bad faith, but there's a better case for bad faith in the Biden DOJ than the Trump; Try to remember which administration actually DID prosecute it's political foes, rather than just talk about it.

The truth of the matter is that we KNOW that Hunter had a lot he could legitimately be prosecuted for; He was stupid enough to actually document his crimes, then misplace the laptop he'd done it on. He still has a lot of legal exposure, dad couldn't pardon state offenses.

Just give up and accept what happened: A President with a criminal son pardoned his son for over a decade of criminality on his way out, not because he expected his son to be wrongly persecuted, because he knew damned well his son was guilty as hell, and that he was implicated in some of his son's crimes.

Biden WILL pardon more of his family on the way out, probably including himself. Not to protect them from persecution, to protect them from justice.

[Sarcastr0]

there's a better case for bad faith in the Biden DOJ than the Trump; Try to remember which administration actually DID prosecute it's political foes, rather than just talk about it.

Over here we have successful prosecutions and actual indictments, both evidence Trump and his people did real crimes.

Over here we have explicit threats to persecute Trump's enemies, without bothering to even specify a crime. And a litigious crony identified who seems into it.

You are once again making the unequal equal so you can complain about double standards.
This will make it all the more pathetic when you to support whatever persecutions are attempted.

Just give up and accept what happened:
Impressive irony from conspiracies everywhere man.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Over here we have successful prosecutions and actual indictments,"

And over there Hunter was actually convicted by his dad's own DOJ, and was pardoned just as he was about to be sentenced, so don't you DARE pretend Hunter was pardoned to protect him from FAKE charges. The guy is guilty as hell, and was pardoned to protect him from prosecutions for crimes he genuinely committed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Pardoning Trump and his people would be a nice touch, but I doubt that Team Biden would permit Biden to do this.

[tylertusta]

I doubt President Biden will do it. He's shown himself to be a vain and vindictive man. He hates everything about Trump, and wouldn't want to do Trump any favors like that.

[hobie]

We prosecute politicians all the time in this country. Especially when they commit crimes. So where'd this prosecuting-politicians-is-lawfare horseshit suddenly come from?

[tylertusta]

The latest bout of this started with the Russiagate scandal.

[hobie]

Yeah I remember all that. They got Manafort for handing docs to the Russians, secured indictments for the Russian state actors who hacked Hillary at Trump's request. Got George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates and Mike Flynn for lying to the FBI. Nothing to see here...move along

[tylertusta]

The FBI and DOJ lied to courts to get warrants.

You seem to have forgotten that little tidbit.

Then they tried to cover it up.

Again, forgotten.

The initial investigation was a sham, created by CIs/undercover agents who probably instigated the reason for the official investigation to start.

Then the first special counsel, upon realizing that the predicate crime was bullshit, switched into "let's find as many obstruction charges as we can" mode where they tried to say that a President exerting his Article II powers obstructed justice.

Again, forgotten.

You should probably get your memory checked.

[Sarcastr0]

These are...controversial takes.

Don't pretend they're baseline truths that are being ignored. You don't even have a Mueller Report to point to, just assertions from the right side of the spectrum.

[tylertusta]

Don't pretend they're baseline truths that are being ignored

Peanut, he literally said he remembered all of it, then proceeded to ignore the parts about it that constituted lawfare.

These are...controversial takes.

Perhaps they are controversial for your average NYT reader. They're shielded from uncomfortable truths by the Paper of Record™.

What I said (with one exception) is thoroughly documented by government officials in their official capacity- including Mueller's team when they wrote their report- or are observations in how the Steele Dossier was no longer being investigated some time in 2017, yet his office kept going until 2019.

The exception here is that the FBI allegedly used undercover agents to start investigating the Trump campaign prior to the official start of their investigation- an off-the-books operation that was illegal. So far all we have are reports on what the whistleblowers told Congress and no corroboration.

You don't even have a Mueller Report

Incorrect. Besides other official accounts, I have Mueller's own report. Here's Volume II, section 3B on how they saw themselves conducting their investigation:

"The President’s counsel has argued that “the President’s exercise of his constitutional authority . . . to terminate an FBI Director and to close investigations . . . cannot constitutionally constitute obstruction of justice.” [...] We did not find counsel’s contention, however, to accord with our reading of the Supreme Court authority addressing separation-of- powers issues. Applying the Court’s framework for analysis, we concluded that Congress can validly regulate the President’s exercise of official duties to prohibit actions motivated by a corrupt intent to obstruct justice. The limited effect on presidential power that results from that restriction would not impermissibly undermine the President’s ability to perform his Article II functions."

Emphasis mine.

[Sarcastr0]

Your excerpt doesn't support any of:

"The initial investigation was a sham, created by CIs/undercover agents who probably instigated the reason for the official investigation to start.

Then the first special counsel, upon realizing that the predicate crime was bullshit, switched into "let's find as many obstruction charges as we can" mode where they tried to say that a President exerting his Article II powers obstructed justice."

Are...are you taking a Supreme Court case and making it retroactive?

[tylertusta]

Your excerpt doesn't support any of:

"The initial investigation was a sham, created by CIs/undercover agents who probably instigated the reason for the official investigation to start."

Ahem:

"What I said (with one exception) is thoroughly documented" ...

"The exception here is that the FBI allegedly used undercover agents to start investigating the Trump campaign prior to the official start of their investigation- an off-the-books operation that was illegal. So far all we have are reports on what the whistleblowers told Congress and no corroboration."

Are...are you taking a Supreme Court case and making it retroactive?

I don't see where I transferred Trump v United States into the past.

I said that Mueller was operating under the principle that a President exercising Article II powers can constitute obstruction of Justice, and I defended my statement it with Mueller's own words.

It was lawfare that Mueller was engaged in with his obstruction investigation into Trump's actions.

That the Supreme Court later- and correctly!- found Mueller's operating principle on obstruction to be unconstitutional is a happy ending to Mueller's sordid affair. It was not the point I was raising.

[hobie]

It's called an 'investigation', tyler. Politicians conduct them all the time on each other. I think your boy Comer has a few right now he just can't seem to finish.

But I don't recall any indictments of Trump that came of it. So where's the lawfare?

[tylertusta]

Investigations can also be lawfare. They incur great expense for a subject even if no charges result.

[hobie]

"Investigations can also be lawfare". Think about what you just said, look at the current Congressional activities, and then get back to me. I don't recall any liberal here or anywhere crying rivers that Biden/Hunter/Gaetz (disappeared...oops!) are lawfare. Trump has trained you to be a whiny victim like himself...jesus, grow up dude

[Commenter_XY]

Just remember hobie, you said the process is the punishment. Don't cry when the shoe is on the other foot. It will be.

[Commenter_XY]

They are not controversial takes at all, they are the truth.

[David Nieporent]

The FBI and DOJ lied to courts to get warrants.

No. One person lied once, with respect to the third renewal of the warrant.

The initial investigation was a sham, created by CIs/undercover agents who probably instigated the reason for the official investigation to start.

The initial investigation was opened because one of Trump's guys drunkenly bragged to an Australian diplomat in a bar; there was no "CI/undercover agent" involved in that.

[tylertusta]

No. One person lied once, with respect to the third renewal of the warrant.

Where I'm from, we call lies-by-omission a "lie."

The FBI knew certain facts, it knew it had to tell the FISC those facts, and the FBI did not disclose those facts to the FISC.

That is on top of their misrepresenting certain facts in their application as true when those facts were, in actuality, not verified and were in actuality not true.

What you perhaps mean to say is that one person admitted to lying by commission while the rest of the lies-by-commission and -omission were not publicly punished.

The initial investigation was opened because one of Trump's guys drunkenly bragged to an Australian diplomat in a bar; there was no "CI/undercover agent" involved in that.

Prior to the drunken brag incident, Comey had allegedly already sent in undercover agents in an off-the-books operation to investigate and report on the campaign's activities as part of a "fishing expedition."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/oct/29/whistleblower-james-comey-fbi-honey-pot-spies-infi/

[Sarcastr0]

You didn't address DMN's point about the size of the issue here.

Instead, you're monkeying with scope so you can blow this up into something way bigger than it is.

the rest of the lies-by-commission and -omission were not publicly punished.
You need to go into more detail about what you mean here.

As for you Washington Times link. It's caveated all to hell with allegedlies and if trues.
By the Washington Times who isn't shy about making assumptions. Posting it as truth is a lie by omission. You should be careful!

[tylertusta]

The use of the plural "lies" refutes any attempt to say it's a singular "lie" as David says.

If we're talking about monkeying with scope, we could talk about how David is insinuating that the FBI did nearly everything right with their Carter Page warrant applications.

Do you want to keep talking about what the FBI actually did wrong?

Because I'm game.

Posting it as truth is a lie by omission. You should be careful!

Allegedly posting it, you mean.

[Sarcastr0]

You haven't established the other lies by omission you're alleging, so until you do DMN's point stands pretty tall.

I don't like the FBI as an organization for plenty of reasons. But I also like evidence for things, not just stories.

[tylertusta]

I'll take that as an invitation to proceed, then.

First, prior to the first warrant application that was made in October of 2016, the FBI knew that Carter Page was providing information for another US agency (the CIA) regarding Russia and Page's contacts with Russians over multiple years (from 2008 to 2013). The FBI did not include this information in the warrant application.

This is important in regards to the warrant because it the FBI disclosed that Carter Page was actually a reliable source of information for the CIA, then the FBI would be unable to get a warrant approved because of the requirements of 50 USC § 1804 (a)(6)(C) and (a)(6)(E)(ii): 'that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative technique.'

This is why I think FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith altered an email he would later use for the third application. The CIA flatly told the FBI that Page was working with them on several occasions, including in writing, and that was a problem. If Page was actually working with the CIA, then the warrants would be of questionable validity from a statutory view. So, Clinesmith altered it.

[tylertusta]

Second, the FBI omitted information it had on the reliability of a key source (Person 1) behind the Steele Dossier. Person 1's information was relied upon by the FBI and the FISC to determine probable cause. The problem was that Person 1 was identified by Steele himself as embellishing things, and that information was not included in the warrant. The FBI also had an open investigation for Person 1, and that information was not disclosed to the FISC.

[tylertusta]

Third, the FBI knew that Steele was increasingly reliable as a source as Steele spoke with the media but did not inform the FBI of it. Steele met with the FBI in early October of 2016 and informed the FBI agents in Crossfire Hurricane that he shared information with the FBI/US gov't. However, Steele actually shared information with several media outlets a couple of weeks earlier. The FBI found this information after the first warrant application but did not include Steele's unreliability in the subsequent warrant renewals.

[tylertusta]

Fourth, the FBI knew of exculpatory information from an August 2016 recorded conversation between Page and a FBI confidential human source. As part of the conversation, Page denied meeting with several of the Russian individuals, and denied working on the Republican platform regarding Ukraine. These statements by Page were in direct conflict with allegations made in other reports put together by the FBI and would call into question their accuracy.

However, the FBI picked and choose which statements from this conversation to include in their warrant application, excluding his denials entirely while including other pieces that, when taken out of context, would bolster the FBI's claim that Page was working with the Russians.

The exclusion of denials is important for the FISC to determine probable cause. As FISA warrants are not criminal warrants that can be challenged in an adversarial process, the FBI has a duty to include this extra information as this is often the only process an American citizen will ever get. This is actually captured in the Woods Procedures that the FBI is supposed to follow, but those procedures were not followed in the Page application.

[tylertusta]

I can go on. Please let me know if you would like me to.

[David Nieporent]

I can go on. Please let me know if you would like me to.

I wouldn't, because you're showing you don't understand how warrant applications work. I mean, seriously, you're complaining that they didn't include the fact that Page denied wrongdoing? How on earth is that relevant to whether probable cause exists? (Answer: it's not. Everyone, guilty or innocent, denies wrongdoing. It adds absolutely nothing useful to a judge's analysis.)

Moreover, you distort Page's prior dealings with Russia. He was not "working with" the CIA. He was being groomed by a Russian agent,¹ and the U.S. found out about it and approached Page, and then at that point he disclosed his dealings. That he cooperated with the U.S. investigation after the govt approached him and asked about it does not make him some sort of reliable U.S. agent. Note that Page's dealings with Russia were concerning enough that they had previously gotten a FISA warrant against him, in 2014.
​​
​​
¹Who it turned out was making fun behind Page's back of how dumb and gullible Page was.

[tylertusta]

I think I should go on, because you're ignorant of how FISA warrants work. FISA warrants have heightened protections above mere probable cause, both in FBI processes and the statutory requirements. In other contexts exculpatory information may be excluded, but not for FISA.

For FISA, the FBI had to provide even information even if it would "tend to undermine or would be inconsistent with the information being relied upon to support the government's theory, in whole or in part, that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." This is a "basic obligation" that the FBI has for FISA warrants, an obligation that the FBI did not meet with the four Carter Page warrants.

That includes even self-serving exculpatory statements by a US target. These are supposed to be included if only so it can be weighed against other information in determining probable cause.

Regarding a 2014 warrant, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the FBI broke the rules on that one as well.

[David Nieporent]

That includes even self-serving exculpatory statements by a US target. These are supposed to be included if only so it can be weighed against other information in determining probable cause.

You don't cite any statute or court ruling that self-serving denials must be included, for obvious reasons: there is nothing to "weigh against." Can you imagine a judge saying, "Well, you've provided sufficient evidence to establish p.c. that so-and-so is an agent of a foreign power… but wait, now that I know that so-and-so denied it, I no longer think p.c. exists"? While it has relevance in a prosecution, it has no evidentiary value whatsoever in a p.c. context.

In another comment you mention the Woods Procedures, but in addition to the fact that those are internal FBI policies rather than statutory requirements, they (as the name suggests!) contain no substantive requirements about what must be in a warrant application; rather, they say that FBI agents are supposed to compile a file that contains citations for the factual allegations in a warrant application. If the statements in an application are accurate, then the fact that Woods wasn't fully complied with does not undermine the validity of the warrant.

[tylertusta]

Trying quoteblocks again. Edit: Nope. Still not working. Back to italics.

You don't cite any statute or court ruling that self-serving denials must be included, for obvious reasons: there is nothing to "weigh against."

That's not how the FISC sees it. Pay close attention to the words "heightened duty of candor" and "troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information ... which was unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession."

The Court specifically cited the exclusion of Page's self-serving statements from the warrant application along with the other deficiencies identified in the IG's report, some of which I have already described.

The Court also uses the words "misled" and the FBI's actions were "antithetical to the heightened duty of candor" that the FISC requires.

I may have to break out my crayons if you still don't understand that the FISC is not using the same PC standard as you'd see in other contexts.

If the statements in an application are accurate, then the fact that Woods wasn't fully complied with does not undermine the validity of the warrant.

The Woods Procedures, despite being an internal process within the FBI, is the effectuation of the FBI's obligation to the FISC to comply with the statutory and constitutional requirements. If the Woods Procedures are not followed, then there is a good chance that the warrant application does not pass muster just like the Page applications did not.

[Bored Lawyer]

No. One person lied once, with respect to the third renewal of the warrant.

Oh is that all? One little lie to a federal magistrate judge to get around the 4th Amendment? Why that's no worse than a couple of parking tickets.
[/sarc]

[David Nieporent]

It's a crime, and the guy was properly prosecuted for having done so. But yes, one lie — not to a magistrate judge — by one person is not a massive conspiracy by the FBI and DOJ.

[Commenter_XY]

David, the fact remains. The DOJ and the FBI lied to the FISA Court. They lied. IG Horowitz made that clear. Do you dispute that?

What else have the DOJ and FBI lied about? A topic for another day.

[David Nieporent]

David, the fact remains. The DOJ and the FBI lied to the FISA Court. They lied. IG Horowitz made that clear. Do you dispute that?

Again, yes, I dispute that. Clinesmith lied. Clinesmith worked for the FBI. But that doesn't make it fair to say that "the FBI lied."

[Absaroka]

"Clinesmith lied. Clinesmith worked for the FBI. But that doesn't make it fair to say that "the FBI lied.""

Can you flesh out your reasoning a little there? That would seem to indicate you could never say "X lied" where X was a group of two or more.

"Germany lied about being attacked by Poland" - not OK because it was Goebbels or some press secretary or whatever.

"The Republicans lied about ..." - not OK because it was some subset of the Republicans.

"Philip Morris lied about the dangers of tobacco" - not OK, because it was whoever approved the ad, or suggested the ad, or contracted to place the ad, or did the artwork, or someone, but not the company.

This doesn't seem like mainstream usage.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but unless the FBI employee said X, and the FBI immediately said 'nope, that's not right', then 'the FBI lied' seems legit to me.

[Commenter_XY]

And IG Horowitz's report(s)?
The report where he found the FBI lied to the FISA court to get warrants?
The report where they pulled a random sample of FBI warrant requests and found that more than 80% of them had problems?

David...C'mon. The FBI lied to the Court.

[David Nieporent]

Can you flesh out your reasoning a little there? That would seem to indicate you could never say "X lied" where X was a group of two or more.

Of course you could, if two or more people agreed to do it. If Ford mandated that its vehicles be built without antilock brakes because those make its vehicles too expensive, then it would be fair to say that Ford cut corners with respect to safety. If an assembly line worker didn't install antilock brakes because he was lazy and installing them was too much work, then it would not be fair to say that Ford cut corners with respect to safety; it would be fair to say that this particular worker did. The difference is whether the person who made the decision was authorized to do so or not.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but unless the FBI employee said X, and the FBI immediately said 'nope, that's not right', then 'the FBI lied' seems legit to me.

The FBI did not immediately say "Nope, that's not right" because they didn't know about it, because of Page's lie; Page was lying to the FBI!

No FBI official told Clinesmith to lie about Page. That ws a decision unilaterally made by Clinesmith to fool FBI officials. (Clinesmith maintains that he believed the edit he made was accurate, but even if it was, it is indisputable that he did it to fool other people into thinking the CIA had said something that it had not.)

[Sarcastr0]

Determining when an organization intended something, or is responsible, or whether blame lies with an individual is a common legal issue.
It's not the easiest to untangle, and here we're looking for truth not legal establishment.
But the connection between the individual and the organization here seems to be purely that he was in the organization and then a lot of pounding the table.

That's not going to answer the mail.
Those repeating it's obvious over and over just reveal themselves as wanting to believe.

I'd also note the utter lack of interest in reforming anything. Just enthusiasm for generalized scalp taking. Another sign this isn't a real issue, just more tribalism.

[David Nieporent]

Whoops. When I wrote this:

The FBI did not immediately say "Nope, that's not right" because they didn't know about it, because of Page's lie; Page was lying to the FBI!

it was a brain fart; I meant that Clinesmith was lying to the FBI.

[bernard11]

An overdose of RW media is my diagnosis.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Manafort for handing docs to the Russians"

No they didn't. FARA violations and some tax foibles. Proxy for Trump.

Its not illegal to give poll results to foreigners.

"secured indictments for the Russian state actors"
LOL Any trials? Putin and Bibi got "indicted" too!

[Kazinski]

"Russian state actors who hacked Hillary at Trump's request."

That directly contradicts the Mueller report who said their was no collusion or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The charges against Manafort related to when he was working in Ukraine with Tony Podesta, before he was ever brought into the Trump campaign.

Manafort was only part of the Trump campaign March 29 to August 19, 2016. He wouldn't have had access to any official US documents months before Trump was even elected.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not what the Mueller report says, as has been pointed out to you by many, many people.

I believe the language is: "‘We focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.’

You used to know this.

[Kazinski]

How about: "the investigation did not establish members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in its election interference activities."

PG 13 Mueller report.

You never knew this, but you should.

[David Nieporent]

Do you see how those words are entirely different than what you previously wrote? "The investigation did not establish X" is not at all the same thing as "X didn't happen." (It isn't even "X," because you said "collusion," and Mueller expressly said that he wasn't making any findings about collusion because it wasn't a legally-defined term in this context.)

The nonpartisan Mueller investigation and the bipartisan (but GOP-led) SSCI investigation found that the Russians interfered in the election to help Trump win and that Trump was aware of and welcomed this. They just couldn't establish any sort of explicit quid pro quo.

[David Nieporent]

That directly contradicts the Mueller report who said their was no collusion or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The Mueller report said no such thing.

[Commenter_XY]

tyler, the problem I have with articles making arguments like this. The pardon power of the POTUS is absolute, with good reason. The Founders understood (far better than we do) the power of the pardon. I don't want that tool (power of pardon) compromised for future POTUS' a century from now, because of the irresponsible actions in a decade of our history.

POTUS Biden is in office to 1/20/25. Let him use the power of the pardon as he(?) sees fit. Because on 1/21/25, the shoe will be on the other foot.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes and no. The power of the pardon is an important check on other branches of government. And, yes, it cannot be legally questioned by any other branch of government.

But it IS a political issue. The ultimate power in the country is the People -- it's right there in the first three words of the Constitution. The check on abuse of any power is the People, and the political process. If the president abuses his pardon power, the price to pay for that is political. So it's perfectly reasonable for people to react negatively to the pardon (or, perhaps in near future, pardons), and to make the president and his party pay a political price for the abuse.

[Commenter_XY]

BL, of course, you are correct= But it IS a political issue. The ultimate power in the country is the People -- it's right there in the first three words of the Constitution. The check on abuse of any power is the People, and the political process.

Yes, 100%. It is a political issue, the electorate was the jury. I know you agree with that proposition. I understand the larger point you are making.

Maybe I should amend my comment. It is not so much that I don't want the argument to be made, it is that I do not want the arguments to lessen pardon power to gain traction. That is the greater danger, to me.

[Armchair]

I am...disturbed...by this.

The pardon power is necessary. It provides a relief valve for known misdeeds and criminal actions, that nevertheless deserve mercy, for whatever the reason.

The pardon power is not meant to provide a vague immunity from any and all misdeeds, known or unknown. It is an abuse to use it like this, and no longer works as intended, but as a way to hide misdeeds.

I think there is a simple answer however, if Biden chooses to grant a number of people this vague immunity from any and all past crimes. Congress should impeach each and every person who chooses to accept such a pardon, whether or not they are currently employed by the Federal Government or not. Biden's power does not extend to impeachment. A person who accepts such a vague immunity from prosecution does not deserve to be a federal employee...and Congress can ensure they never are.

[Darth Buckeye]

By all means grant blanket pardons for anyone the President wants. That way, those people can no longer plead the 5th Amendment as a reason for not testifying, at least regarding federal crimes. So bring on the pardons. Then bring on the hearings.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are the walls closing in on newly re-elected Miss Fanny?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3249125/fani-willis-subpoena-defiance-tested-georgia-court/

[Riva]

deleted

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Over/under on how long this will be made into a Law & Order plot?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/12/04/unitedhealthcare-ceo-shooting-new-york/

Meanwhile, the jury is still deliberating in the Daniel Penny case. Tricky case, I think, and the jury could go either way.

A few people (including someone I know) are confused about the power of presidents to pardon him.

[hobie]

I'm a bit surprised the Penny case isn't discussed more here. White vigilantes killing people is like catnip for the VC hicks

[hobie]

Of course, stand your ground gets a bit fuzzy when it's some nappy-haired ape shooting tiny, helpless Saint Ashtray Babbitt.

I wonder if every year Trump was successfully elected had a new Planet of the Apes movie come out. A bunch of apes rampaging through Century City in 1972 is like terrifying nonfiction horror for the hayseec. Gets 'em motivated. Like Obama did.

[Frank Drackman]

You're gonna go blind if you keep replying to yourself

[SimonP]

It blipped here. But I think you misunderstand the Russian/Elon/crypto information op. They have no reason to pump MAGA up over racial grievances or "crime" or whatever other triggers the Penny/Neely case carries, at this point in the cycle. Right now it's about dividing Democrats against an effective strategy for the next cycle, promoting panic about the imminent Trump administration in some quarters, and fanning MAGA rage over the slightest Biden scandals, as they move pieces into place for the incoming Cabinet.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"I'm a bit surprised the Penny case isn't discussed more here. White vigilantes killing people is like catnip for the VC hicks"

Hypothetical outrages are the worst. Especially if they didn't actually happen.

Anyway, it seems the jury is literally still out.

[ReaderY]

Every now and then there’s a needle in thw haystack, and Professor Blackman provides an interesting and thoughtful analysis. I think his analysis of yesterday’s oral arguments on the Tennessee law migbt have been one of those occassions. He suggested that Justice Kagan may be planning to join the majority in upholding the law but to give them a Pyrrhic victory. She might offer a concurrence based on a heightened standard for transfender issues such as intermediate scrutiny or “heighened rational basis” rather than standard rational basis, but find some sort of heightened state interest in medicine and minors permitting this particular law to pass muster. If she could get one other justice to join her, then the concurrence would become the opinion lower courts would follow, and it would permit them to apply heightened scrutiny to strike down most laws that transgender people don’t like, making this case an unusual exception rather than the rule.

He also suggested that Justice Barrett had asked some questions that appeared to explore this line of reasoning, and might possibly become a candidate extra vote. Justice Gorsuch, who was silent, might potentially also be.

What do you think of this analysis?

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually think that's plausible. The law here probably doesn't need rational review to survive, and this would strike several of the Justices as a way to get a larger majority.

[ReaderY]

[not guilty]

"I actually think that's plausible. The law here probably doesn't need rational review to survive, and this would strike several of the Justices as a way to get a larger majority."

A ruling with a four justice plurality, two justices concurring in result on narrower grounds, and four dissenting justices produces no majority. Under those circumstances, the opinion concurring in result on the narrowest grounds becomes the opinion of the Court.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Notre Dame Law may disown here if Barrett rules for the trannies.

I can't see her doing this. But as a former law professor, I *can* see her trying to get the other side's best argument so that she can answer it, citing it in her answer.

[David Nieporent]

I don't believe that you are a former law professor.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You really ARE that stupid, David, aren't you?

Or are you just an asshole?

SHE was a law professor, and everyone knows it.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, I know she was a law professor. But what you wrote was that you were a law professor:

"But as a former law professor, I *can* see…"

[Riva]

I'd say I don't believe you could be an attorney but Jackson is on the Supreme Court and can't define what a woman is, despite being a woman herself, and Sotomayor, as demonstrated in recent oral arguments, thinks cutting off someone's schwanzstucker is equivalent to taking an aspirin, so being a lawyer is no guarantee one is not just dumb as F. So, I believe you are a lawyer crazy Dave

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Kagan seemed rather supportive of the challengers when I listened to the oral argument.

Barrett writing the opinion might be the best bet for the challengers. They would likely lose but it would be a more narrow loss & there be some language for future challengers (and sympathetic judges) to use.

Roberts would be willing to sign on since he's not overly concerned about the laws as compared to someone like Alito. If Kavanaugh was serious, he might not like this middle-of-the-road take since it "takes a position" to some degree on the question. OTOH, I don't know how much we should take him seriously.

If Kavanaugh or Gorsuch signed on (Bostock suggests he is not anti-trans & would be okay with a limited opinion), that would give you three justices. Toss in liberals who would go further, Kagan would not have to join the opinion to get the same result using the Marks rule on the decision of the court being what five justices combined supported.

I do see a fractured Court here. It's possible Kagan would join a narrow opinion upholding the law but if "medicine" and "minors" are the test, that sounds open-ended when it comes to trans issues. Trans people more than others need health care & if this badly drawn law is upheld, finding one that will not be might be difficult.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trannies need mental health care.

[Moderation4ever]

The fact is that transvestites usually do get plenty of mental health care. Usually, the decision to adopting the lifestyle opposite of your birth sex is preceded by depression and sometimes suicide attempts. Does it make sense for a person to take a lot of drugs or long hours of therapy when simple changing who they live as relieves the depression and anxiety? I say live and let live. Besides this is such a small group it is not worth the time I think about it. As and example, consider the person with a huge flying phobia. Do we insist they get treated, no. If they chose to live a life where they never fly in an airplane no one care.

[Bob from Ohio]

"plenty of mental health care"

Encouraging crazy views is not "mental health care", its just enabling.

Do we cut off the hand of someone who thinks the Devil is in it?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Anorexia is a better example, Bob.

Do we let skinny girls starve themselves to death?
No we don't!

[Darth Buckeye]

I pretty much agree with you. But there are always exceptions.

Here is one I know of. I had a friend in the 1990s whose right arm was terribly mangled in an industrial accident. The arm never healed correctly and the bones were as brittle as balsa wood. He was constantly suffering broken bones...and it hurt as much as a normal person's broken arm would hurt. He kept the arm in a sling and could not use it. He regularly asked doctors if he could have the arm amputated, but they refused. He is one person I might be willing to allow to have that type of amputation.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Usually, the decision to adopting the lifestyle opposite of your birth sex is preceded by depression and sometimes suicide attempts. "

Followed up by them, too.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, then why do so many of them commit suicide AFTER transition?

[Nelson]

How many? You got a percentage? Even a random guess? Or are you just being Dr. Ed and making shit up.

[Kazinski]

When reading the first half of the oral arguments last night there was a lot of back and forth on whether the sex specific prohibitions like no opposite sex hormones were problematic.

Alito posited a law with a simpler formulation that forbade giving puberty blockers to any minor during the time frame that puberty would commence. And I suppose similar language could be crafted that would forbid giving drugs to minors that would enhance secondary sex characteristics, without going into whether it applied to males to females or females to males.

I actually think you could craft a virtual ban by imposing a 30 window for minors recovering damages with strict liability for any harms physical or mental from treatment when they were too young to make a mature decision about.

In fact you could allow lawsuits retrospectively now, if reopening the window worked for EJean Carroll, why shouldn't it work for a regretful adult mutilated as teen?

[Josh R]

I thought General Prelogar presuasively addressed Alito's hypothetical. She said such a law would be analyzed under Arlington Heights which is whether the law was written with a discriminatory purpose or merely resulted in a disparate impact. She also noted that Tennessee did not write such a law because it would exclude puberty blockers in cases they don't want excluded.

[Bob from Ohio]

"General Prelogar"

How many deployments?

[Josh R]

Since there are likely 5 votes to uphold the law, I don't see what leverage Kagan has. Those 5 (Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett) can decide how broad the holding is without Kagan's influence.

My guess is that Thomas and Alito want a broad ruling that establishes rational-basis review for discrimination on the basis of gender identity in any context. Perhaps the other 3 agree with Thomas/Alito. Perhaps they want to limit rational-basis review to this case because it discriminates on the basis of a medical condition, not sex. Perhaps they conclude rational-basis review applies because otherwise judges would have to deal with complex medical isssues better left to the elected branches.

None of those outcomes would establish anything higher than rational-basis review for discrimination on the basis of gender identity (the former foreclosing more than rational-basis review and the latter two leaving the question answered).

[M L]

The fact that there is even an argument about transing kids is nuts.

[Joe_dallas]

Concur - It takes either a true idiot or someone truely evil to believe that the current treatment promoted by WPATH results in any positive medical or mental health outcomes.

https://archive.is/ug0IF

[TwelveInchPianist]

From a recently filed lawsuit:

She expressed [that life would be easier if she were a boy] to her then-school counselor in some of her sessions discussing her then-declining mental health, who told Clementine that she was transgender and called her parents to tell them the same.

Clementine’s parents, completely surprised by and unaware of how to handle this supposed diagnosis but wanting to care for their daughter, decided to take Clementine to “the experts,” ...Clementine had just turned 12 years old.

Dr. Olson-Kennedy and the team at LA Children’s immediately and unquestioningly “affirmed” Clementine as transgender, and at her very first visit, after mere minutes, Dr. Olson-Kennedy diagnosed Clementine with gender dysphoria and recommended surgical implantation of puberty blockers. Dr. Olson-Kennedy performed no mental health assessment. She did not ask about things like past trauma, abuse, or mental health struggles or diagnoses. She involved no other providers or health care professionals in this purported gender dysphoria diagnosis and recommendation for puberty blockers. Instead, she simply took a handful of platitudinal statements from a scared, confused, and traumatized barely-12-year-old girl to give a life-altering diagnosis and handed her the prescription pad. In short, it took Dr. Olson Kennedy and the team at LA Children’s a single visit to send Clementine down a life-altering, traumatic, body-disfiguring, and irreversibly damaging path of transgender medicalization.

Under Defendants’ “care,” from the ages of 12 to 19, Clementine had a puberty blocker surgically inserted into her left arm at age 12, was prescribed “gender-affirming” cross-sex hormones from ages 13 to 19, had a “gender-affirming” double mastectomy at only 14 years old, and was urged to get a “gender-affirming” hysterectomy as a 17-year-old. She did not experience any long-term relief from these gender dysphoria “treatments.” Rather, her mental health progressively declined, as she proceeded into depression, anxiety, psychosis, hallucinations, self-harm, and suicidal ideation and even attempted suicide, none of which she had experienced prior to her gender medicalization.

[not guilty]

As I wrote yesterday, if the Tennessee statute is upheld, and the reasoning is 4-2-3, it will matter hugely whether the two justices concur with the four or concur only in the judgment. When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds. Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977).

If four justices uphold the statute applying rational basis analysis and two justices concur in result, opining that transgender status is a quasi-suspect classification but the statute nonetheless survives heightened scrutiny, the latter will be the holding of the Court under Marks, and federal courts will be obliged to apply heightened scrutiny to transgender classification going forward.

[Commenter_XY]

This would be counter to CJ Roberts' historical record, which is consensus. = ...and the reasoning is 4-2-3, it will matter hugely whether the two justices concur with the four or concur only in the judgment.

[Josh R]

He didn't have consensus in NFIB (the Obamacare case). There were five votes for upholding the insurance requirement under the Taxing Power (a majority opinion), but his lone opinion that the requirement was not valid under the Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clauses was the narrowest opinion. And since there were 5 votes total (*) for that proposition (Roberts plus the dissenters), most believe it is binding precedent that Congress cannot force someone into commerce.

(*) As I wrote in response to not guilty yesterday, his conclusion (heightened scrutiny for discrimination on the basis of gender identity becomes binding precedent) requires the 3 dissenters to agree with the 2 concurring in the judgment that heightened scrutiny applies (that's likely to happen, but I think it unlikely that 2 will agree to heightened scrutiny and uphold the law). Else, there aren't 5 votes for that proposition and it is not settled law what happens in that case.

[not guilty]

Josh R, you are still wrong in your application of Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977):

When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, "the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds . . . ." Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 169 n.15 (1976) (opinion of STEWART, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ.). [Emphasis added.]

This principle has since been reiterated numerous times by SCOTUS. The dissenting opinions mean bupkis.

[Josh R]

Again, you are wrong per Hughes v. United States in which one of the presented questions was:

Whether this Court's decision in Marks means that the concurring opinion in a 4–1–4 decision represents the holding of the Court where neither the plurality's reasoning nor the concurrence's reasoning is a logical subset of the other."

The Court did not answer the question lesaving it unresolved (including whether the dissent has any bearing).

[not guilty]

That doesn't help your case, Josh. Per Hughes v. United States, 584 U.S.___, 138 S.Ct. 1765, 1772 (2018):

The first two questions, relating to Marks, are as follows: (1) "Whether this Court's decision in Marks means that the concurring opinion in a 4–1–4 decision represents the holding of the Court where neither the plurality's reasoning nor the concurrence's reasoning is a logical subset of the other"; and (2) "Whether, under Marks, the lower courts are bound by the four-Justice plurality opinion in Freeman, or, instead, by Justice SOTOMAYOR's separate concurring opinion with which all eight other Justices disagreed." Pet. for Cert. i.

The Hughes Court, however, expressly found it unnecessary to reach the questions regarding the applicability of Marks. 138 S.Ct. at 1772 ("So it will be unnecessary to consider questions one and two despite the extensive briefing and careful argument the parties presented to the Court concerning the proper application of Marks."). That means that the precedent established by Marks and restated time and time and time again thereafter is unaffected by Hughes, topside to bottom.

[Josh R]

It's not an established precedent when you have a circuit split. As noted in Hughes, CA1, CA3, CA4, CA5, CA6, CA7, CA8 and CA10 agree with you. But, CA9 and CADC disagree.

[not guilty]

Uh, vertical stare decisis is first semester law school stuff. The Ninth Circuit and D.C. Circuit cases referenced in Hughes relate to the proper application of Marks to a solitary Supreme Court decision, Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011), regarding application of federal sentencing guidelines. The existence of some lower federal court outliers does not negate the precedential effect of a SCOTUS decision that has been reaffirmed time and time again.

[Josh R]

I don't find anything in the cases that suggest CA9 or CADC feel the application of Marks to federal sentencing guidelines is a one off that can be distinguished from your interpretation of what Marks stands for. They established a different precedent in those circuits than what you believe vertical stare decisis required of them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, remember Baake...

[not guilty]

Baake is a good example of what I am talking about. The Court split 4-1-4, and Justice Powell's opinion which directed that the plaintiff be admitted to medical school but reversed the portion of the lower court's judgment enjoining the defendants from according any consideration to race in its admissions process became the controlling opinion, even though four justices concurred in judgment as to parts of the Powell opinion, while the other four justices concurred in judgment as to the remaining parts thereof.

[David Nieporent]

Well, remember Baake...

Is that any relation to Bakke?

[not guilty]

Right. The correct spelling is indeed Bakke.

[ReaderY]

I continue to think that, because this country has a long history of people claiming to be persecuted victims of other people’s animosity, it is not the role of the Court to decide who is the persecuted and who the persecutor. It’s been wrong a number of times, most famously with slavery.

I think, for this reason, that only categories with textual mention in the Constitution should get heightened scrutiny. I think all other categories should be rational basis.

When the Supreme Court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Atlanta Hotel, it upheld it as a species of morals legislation, no different from laws against gambling and prostitution, a matter for legislatures to decide and none of the court’s business whether it’s good policy or not. I think this is the correct way to look at these types of laws from a constitutional point of view.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sex gets a textual mention, so I suppose since trans laws are sex classifications among other things, heightened scrutiny should be in place. Age, btw, also gets a textual mention, and it generally receives rational basis review.

The Civil Rights Act was upheld as Commerce Clause legislation. The Court determined there was a rational basis. It was "its business" to determine it was constitutional at least to a minimal degree.

[not guilty]

"When the Supreme Court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Atlanta Hotel, it upheld it as a species of morals legislation, no different from laws against gambling and prostitution, a matter for legislatures to decide and none of the court’s business whether it’s good policy or not. I think this is the correct way to look at these types of laws from a constitutional point of view."

Au contraire. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was upheld as a regulation of interstate commerce. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).

[ReaderY]

It was upheld as an exercise of the federal power to legislate morality in interstate commerce.

See the paragraph beginning

“That Congress was legislating against moral wrongs in many of these areas rendered its enactment no less valid.”

if Congress had found the exact opposite, that putting obstacles in the path of people who need to be around people of their own race or sex to be productive and mentally healthy is disruptive to interstate commerce qnd had banned discrimination against such people in interstate commerce, the rationale of Atlanta Motel would have upheld it. That’s what I mean by saying the reasoning was neutral.

[Josh R]

The Court's analysis was limited to the federalism question. Nothing in the decision suggests anything about how to apply the Equal Protection Clause to a state law.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Supreme Court said that Congress has power over interstate commerce and it could regulate it to legislate moral wrongs as well.

This doesn't erase other constitutional barriers.

States defended segregation laws and bans on interracial marriage on moral grounds. That didn't make the laws necessarily constitutional.

Likewise, if laws that discriminate against trans people (a form of sex discrimination, "sex" specifically cited in the Constitution) are upheld on moral grounds, they still might be held unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court also (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas) protected the right of people to make certain moral decisions themselves. These private moral choices are protected liberty interests.

"Morality" isn't as open-ended of a path to governmental power as you have repeatedly put it out to be.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>The new chief of the Los Angeles police force said his department is working with consulate offices for Mexico and other Central American countries to draft a plan to protect immigrants ahead of the Trump administration’s plans for mass deportations.

https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/southern-california/politics/2024/12/04/lapd-chief-says-he-will-work-to-protect-immigrants

A local government official working with foreign governments to subvert Federal law & policy is best described as "engaging in _______________"?

What goes in that blank?

[Longtobefree]

Federal tax dollars?

[Commenter_XY]

"fulfilling the Democrat Party 2024 immigration platform"? = fill in the blank

[Brett Bellmore]

Democrat Adam Gray captures California’s 13th US House District, ousting Republican Rep. John Duarte

Interesting that, in 'red' states, extended counting in tight races goes either way, while in 'blue' states, the longer the counting goes on, the more likely the race is to "flip" to the Democrat...

Election rules default to being decided by the state, but are subject to Congressional over-ride. I think California's are so radically insecure that such an over-ride is in order.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It takes them a month to "count" ballots, because they aren't counting ballots. They're "curing" ballots.
Nancy Pelosi's daughter has been all over TikTok bragging about how they're saving democracy by "curing" ballots.

[Nelson]

Guess who doesn’t know what curing means in an electoral context? Nazi Jesus, that’s who.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Interesting that, in 'red' states, extended counting in tight races goes either way, while in 'blue' states, the longer the counting goes on, the more likely the race is to "flip" to the Democrat..."

Interesting that a nutjob would pull yet another conspiracy straight out of his ass.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ok, produce a D/R breakdown of the "cured" ballots.

[Sarcastr0]

Beyond your unsupported tin foiling, are you even sure about your 'interesting' trend or are you taking a few examples and extrapolating?

[hobie]

You should add that to the conspiracy list you're having NASA compile for you, Brett.

[Kazinski]

Congress should set a hard date that no votes can be counted after 14 days past the election, in congressional and Presidential elections that is.

[Roger S]

One day is enough time to count all the ballots. Lots of countries do it.

[Commenter_XY]

Remember, the leaders of blue states are challenged (cognitively? demographically?). Two weeks ought to be sufficient. For the time being.

[SimonP]

Brett doesn't like an election result favorable to Democrats, calls for the result to be tossed by Republicans. News at 11.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm actually calling for California to be forced to reform their election system so that they can finish counting within a week or so of the election. The current setup in California is insane: They send mail in ballots to everybody and their pet cat, and then sort the resulting mess out after the election.

[SimonP]

I'm all for a uniform process for federal elections. If Congress wanted to, they could devise legislation that imposes rules and deadlines, precisely like those you seem to think are essential to avoiding manipulation and corruption.

Absent that, I see no reason for Congress to decide, without any evidence, that California's lengthy process is per se corrupt and unreliable, and refuse to seat the representative that California has determined, pursuant to its own laws and processes, has been elected by Californians.

Consider - what if a Democratic Congress were to decide, on the basis of various reports of voters leaving lengthy lines at polling sites after voting officially closed, of absentee ballots being submitted by applicable deadlines but not being processed, of error-prone purges of voting rolls, among other things, not to seat a Republican narrowly elected by a Houston district? Wouldn't they be just as justified as you are saying Congress would be, here, in rejecting Gray?

[Brett Bellmore]

Where did I say they'd be justified in rejecting Gray? I'm saying that California's election procedures should be reformed going forward so that this doesn't happen again.

[SimonP]

You referred to a congressional "over-ride" in the context of a specific race. You didn't say anything about legislation applicable to future contests.

[Commenter_XY]

You're good with voter ID, then = I'm all for a uniform process for federal elections. 🙂

[SimonP]

I'm fine with a reasonable, fair, and uniform voter ID standard, established sufficiently in advance that everyone who needs to get an ID for an election is able to do so. The rules should also be relatively stable, not re-engineered after every election to achieve a more favorable (to those in power) electoral result.

Any national voter ID regime needs to come with sufficient protections so that Republicans don't use technical deficiencies to disqualify poor, elderly, or itinerant voters. Signature matching, for instance, is too subjective and prone to abuse; address matching doesn't reflect the reality in this country that many people move without updating their driver's license; categories of voter IDs should be broad enough to serve the putative core purpose of validating voter's identity without unnecessarily burdening people who don't have ready access to their birth certificates, other supporting documents, governmental offices, etc.

Basically, our goal with election administration should be to enfranchise a representative sample of the electorate. The rules should not be designed in a way that favors or disfavors certain groups of legal voters, or empowers political officials or unaccountable election board administrators to put their thumbs on the scale. I think we can design such rules in a way that addresses conservatives' putative concerns about election security, without biasing the vote one way or the other. The problem is that Republicans don't tend to favor that - because it would prevent them from engaging in precisely the kinds of suppression they favor.

[Martinned2]

Yes. Being required to show ID to vote is perfectly normal. But that requires that getting ID is sufficiently easy.

(The UK version was hilarious. Instead of just requiring everyone to show their passport or driving licence, which would have required the government to make passports a lot cheaper than they currently are, the Tories decided to allow a whole bunch of other forms of ID too. But purely coincidentally they forgot to mention lots of things that only young voters would have, like student ID, while including lots of forms of ID that particularly old voters would have, like the UK equivalent of a social security card.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

DeSantis as Secretary of Defense.
https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-mulls-replacing-pete-hegseth-with-florida-gov-ron-desantis-8f682ad2

That would be interesting -- he would get rid of the Trannies on day one...

[John F. Carr]

And the lawsuits might be resolved by day 1,001.

[Dr. Ed 2]

On what grounds?

The DOD has the right to tell the troops what their attire shall be and what kind of uniform they will wear. So there is no right violated by saying those born male must have short hair and wear a tie, those born female must wear a dress (for Class A) uniform.

Trump can fire officers just like Obama/Biden did.

It takes an act of Congress to change the UCMJ, but the Dem Congressmen in red districts won't object.

End of discussion.

[John F. Carr]

What grounds are needed? Some judges, and it only takes one, will find a right to something or other.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Would a Federal District Court even have jurisdiction over the military? It's all JAG until you get to the Court of Military Appeals and I don't think that a JAG judge would dare rule against orders.

[ducksalad]

I think you're wrong. Back when the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was in force, several lawsuits about it were heard in civilian courts. They were not cases of someone accused of disobedience, they were cases disputing the policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell#Court_challenges

When a transgendered person not yet in the military
files a lawsuit claiming they can't enlist because of the allegedly discriminatory conditions, it'll be heard in civilian court.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Would a Federal District Court even have jurisdiction over the military? and I don't think that a JAG judge would dare rule against orders.

Yes.

It's all JAG until you get to the Court of Military Appeals

JAG judges and the Court of Military Appeals adjudicate courts-martials. They do not and cannot hear civil lawsuits against the Department of Defense.

I don't think that a JAG judge would dare rule against orders.

One of the fundamental doctrines of military law is to make sure that military judges don’t feel pressured to rule the way the chain of command wants.

Other than that, great comment!

[Dr. Ed 2]

When was the last time that a military lawyer threw out a regulation?

[bernard11]

Just like those "judges" in Texas tend to do.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that would be interesting, and could be the lead in to a Vance/DeSantis ticket in 2028, which I think is probably the best we're likely to see.

[SimonP]

God, you're a moron. You think DeSantis accepts a DOD seat, just to be Vance's VP? You think he's just going to line up and "wait his turn" for a chance in 2036?

No - if Trump picks DeSantis as DOD, the point will be to create a rival in the power structure. That's his MO. Vance and DeSantis will compete against each other, and not against Trump, for coverage, notoriety, influence, whatever. They'll hate each other by the end.

We can see Vance's influence in some of Trump's bona fide "populist" picks so far. Vance understands what he's trying to do - mimic right-wing populists in Europe who have paired anti-immigrant sentiment with populist policies. That is not, and has never been, DeSantis's approach to governance. His approach focuses on conventional Republican, corrupt-elite politics, paired with a heightened emphasis on social issues.

Trump's win reflects his ability to bridge that gap. Vance represents an extension of Trump's populist instinct and a potential elevation of it into retail politics. DeSantis is just an establishment pick waiting in the wings for Trump to keel over from a heart attack. They won't run together, not without one of them dramatically pivoting to a different politics.

[ducksalad]

Vance is certainly capable of "dramatically pivoting to a different politics". But even if he does, I think you're right that DeSantis isn't inclined to be Vance's VP.

Assuming we have a normal election in 2028, they'll very likely be rivals in the primary, and it'll be harshly contested, enough to rule out a kiss-and-make-up at the end of the season.

[Brett Bellmore]

I certainly hope it's harshly contested; Harris, and Ford before her, demonstrated the perils of nominating somebody who didn't have to win a primary process.

[not guilty]

Are you claiming that Gerald Ford did not run in primaries prior to being nominated in 1976?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Right, I seem to remember a man named Reagan running in '76.

Now a Ford/Reagan ticket -- well, at best, Reagan would still have been POTUS from 81 to 89, like he was.

[SimonP]

Vance is certainly capable of "dramatically pivoting to a different politics".

Sure, though I don't think he sees much political future in being just the next generation of McConnellites, now nastier and with lifts.

[Commenter_XY]

And yet, you maintain Pres Trump is a blooming idiot (as well as his supporters). That is actually pretty funny, SimonP. Did you intend the high brow humor?

[SimonP]

I don't think Trump's success in appealing to voters has anything to do with his thinking about what they find appealing, and delivering. He just follows his gut. That it is appealing to total dunces is evident from present company.

I don't see any inconsistency there.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've already commented on how stupid it is to believe your own trash talk. Just consider me to have explained that yet again.

[SimonP]

Thanks, but I'll accept criticism only from someone who doesn't invoke conspiracies every time reality contradicts their worldview.

You're thoroughly pickled, Brett. Maybe you need to take a break. Get into woodworking.

[SRG2]

Well, he meets some of the requirements for a Trump pick - unqualified and well-known. How loyal he would be is a separate issue.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ok, I'll bite, how is a former congressman and the governor of the third/fourth [?] larges state "unqualified" to administer a cabinet department?

[SRG2]

For the same reason that a chemistry professor is unqualified to head up the classics faculty, you idiot.

[Bob from Ohio]

Not really a response. Ex-congressmen and ex-governors have filled many, many cabinet posts.

He served too so knows more than you do about the military.

[SRG2]

You're really determined to remain an idiot, I see.

Do all cabinet posts require the same knowledge and experience?

And having served in the military doesn't inherently qualify you to run it. I'm sure DeSantis knows more about training, how to fire a rifle, and how to avoid being shot than I do. That's different from the level of knowledge to run the DoD. Does being a chemistry undergrad qualify you to run the science faculty?

[David Nieporent]

You are trying to hold DeSantis to a new standard. Plenty of SecDefs have political rather than Pentagon backgrounds, including Chuck Hagel, Bill Cohen, Don Rumsfeld (the first time), Les Aspin, Dick Cheney, Cap Weinberger…

[SRG2]

From their Wikipedia bios:

Chuck HageL Hagel previously served as a professor at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, chairman of the Atlantic Council, and co-chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board.

William Cohen: While in the Senate, Cohen served on both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee (1979–1997) and was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee 1983–1991 and again 1995–1997, serving as Vice Chairman from 1987 to 1991.[14] He also participated in the drafting of several notable laws related to defense matters, including the Competition in Contracting Act (1984), the Montgomery G.I. Bill Act (1984), the Goldwater–Nichols Act (1986), the Intelligence Oversight Reform Act (1991), the Federal Acquisition Reform Act (1996), the Nunn–Cohen Act Amendment creating the United States Special Operations Command,[15] and the Information Technology Management Reform Act, also known as the Clinger–Cohen Act (1996).

Rumsfeld: (in addition to cabinet level posts, etc.) In February 1973, Rumsfeld left Washington to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium. He served as the United States' Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Council and the Defense Planning Committee, and the Nuclear Planning Group. In this capacity, he represented the United States in wide-ranging military and diplomatic matters, and was asked to help mediate a conflict on behalf of the United States between Cyprus and Turkey

Les Aspin: By 1985, when Aspin became chairman of the Armed Services Committee,[13] he was recognized as a leading defense authority

Cheney didn't have much defence experience - he'd been WH chief of staff and had a number of committee assignments, etc. He onlybecame SoD because Tower was rejected,

Weinberger had some military experience but was more of a high-level administrator
.
So it seems that defence experience was the rule, not the exception, and the Cheney and Weinberger already had experience at or near the top.

My point remains.,

[Commenter_XY]

No, I think BfO is demanding you name your standard, and defend it. You cannot, as David pointed out.

[SRG2]

And I think my post above points to it.

[hobie]

Would DeSantis' ego allow him to be sloppy seconds?

[ThePublius]

What a disgusting thing to say. You are such a strident partisan, you can't even remain civil.

[hobie]

Should I have used the term 'also ran' instead? You're gonna need a surgeon to remove them pearls from your hand, Publius.

[Frank Drackman]

Amazingly D-Sanctimonious got more votes in the Primary than Cums-a-lot, Sloppy Seconds? What does the “Second Gentleman Muff-Dive into, “Sloppy 502’ds?”

Frank

[SRG2]

Careful you don't injure yourself by clutching your pearls too tightly.

[Frank Drackman]

I gave my Pearls to your daughter, a whole necklace actually

[Mr. Bumble]

Cue Z Z Top.

[Kazinski]

Sen. Mike Lee says that there are currently no firm no votes against Pete Hegseth.

Lindsey Graham who was one of the skeptics is now saying he gives zero credibility to anonymous allegations, they should step forward publicly or be ignored.

However DeSantis would be an excellent pick, and easily confirmable. And certainly signals that whoever Trump.nominates is going to root DEI out of the Pentagon.

However I am glad that Trumps nominees are being looked at critically by the GOP Senate, he had some lousy picks in his first term, and that is one of Trump's biggest weaknesses.

[Bored Lawyer]

This latest crew is very much a mixed bag. Some excellent, some mediocre, some stink.

[Brett Bellmore]

You ask me, some of his lousy picks in his first term were actually forced on him by the Senate.

[Mr. Bumble]

He made the mistake of thinking because he won the presidency he'd get some good advice and guidance from the RINO swamp people. That's how Christopher Wray became FBI director (recommended by Stay Puft R[H]INO Chris Christie).
As the song says, "we won't get fooled again".

[SRG2]

Trump prefers loyalists, celebrities and family members over qualified people.

[Roger S]

Not true. Many of Trump's picks have a history of criticizing him, or even running against him. Two of them have even spent their whole lives being hard-core Democrats.

[SRG2]

Sorry. Trump generally prefers loyalists, celebrities and family members over qualified people.

[SimonP]

Yes, the Russian asset in charge of our spy agencies, and the anti-vaxxer in charge of public health. He sure knows how to pick 'em.

I know that you will pretend that Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis's past histories against Trump, swinging to full-throated support, just reflects how awesome and magnanimous Trump is, and how even his critics have had a genuine change of heart. But let's be real and leave aside the flim-flam. You know these people dislike Trump and are just finding a path for their political careers in his orbit. Do you think they can be trusted in these positions?

[Roger S]

Biden only appointed people loyal to him.

[SimonP]

I'll take that as a "no."

[Frank Drackman]

So did JFK

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Do contemporaneous hospital records of a rape examination count as, "anonymous allegations?"

[Frank Drackman]

Seriously? after Lloyd Austin, Lloyd Christmas would be an improvement.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts schools are allegedly using bad reading education materials. A class action lawsuit has been filed in state court, not against the schools but the companies that sell reading curricula to schools. The plaintiffs want to be paid for private reading lessons. The plaintiffs want an injunction requiring the companies to sell better products.

Parents can and do make special education demands on school districts. These cases tend to be resolved with non-disclosure agreements. They don't put lawyers' names in the papers and dollars in the bank accounts like a big class action case against a company with deep pockets.

https://www.apmreports.org/story/2024/12/04/lawsuit-calls-heinemann-reading-curriculum-deceptive-defective

Massachusetts voters recently ended standardized testing. Now if Johnny can't read the teachers can still give him an A and everybody will be happy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is very interesting for two reasons -- in addition to the SPED suits being sealed, they also come out of the District (and hence taxpayer's) pocket.

Product liability for curriculum -- this is very interesting and (to the best of my knowledge) has NEVER been done before. 40 years ago, there were a whole bunch of educational publishers, now there are only about three or four big ones, which makes this more profitable.

Although SPED suits are generally brought on a fee basis, and that's not speculative money.

As an aside, the MCAS was not dumped, only that the individual district is able to replace it with its own assessment. I compare this to abolishing the Registry of Motor Vehicles and letting each police chief give his own driving licenses based on whatever he thinks should be on the driving exam. Bedlam quickly ensues...

[Satchmo_Lives]

I worked for one of the biggest textbook publishers. If you know how "HAL" was named in 2001: A Space Odyssey, you will know my company name INI.

Texas was replacing their later American history books and were reviewing submissions from publishers as to which ones were acceptable for districts to adopt.

My company had about a page and half (removing pictures) on the 2016 election. A full page was dedicated to what people thought about Trump. He was a misogynist. He was a xenophobe. He was a racist. He was a homophobe. Of course it is 100% true. People did think those things. Hell, they still do.

A quarter of a page was dedicated to what people thought about Hillary--with caveats. The republicans thought she violated the law by having classified documents on her home computer (gross understatement of a hidden server) . Conservatives thought she should have been prosecuted and pressured Comey to reevaluate Hillary's conduct.

Another quarter page was dedicated to the results. Trump won X amount of electoral votes. More people voted for Hillary. Race hinged on ____ states. Trump won _____ state by only X votes.

You can't argue the truthfulness of the history book. Everything they said was factual. Is it an unbiased recounting? Did the material attempt to leave a baseline of facts from which students can reflect and draw their own conclusions regarding the 2016 election? Or, were they led to come to a conclusion about the candidates and the result?

[Roger S]

No, it is not truthful for a history book to have a page on what people thought about Trump, and only include the negative opinions. At least half the page should describe why people liked him and voted for him.

[John F. Carr]

My high school American history textbook stopped two years before the present. We didn't go all the way to the end of the book. Our history may have ended a decade in the past when we started to remember what happens. That was fine. (I think my earliest political memory is hearing that Nixon was resigning and that this was important.)

Science at the high school level also doesn't need to be ultra-modern. "New study says everything you knew is wrong" is clickbait, not classroom material.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I still remember the "someday man will land on the moon" in the science books, this five years AFTER the moon landing....

[Frank Drackman]

The 1957 Science text from my Alabama High Screw-el had an Artists impression of what a Hurricane might look like from Earth orbit, Artist had the spiral shape right, but had no idea how perfectly symmetric they are, also mentioned that the US was planning on orbiting a satellite later in the year.

[Kazinski]

Any parent that is depending on the schools to make sure their kids are adequate readers are losers looking for excuses for failing.

My kids did go to public schools, but I also read to them almost every night, and gave them reading assignments during vacations.

[Frank Drackman]

Saw a Veteran who's an FBI Special Agent,
says he spends hours every day on the Internets, pretending to be a 12 yr old girl, talking to perverts.
Of course then he has to go out and do his FBI job.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

I've often wondered about cops who pretend to be 12 year old girls and talk to perverts.

[Kazinski]

Sarcastro bizarrely claimed a few.days ago that the whistleblowers who called out the DOJ and IRS for going soft on Hunter "evaporated".

"IRS Whistleblowers Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapley and Special Agent Joe Ziegler made the following statement after President Biden pardoned his son, Hunter Biden.

"No amount of lies or spin can hide the simple truth that the Justice Department nearly let the President's son off the hook for multiple felonies. We did our duty, told the truth, and followed the law. Anyone reading the President's excuses now should remember that Hunter Biden admitted to his tax crimes in federal court, that Hunter Biden's attorneys have targeted us for our lawful whistleblower disclosures, and that we are suing one of those attorneys for smearing us with false accusations.

"President Biden has the power to put his thumb on the scales of justice for his son, but at least he had to do it with a pardon explicitly for all the world to see rather than his political appointees doing it secretly behind the scenes. Either way it is a sad day for law abiding taxpayers to witness this special privilege for the powerful."

https://x.com/EMPOWR_us/status/1863392448954671336

Looks like they are still here, and about to get a new IRS commissioner too.

[Sarcastr0]

The lack of GOP action, or under-oath testimony, or documentary proof these people have promised is what it looks like when these people are put to the question. They evaporate. And end up as right-wing fodder to hook fools like you.

The fact that your proof that they're totally still around is a twitter account from a right-wing AstroTurf org [their entire leadership worked for or with Chuck Grassley] would give pause to anyone who cared about the legitimacy of their sources.

[Kazinski]

Say what you will, but the DOJ was going to let Hunter, who is an admitted felon, off without a conviction or meaningful consequences, Comer and the whistle blowers brought the whitewash out in public and forced Joe to pardon Hunter for his well documented and publicly admitted crimes.

The fact that Joe pardoned Hunter not just for those crimes but anything he did between 2014 and 2024 certainly bears out Comer's contention that there were other crimes too.

The real tell will be if Joe pardons his brother Jim Bush too.

[Sarcastr0]

Say what you will, but

You're really taking a page from Brett's book that the only explanation for something MUST be bad faith.

The fact that Joe pardoned Hunter not just for those crimes but anything he did between 2014 and 2024 certainly bears out Comer's contention that there were other crimes too.
Same thing here. You can't think of other reasons why>

This kind of insisting X supports only Y without doing any work to prove the only is not a great path to go down.

[Kazinski]

Its kind of amusing to contrast above where you are still insisting Trump colluded with Russia despite that a special prosecutor with massive FBI and DOJ resources couldn't find any evidence it happened, because they didn't completely rule it out, with Comers limited investigation with just congressional staff, no FBI or DOJ support because they didn't prove their allegations beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a jury they had no authority to empanel.

[Sarcastr0]

Its kind of amusing to contrast above where you are still insisting Trump colluded with Russia despite that a special prosecutor with massive FBI and DOJ resources couldn't find any evidence it happened
Both DMN and I explained why 'couldn't find any evidence' is nonsense. You didn't address our comments. And yet here you repeat your error. At this point it's not an error.
Quit lying.

The thing about Comer was his lies. His many, many lies. Which were proven when full transcripts were released. Or when his promised evidence never materialized. Or when his whistleblowers never ended up testifying under oath, and are now at some twitter AstroTurf joint.

You're going to twist yourself into as much a conspiracy theorist as Brett.

[Commenter_XY]

Uh huh. The pardon and the time period speak for itself. I fully expect a pardon for James Biden. He is, after all, a Bi(D)en.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Uh huh. The pardon and the time period speak for itself. I fully expect a pardon for James Biden. He is, after all, a Bi(D)en."

That's what someone who is too lazy and too stupid to make a coherent, compelling argument says.

I suppose the short version of that is: you.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"The fact that Joe pardoned Hunter not just for those crimes but anything he did between 2014 and 2024 certainly bears out Comer's contention that there were other crimes too."

As I had to explain to one of your fellow idiots (TIP) just a few days ago, it is a way to protect Hunter from Trump's fixation and desire to go after the Bidens regardless of whether there is actually evidence enough to support further indictments.

You don't even think of that possibility, because you're a partisan idiot, which says a lot considering how often Trump has threatened people with exactly that kind of retribution.

[Brett Bellmore]

And as we explained to you, that's just an excuse for the President whose DOJ actually DID target his political foe to immunize his criminal son for more than a decade long crime spree.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It truly is remarkable how illiterate you right-wing dipshits are.

Read what I responded to, and then read my comment again, and ask yourself whether your remark is in any way, shape or form relevant to either statement.

Beyond that, not that it will do any fucking good with a retard such as yourself, but Trump was not targeted by Biden's DOJ. His crimes were plain for everyone whose head isn't up their ass to see.

[bernard11]

Are you seriously claiming that Comer is an honest man?

That's utterly laughable. He's been exposed as a big league liar repeatedly.

[John F. Carr]

South Australia now requires a special license to drive a supercar. More specifically, to drive a car with a power to weight ratio of more than 267 kW per tonne (330 hp per ton). Approximately, that means more than 500 hp.

The license costs less than $100. You have to sit through an online course where they tell you not to disengage the traction control, emergency braking, and similar features that may be available on the car. Disabling these features on a public road is illegal. You are allowed to take a supercar on a test drive if you stay below 100 km/h and somebody from the dealer is sitting in the passenger seat to remind you not to crash.

If you drive a recent model car the government will tell you if it requires a "U" license. For older cars or modified cars the driver is responsible for knowing the power to weight ratio.

New drivers (provisional licence) are already restricted to 130 kW per tonne.

Remember, left pedal slows you down, right pedal gently speeds you up, right pedal hard spins you around.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is not a bad idea.

Japan issues motorcycle licenses based on the size of the engine, which is why a 100 cc bike is actually 99.something CC, etc.
Here in the US you can take your road test on a 100 CC bike (I did) and then go buy a bike with any sized engine.

The same thing is done with the Class D (in MA, Class C in others states) license -- the NON-CDL license for up to 26,000 lbs (I think). People take the test in a compact car, and then are licensed to drive SUVs and box trucks. (Most people reading this have such a license, look under "class" on the license.)

You don't have to know how to back with your mirrors (or how to use the right side mirror), why to do if your load shifts, or why you don't want it to and why you should balance your load, etc.

It was different 70 years ago when everyone basically drove the same vehicle -- cars and small trucks on the same frame and roughly same weight. But now....

And left pedal, hard, can spin you around. I'm amazed at the number of people who brake in curves...

[John F. Carr]

I remember when the Audi TT had to be recalled because people were lifting throttle during high speed turns and wrecking. Audi misjudged its customers.

There is a gentle curve at the bottom of a small hill, like 35 feet top to bottom, near my driveway. I am amazed at the number of people who brake for that little curve.

[Frank Drackman]

When I bought my 88 Suzuki GSXR750 Alabama didn’t even require a separate License for Motor-Sickles, my 82 CX500 was fun, but all the kids were blowing past me in their Crotch Rockets, so I got one too, only fun if you were going 150mph, sold it as soon as it was paid off

Frank

[hobie]

Finally cracking down on all them Mad Max thugs

[SRG2]

Remember that older supercars have three pedals

[Brett Bellmore]

If it doesn't look like this, I'm not calling it a "supercar".

[Mr. Bumble]

Yeah, still waiting along with energy too cheap to meter.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It actually IS to cheap to meter, by 1950 standards.

Back then they had someone manually read the meter, and then someone manually calculate your bill (no computers then) and someone manually type it up and mail it to you. And when you paid it, someone had to pull your file and credit your account.

Today, they drive down the street and the computer in the truck reads all the meters, and then all the billing and accounting is done by computer. Pay on line and they don't even need a human to read your paper check and key the amount paid in.

If they still had to do it the 1950 way, it would be too cheap to meter -- or metering it too expensive to do.

[SRG2]

Do you recall the opening tagline? Greatest tagline in TV history, IMO

[Satchmo_Lives]

(What is the recognized acronym here at Volokh for something along the lines of "I am not a lawyer and have never played one on TV"?)

In Edison, New Jersey the town council said they were going to ban all props during public comment because they are a distraction (it took two days to reverse it).

It appears to stem from American flags being brought in, or at least that is what the right is claiming. Even given that is the reason, am I wrong in believing such a ban is constitutional since it is content neutral?

Not that anyone cares, but I am not using "the right" pejoratively. I am a staunch and proud member. It is not uncommon to hear emanating from my office "you go boy" when reading a comment by Brett or Dr. Ed. Or conversely, STFU Sacastr0 and Nierporent. Not really Sacastr0 and David, I rarely agree with you, but recognize you are far more knowledgeable and I WILL learn something even if I can't explain in legal terms with obscure cites why you are wrong. I just know it when I read it.

[SRG2]

What is the recognized acronym

IANAL, which is funny because the lawyers tend to be more anal than non lawyers.

[SRG2]

Another "triumph" for Missouri's justice system:

Missouri woman who spent 43 years in prison is free after her murder conviction was overturned

That loathsome POS Andrew Bailey, the Missouri AG, tried to keep her in prison. He's tried that before for other innocent people.

Sandra Hemme, 64, left a prison in Chillicothe, hours after a judge threatened to hold the attorney general's office in contempt if they continued to fight against her release.

[Roger S]

We have an adversarial legal system. It is up to the judge to order her release, after hearing all the arguments.

[David Nieporent]

The judge had ordered her released. The AG was not only refusing to comply, but was trying to coerce prison officials into not complying. That's why the judge was threatening contempt.

[David Nieporent]

That's an old story. (I mean, not that old, but six months old.)

[SRG2]

For some reason it popped up on a new feed elsewhere and I didn't check the date.

[Frank Drackman]

I guess 43 years is all you get now a days for killing a librarian

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts District Court judge Shelely Joseph has been referred to state disciplinary authorities over a 2018 incident where she helped a criminal defendant evade an ICE warrant, contrary to the policy of the court system and according to the Department of Justice contrary to federal criminal law. In return for having federal charges dismissed she agreed to submit to state discipline with an agreed statement of facts.

The Supreme Judicial Court previously thought this case not a big deal. The Biden administration dropped charges. She was only defying Donald Trump. I think this is going like a pro forma presentation of a justified homicide to a grand jury, a bit of theater with no intention that any consequences will follow. She might be asked not to do it again. It's possible something substantial will come of the case, seven years after the courtroom incident.

The statement of facts and the judge's response are linked from right sidebar of the page below:
https://www.mass.gov/news/commission-on-judicial-conduct-files-formal-charges-against-judge-shelley-m-richmond-joseph

[Noscitur a sociis]

The Biden administration dropped charges.

I missed that update. Disgusting.

[Brett Bellmore]

Did anybody really believe that the Biden administration wanted immigration laws enforced? They had the same resources Trump had, and were roughly a quarter as effective at it, using their own numbers that didn't count the illegals they actually invited in.

[tylertusta]

The emperor got away with not wearing clothes for so long for a very good reason, Brett.

[Sarcastr0]

In return for having federal charges dismissed she agreed to submit to state discipline with an agreed statement of facts.

The Supreme Judicial Court previously thought this case not a big deal. The Biden administration dropped charges.

The Biden conspiracy runs deep!

[M L]

Many migrants lured northwards by President Joe Biden are stranded on the long trek between their homes and the restored U.S. borders caused by the 2024 election.

Some of the poor migrants in the humanitarian disaster caused by Biden’s illegitimate invite are now pleading for help to get home.

“I cry every day,” Yuleidi Moreno, a Venezuelan migrant lured north by Biden, recently told a Reuters reporter in Mexico. She added:

I want to go back to my country. I don’t want to stay here anymore. I suffer a lot. Men treat us badly and it’s hard. They sometimes mistreat us. Sometimes people die; there is a lot of sexual abuse, women are mistreated because they don’t have money. It’s horrible, this is horrible.”

The journey has been “very dangerous,” another Venezuelan woman, Yorjelis Maldonado told Reuters. “Many things have happened, there’s women and a lot of children who are suffering.”

...Since 2021, Biden’s Cuban-born, pro-migration border chief, Alejandro Mayorkas, has invited and funded at least 10 million migrants to sneak through the U.S. border. ..

Mayorkas’ blend of zealous progressivism and consumer-economy colonialism has killed many Americans, and cut wages for many millions of Americans as it enriched the Democratic Party’s donor class.

His exploitative welcome also helped to kill thousands of migrants, enabled the rape of hundreds of thousands of migrants, divided millions of foreign families, and kneecapped economic and democratic development for tens of millions of poor people in many poor countries.

Latin Times reported on December 4:

Migrants traversing Mexico risk encountering extensive human trafficking networks. Violence, including assaults, sexual exploitation, and murder, has made the journey north treacherous as the country records approximately 30,000 murders annually, with over 100,000 people officially reported missing.

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2024/12/05/mayorkas-miserable-migrants-hope-for-border-miracle/

[Roger S]

I hope this news item spreads, so fewer try to come to the USA.

[Longtobefree]

And yet, they paid thousands of dollars for the trip - - - - - - - - - - - -

[hobie]

I know the Trumpers conjured up the idea of TDS. But it seems to me BDS is very real

[Dr. Ed 2]

Many have paid a LOT of money to be smuggled...

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

This is a very powerful Tweet. Something must be done about these people:

https://x.com/toowhitetotweet/status/1864357100572254652

Meet the creature prosecuting Daniel Penny: Dafna Yoran.

Yoran is an Israeli-born, Jewish, anti-White, 'Restorative Justice' Communist lesbian married to a Peruvian BLM activist.

No, that's not satire - that's reality.

Yoran's claims to fame include being the first attorney to successfully prosecute a “White supremacist” as a “domestic terrorist” in the United States, as well as being “the first woman to wear a pants suit on trial in New York County.”

Again, not satire.

Yoran's father is the author of 'The Defiant: A Story Of Jewish Vengeance.' A vengeance Yoran appears to apply against any White person she sees, which to her are all “Nazis” - like the aforementioned “White supremacist domestic terrorist” who... voted for Barack Obama.

Nope, still not satire.

Yoran has continuously referred to Daniel Penny as “the White man” throughout his trial, assuming the jurors share her view that “White man” means “Nazi” means “guilty as charged” in America's corrupt justice system.

[ThePublius]

Her obvious bias should be grounds for an appeal.

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. Setting aside that you're relying on some loon white supremacist tweeter, prosecutors are supposed to be biased. It is not "grounds for an appeal" that a prosecutor doesn't like criminals.

[ThePublius]

Her bias is against white men, not criminals. And, it's well documented.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

And as usual, you bring nothing but your word as evidence.

Everyone is well-aware by now that your word is meaningless.

[Ed Grinberg]

The Daniel Penny prosecution is a travesty. The fact that the prosecutor happens to be Jewish is ... neither here nor there.

[not guilty]

"Something must be done about these people:"

What "something" do you propose to be done, JHBHBE?

Line prosecutors in state court are ordinarily appointed by popularly elected prosecutors. If the public doesn't like these hires, the voters have recourse at the ballot box.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Ban racist lawyers from practicing law. People like you and her.

[not guilty]

"Racist" by whose determination, JHBHBE? As measured by what criteria?

Please show your work.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It says right there in my post she's anti-White you head-in-the-sand gonad.

[not guilty]

And you are a flagrant liar; what you say means nothing. You made a generalized statement that "racist lawyers" should be banned from practicing law.

Again, "racist" by whose determination, JHBHBE? As measured by what criteria?

[not guilty]

Being called racist by JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes is akin to being called a reckless driver by Ted Kennedy.

[not guilty]

JHBHBE, you have made an unsupported, incendiary accusation of racism on my part. Now grow a pair and support it.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom"

Was you just a few days ago. Are you sundowning like Biden?

[not guilty]

I despise Clarence Thomas, but an antipathy toward an individual black person does not evince racism. A refusal to genuflect to Thomas says nothing about my racial attitudes in general.

Was it "racist" for Antonin Scalia to contrast his jurisprudence with Thomas's by saying "I'm an originalist and a textualist, not a nut"? https://www.npr.org/2008/04/28/89986017/justice-scalia-the-great-dissenter-opens-up

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Ran away like a scalded dog. Pathetic.

[not guilty]

I haven't run away from anything; I simply elected to sleep late this morning.

[John F. Carr]

A federal judge rejected a plea agreement between Boeing and the Department of Justice, largely over concerns that the Justice Department was incapable of choosing a good person to oversee compliance issues.

The plea agreement provides that the retention of an independent compliance monitor is a special condition of probation, meaning if Boeing fails to retain the monitor, it will violate its probation. But the plea agreement prohibits imposing as a condition of probation a requirement for Boeing to comply with the monitor’s anti-fraud recommendations. Additionally, the independent monitor is selected by and reports to the Government, not the Court. Moreover, Boeing will have the opportunity to prevent the hiring of one of the six monitor candidates chosen by the Government. And finally, the Government will select the independent monitor “in keeping with the Department’s commitment to diversity and inclusion.”

The court notes that Boeing removed language calling for racial quotas in employment from its web site after the victims' families (i.e. Paul Cassell) called attention to it. As for the government's DEI plan, it is supposed to not consider race while complying with an executive order that race be considered.

The court did not object to the amount of the fine, which considers the economic value of the fraudulently obtained certification and not the deaths of the passengers on Boeing airliners.

Docket entry 282 at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29089563/united-states-v-the-boeing-company/?page=2

[M L]

Handy hyper-linked list of media hoaxes in this article.

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2024/12/05/nolte-cnn-msnbc-ratings-fall-lows-unseen-decades/

Springfield Bomb Threat Hoax
Trump Called for Liz Cheney to Be Executed Hoax
Violent Crime Down Under Biden/Harris Hoax
Arlington Cemetery Hoax
Kamala Was Never America’s Border Czar Hoax
Russia Collusion Hoax
Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Hoax
Jussie Smollett Hoax
Covington KKKids Hoax
Very Fine People Hoax
Seven-Hour Gap Hoax
Russian Bounties Hoax
Trump Trashes Troops Hoax
Policemen Killed at Mostly Peaceful January 6 Protest Hoax
Rittenhouse Hoax
Eating While Black Hoax
Border Agents Whipping Illegals Hoax
NASCAR Noose Hoax
Georgia Jim Crow 2.0 Hoax
Trump Assaulted Secret Service Agents and Grabbed Steering Wheel of Beast Hoax
MAGA Assaulted Paul Pelosi Hoax
COVID Lab Leak Theory Is Racist Hoax
Hunter Biden’s Laptop Is Russian Disinformation Hoax
Joe Biden Will Never Ban Gas Stoves Hoax
COVID Deaths are Overcounted Is a Conspiracy Theory Hoax
Mass Graves of Native Children in Canada Hoax
The Trump Killed All the Fish Hoax
Trump Told People to Drink Bleach Hoax
Hamas Hospital Hoax
If Reelected, Trump Will Execute People Hoax
900,000 Kids Hospitalized with Coronavirus Hoax
Dozens of Environmental Hoaxes
Alfa Bank Hoax
Libs of TikTok Murdered Non-Binary Teen Hoax
Aaron Rodgers Sandy Hook-Truther Hoax
‘Bloodbath’ Hoax
Biden ‘Sharp-as-a-Tack’ Hoax
Iowa Poll Hoax

[SRG2]

Secondary definition:

Hoax: a story for which there is evidence but cannot be proven beyond all reasonable doubt and then some.

I agree that some of the stories were indeed not true. though.

[Brett Bellmore]

Secondary definition of "Secondary definition": Epistemic closure.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

A handy hyperlinked article of self-referenced Breitbart Bullshit is more like it, but hey - you have to earn your Rubles somehow eh?

[SRG2]

"Breitbart: we're more authoritative than Zerohedge!"

[Krayt]

One interesting thing. On CNN a couple of days ago, one of their smaller front page stories had a headline "Trump jokingly says Canada should become the 51st state". That's a big shift for CNN, who normally would report breathlessly, as some other outlets did, how he was serious, like it was a takeover attempt. Or who knows what. Just not humor taking a little dig at Canada's problems.

Baby steps, for politically-motivated hyperbolists.

[Martinned2]

Why would you want to have a President where that is even a question? ("Is he joking or is he nuts? Who knows?")

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, why not? It's not like you can stop people from asking stupid questions, or that asking stupid questions reflects badly on anybody but the person asking them.

[Sarcastr0]

Once again, Trump is blameless.

The 'Trump says stupid thing, everyone says he's joking then he doubles down only to months later change his mind' news cycle is the fault of the people asking Trump questions based on what he's said!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, in this case Trump is entirely blameless, to the point where CNN, even CNN, acknowledged that it was a joke.

You can't stop people from asking stupid questions by being blameless, so Martinned2's take is silly.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hey remember how a few months were all "your entire belief system is 'own the libs'", and now you're all like "fuck ya preemptively pardon everyone I worship to own the magats!"

You filthy fucking hypocrite.

[not guilty]

Counsel for Donald Trump have requested the Georgia Court of Appeals to dismiss Trump's appeal for lack of jurisdiction with directions to the trial court to immediately dismiss the indictment against Trump. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25445112/trump-notice-of-lack-of-jurisdiction.pdf

It is axiomatic that a litigant does not get relief that he does not ask for, but this is sketchy. The trial court did not certify for immediate review any issue other than the trial court's Order on the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and Disqualify the Fulton County District Attorney issued March 15, 2024. https://greatamericanewsdesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/judge-mcafee-certificate-of-immediate-review-willis-disqualification.pdf

Defense counsel for Trump rely primarily on the 2000 opinion of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel that a sitting president is immune from indictment or any criminal process. That opinion, while binding on the U. S. Department of Justice (including Jack Smith), is not law, and it is certainly not binding on the courts of the State of Georgia.

The appropriate remedy would be for the trial court in Atlanta to sever Donald Trump for a trial separate from other Defendants and to stay proceedings against Trump until he leaves office as president.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Two more weeks!

It's Meuller Time!

Smith is on the Case!

lmao, now you're reduced to in 4 years we're gonna get'em

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yet another example of Trump's lawyers blatantly abusing the legal system.

It isn't a proper remedy and they know it, but all they have to do is get another Aileen Cannon.

[Martinned2]

This just popped up in my socials:

According to The Lancet, at least 68,000 Americans die preventable deaths every year because they are denied care or can’t afford it. That’s 68,000 people—grandparents, children, and loved ones—lost because healthcare in America is treated as a commodity rather than a basic human right.

(Just in case anyone really thinks that the US is the greatest country in the history of the world.)

[Brett Bellmore]

What, you think nobody dies in other countries for reasons like that?

Look, as I explained to my son a few months ago, as people get older, the amount of healthcare they need typically increases, and the years to be gained from getting it shrinks, until towards the end of their life they could consume millions of dollars of health care to buy hours of life.

You could bankrupt the world providing just one country with all the health care that would actually benefit people!

"because healthcare in America is treated as a commodity rather than a basic human right."

Health care can't be a basic human right, because health care is provided by OTHER PEOPLE, who have rights of their own. If you've got a right to health care regardless of whether you can afford it, somebody else is saddled with an obligation to provide it regardless of whether you pay them. That person has effectively become the first person's slave.

All genuine basic human rights are negative rights, because positive rights amount to enslaving other people. Only negative rights are free of that problem.

[Sarcastr0]

Health care can't be a basic human right, because health care is provided by OTHER PEOPLE, who have rights of their own
What the fuck is your theory of rights? It can't be a negative theory of rights, because you insist that illegals don't carry them. But it can't be a positive theory of rights because the moment there's conflict, a right can't be basic.

I mean, I know it's vibes based. You have this whole formalistic thing, but these days it's a pure patina over insisting what you feel is The Way with no care for consistency or facts.

[Brett Bellmore]

It IS a negative theory of rights, and being in a country isn't a natural right, it's a legal right, which illegal aliens are perfectly capable of lacking.

They can go exercise their negative rights someplace else.

[Sarcastr0]

You have in the past argued that illegals have no rights at all. Also noncitizens outside the US.

That’s not even a form of analysis you should countinence under a negative theory of rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You have in the past argued that illegals have no rights at all."

No, I have not. I have argued that, constitutionally, they have no P&I. This doesn't leave them unentitled to due process and equal protection of the non-substantive sort.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree with you that health care is not a right, but I do believe that providing access to healthcare is a function of a first world country. I suspect you are right that people rarely die directly from being denied healthcare. What does happen is that people fail to get healthcare they need when it could be most effective. The American system with Medicare provides extensive healthcare during the last years when people's health care is most expensive. Greater emphasis on getting people health care earlier would likely decrease costs as people age. It is this failure to get early care that can lead to unnecessary deaths.

[ReaderY]

There’s no contradiction here. Rights-based theories are not the only possible theories of political philosophy. There are for example theories of ghe public good.

So youcould easily take the position that while people have no right to health care under a theory of rights, nonetheless under a theory of punlic good it’s in the public interest to do something about it.

After all, theories of rights tend to take the continued existence of the state and society as givens. But they are not givens. They require work, and thought, to achieve. Without considering the public good from time to time and sometimes even limiting some private rights on its behalf, society is not likely to survive long.

[Sarcastr0]

The capitalist rights-and-powers theory of political morality is the dominant theory of our culture, and our government.
I don't think you need to establish it's the only legit system - you can just go ahead and work in that paradigm. Burden is on other people to posit alternate theories of public good, at least for America.

Brett doesn't have a coherent theory of rights, which is a different problem.

I don't understand your last statement - just about any complete theory of public good requires a social instrument, i.e. the government. The only one I can think of that doesn't is the later weird bits of Marxism.

[Martinned2]

Or, to keep it simpler, you could take the position that people have the righ to health care but not the right to force a specific person to give it to them.

[Absaroka]

I don't see how that works. ISTM that would shake out into three cases:

1)You are your own provider. I'm OK with 'you have a right to bandage yourself', but it seems like a pretty trivial case.

2)You can have care provided as charity by a spouse, friend, order of nuns, Clara Barton or some other nice person. But that's charity, not a right.

3)You can have care provided by someone else who isn't doing it as charity. But in this case, either you are paying them for it (else it would be charity) or someone else is paying them for it. If that someone else is doing that of their own free will, you're just getting charity from that someone. If that someone is forced to pay - e.g. via taxes - then that someone is being forced to provide your care.

I think Brett is largely correct: scarce goods can't be a right. Consider the band of hunter gatherers who must arduously hunt and gather each day to not starve. One member just indolently lays around. Mr. Indolent can have the right to free speech or religion or whatever without impacting anyone else, but if you say food is a right, then he gets a claim on the barely adequate food supply the others gathered. It seems like a bad definition of rights that would enable that.

The modern world has food in such abundance people talk about a right to it, but I think a better framing is just that we are rich enough to provide it to all as charity. Modern medicine is more of a gray area, though. We can afford to provide a fair amount of care to all - putting a broken leg in a cast or whatever - but you can't provide a billion dollars of care to everyone. But if it's a right, as opposed to charity from a benevolent society, then I don't see how you can put an upper limit on it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"scarce goods can't be a right."

Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Seems maybe scarce goods could be a right, if you level downward the quantity each recipient has access to. Politically, that might be the most effective way to alleviate scarcity. Rich folks who find they can't get any better healthcare than the nation's poorest have a lot more political influence than the nation's poorest.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Food isn't a basic human right then either.

When will you volunteer to starve yourself so as not to enslave the immigrants who provide your produce, before or after they've all been deported and tomatoes are $10/lb?

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe if thousands of doctors weren't cutting off mentally ill patient's breasts, ovaries, cocks, balls, they could be treating actual diseases and injuries?

[Moderation4ever]

LOL. Frank the election is over you can stop pretending that there is a huge transexual community. There are not thousands of doctors preforming these surgeries. Even in the small community of transsexuals the percentage getting sex conversion surgery is 50% or less.

[ThePublius]

"The absolute number of GAS procedures rose from 4552 in 2016 to a peak of 13 011 in 2019 and then declined slightly to 12 818 in 2020."

Form the Journal of the American Medical Association:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2808707

So, I would surmise that 12,818 surgeries would involve at lease a thousand doctors.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/thousand

thousands [plural] : an amount that is more than 2,000

You are doing way too much work to defend an incoherent shitposter.

[Michael P]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thousand

2: a very large number

You do way too much work to show us all that you are an incoherent shitposter.

[Sarcastr0]

Well there's a nice uncabined vibes-based definition! Why didn't he just say billions - it also means a very large number!

[Michael P]

You seem to be vibes-ed out of your head. You were the one who thought a dictionary was an appropriate authority here.

[Moderation4ever]

That assume each of the thousand performed 12 of the procedures. I would suspect fewer surgeons each doing more than 12 surgeries. I would also note that in 2019 an estimated 4.2 million plastic procedures were performed and the GAS surgeries were less than 0.5 percent of the procedures. Plastic surgeons are not making their living on GAS surgeries.`

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Woah, that convinced me! What he need is the Federal government to take 100% control over our healthcare instead of the 80% they have now!

That will fix it. As we all know, government policies are utter complete miserable failures UNLESS they have 100% control with unlimited money, then they are paradise on earth! PRAISE THE STATE! Long Live The Bureaucrat!

[tylertusta]

The unspoken assumption in Martinned2's post comment is that if health care was treated as a "human right" then all of those deaths would be avoided.

Except that it isn't, and they wouldn't. One look at the British NHS is all any American should need to see how dysfunctional socialized medicine would be.

[Martinned2]

It is certainly true that a number like that 68,000 can only be estimated against a clear counterfactual. Whether that counterfactual is the UK system is a separate matter, because the UK system is quite unusual in the western world.

[tylertusta]

A dysfunctional governmental agency that is perpetually underfunded? Where have I heard that before?

Ah, right. All of the US Federal agencies.

I just thought of our own NHS-Lite that we have in the US: the VA. We can't take care of our veterans already.

[Martinned2]

The US can take care of its veterans, it just doesn't want to.

[tylertusta]

Glad we at least agree on that.

[Martinned2]

Hence the complete predictability of Elon Musk wanting to cut $119bn from the VA health care budget.

[tylertusta]

I don't see how that does anything else than reinforce the point I was making, but sure. Thank you.

[Martinned2]

To add, since Americans often seem to be confused by this. (Just like Brits seem to think that the only alternative to their beloved NHS is a US-style hellscape.)

In the Netherlands the right to healthcare is explicitly included in the constitution. Sort of.

Art. 22(1) . The authorities shall take steps to promote the health of the population.

Personally I'm not super-confident that this provision has ever made the slightest bit of difference for anything. You certainly can't go to court and sue the government over it, unless of course the government literally does nothing.

Instead, letting people die because they're too poor to afford good healthcare is politically extremely unpopular, and so we have a coherent system of national heath insurance. It's basically Obamacare minus all of the stuff he put in to avoid upsetting Republicans. So Romneycare.

1. Everybody has to buy health insurance.
2. Health insurance is subsidised by the government. (But I'm still paying about $2,000, depending on what exact package I buy.)
3. Health insurance companies have to accept anyone who wants to buy insurance from them.
4. Health insurance companies negotiate with hospitals and other healthcare providers about the care that is provided and the costs that are incurred. When the system was first set up 20+ years ago it was common for people to buy a form of insurance that let them get healthcare wherever, receive the bill themselves, and then pass it on to the insurance company, but nowadays payments for care is handled between the insurance companies and the healthcare providers.

Typically insurance companies are for profit (or cooperatives that might as well be for profit companies), and healthcare providers are foundations, trusts, etc. But nothing in the system really hinges on that. (Not in the least because doctors generally prefer making more money over making less.)

Health insurance companies compete with the best rates (when I did my search the range was several hundred dollars wide), and then try to keep their costs down by negotiating hard with healthcare providers. Healthcare providers, in their turn, have to run their operations efficiently, otherwise the insurers may not cover certain care at their facility.

Nothing about this is socialised except the basic principle that everyone should be able to afford health insurance. And, as Elon Musk discovered yesterday, the administration costs of the system are 4-5 times lower than in the US.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/healthcare/elon-musk-weighs-health-care-costs-amid-insurance-scrutiny

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Our system is so bad because the people in government have spent the last 80 years shitting it up. Our system can be great again if we got the people in government out of it. They are corrupt, incompetent, ideologically driven, and horrible people in general.

[Martinned2]

O wow...

The Romanian presidential run-off between far-right candidate Calin Georgescu and centrist pro-EU Elena Lasconi is now off, after the Constitutional Court (CCR) cancelled the results of the first round of votes and announced entirely new elections will be held instead.

This dramatic and unprecedented decision comes just as the voting has begun in the diaspora.

"The electoral process for the election of the President of Romania will be resumed in its entirety, with the Government required to set a new date for the election of the President of Romania as well as a new calendar program for carrying out the necessary actions," the court said in a statement on Friday.

The court said the decision to annul the first round was due to procedural issues and the declassification of the secret reports by the Romanian intelligence services showing Russian involvement in influencing voters through an anti-Western propaganda campaign supporting Georgescu.

The intelligence reports showed several illegal processes in Georgescu’s campaign financing.

The court previously assessed a request to annul the election's result after Georgescu stunned the political establishment to come first place but decided to press ahead.

Friday's decision leaves the country in an unparalleled political situation with unforeseen consequences. According to initial scenarios, the new election might take place in spring 2025 if the decision on the new vote also means restarting the entire process, including collecting signatures for each candidate from scratch.

From 'the only correct solution' to 'coup d'état in full swing'
The centre-left Social Democratic party's candidate in the first round and Prime Minister-incumbent Marcel Ciolacu hailed the Bucharest court's decision as the right thing to do.

"The CCR's decision to cancel the presidential elections is the only correct solution after the declassification of documents from the CSAT meeting, which show that the result of the Romanian vote was flagrantly distorted following Russian intervention," Ciolacu said.

"The authorities' investigations must show who is to blame for the attempt to influence the outcome of the presidential election massively," he added.

"Romanians need clear answers from the authorities based on solid evidence because public trust in state institutions and in the democratic processes that underpin the functioning of the country fundamentally depends on this investigation, Ciolacu concluded.

Other Romanian politicians, including Lasconi, have largely slammed the court's decision, with the liberal candidate calling it "illegal, immoral and crushes the very essence of democracy."

"Today is the moment when the Romanian state trampled on democracy. God, the Romanian people, truth and the law will prevail and find them guilty of destroying our democracy," she said.

"We have all already seen how Putin laughed at the way the political power in Bucharest managed these elections," the USR leader added.

The leader of the far-right nationalist party AUR George Simion labelled the court's decision a "coup d'état in full swing" but rejected the idea of protests at this time.

"We don't go out into the streets, we don't let ourselves be provoked, this system must fall democratically," Simion wrote on Facebook.

The winner of the presidential election's first round, Georgescu is set to give a statement at 8 pm local time (7 pm CET).

Vote roiled by controversies
Georgescu has been subject to controversy since he surprisingly topped the ballot almost two weeks ago.

The first round of voting has already faced scrutiny from the court, with two candidates who lost the round filing complaints regarding the lack of transparency of campaign funding and voter deception.

On Wednesday, bombshell declassified information from Romania's intelligence agencies revealed that Georgescu's win was "not a natural outcome" and that a coordinated social media campaign by a "state actor" artificially propped up his victory.

Georgescu ran a successful campaign on the social media platform TikTok. His popularity exploded in the weeks before the vote, with the candidate gaining tens of millions of views days before the first round.

The documents showed a pre-organised sleeper network suddenly became active on the app two weeks before the election.

Romanian intelligence concluded that the network used methods typical of a state actor in recruiting and coordinating with others through the messaging platform Telegram.

The documents also found that almost €1 million was spent during the campaign by an individual who supported Georgescu's candidacy, with up to €950 paid for a repost on the app.

Georgescu claimed he had no campaign budget and was helped through volunteers.

Related
Declassified Romanian intelligence suggests 'state actor' behind Georgescu's campaign
EU demands 'urgent' answers from TikTok about possible foreign interference in Romanian election
On Thursday, the European Commission sent TikTok an "urgent" request for information about the platform's role in the elections.

"We are concerned about mounting indications of coordinated foreign online influence operation targeting ongoing Romanian elections, especially on TikTok," said Henna Virkkunen, the Commisison's executive vice-president in charge of digital policy.

TikTok has not responded to Euronews' requests for comment.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/12/06/romanian-constitutional-court-blocks-presidential-run-off

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's what the Left does when it doesn't like democracy.

[M L]

Wow so the "intelligence services" and some judges can just overturn and set aside any elections they don't like.

Sounds so familiar, that's what they've been trying to do in the US for the last 9 years.

[ThePublius]

This may sound morbid, but in the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson it has not emerged in the media what was the caliber of the weapon. I'm assuming it was a .22LR, similar to what Mossad uses, a suppressed Beretta model 71; though in the images I've seen it looks like a Ruger .22, maybe a Mk.III.

The media are also harping that he was not a professional assassin; and, in fact, I don't think they've even used the term "assassin." 'Though that's what he is, by definition.

I wonder if they are tracking down the NFA aspects of the suppressor, like who owns tax stamps for suppressors? I mean, they are easy enough to make, and no pro assassin would go through the legal process to own one. But, still. He could be a nut, and not a pro.

I've heard stories of ATF agents knocking on doors of people who have purchased solvent traps, commonly used as makeshift suppressors. I wonder if they are following up on those?

I think the FBI and US Marshall's Service are involved in the investigation. I wonder if the ATF is as well.

Also, how long before we hear the outrage over the resources and interest spent on trying to solve this murder of a rich white guy, while no such resources are expended for the poor black kids killed every day across the nation? It reminds me of the John Kennedy, Jr., plane crash in about 1999.

[SimonP]

Oh, sure, New Yorkers are saying a lot about the NYPD's apparent efforts trying to track down this assassin. Understandable, given how hugely embarrassing it would be if the NYPD couldn't catch a guy who shot someone in broad daylight just blocks away from Trump Tower. But we're not accustomed to the cops doing their jobs here - instead we get a lot of excuses about why they don't.

[David Nieporent]

It seems like they're doing just as half-assed a job on this one as on other cases; the person they identified from surveillance video is clearly wearing a different outfit. (Er, by "identified" I don't mean that they have his name; I mean that they posted this image and said, "This is the guy.")

[ThePublius]

Oh, interesting. You don't think that olive-colored hooded jacket could have just looked black in the shooting video, due to the light and camera quality?

[SimonP]

Maybe! On these kinds of details, I am withholding judgment until all the facts are out. I'm not going to internet-sleuth it.

If that is a case of mis-identification, I sure hope that hostel-goer has gotten in touch with an attorney, established his alibi, and plans to turn himself in soon.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It was a bolt action handgun.

[ThePublius]

Interesting! How do you know that?

That would be a quite rare pistol to choose, and certainly not the best choice for an assassin.

[Randal]

Maybe we'll find out that Biden ordered it under his newly-granted immunity powers. It's his way of improving Obamacare.

[M L]

Obama is now criticizing the rigging and stealing of elections, weaponizing the justice system, and in general the act of attempting to "lock in a permanent grip on power" by illegitimate means.

I agree with him, but kinda surprised to see him calling out the Democrats like that.

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1864860500200489007

[Sarcastr0]

Haha if anyone other than me likes to play the 'who is ML reading now?' game Collin Rugg is like TMZ but for conservative nonsense.

https://muckrack.com/collin-rugg/articles

[M L]

Just from Breitbart again. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/12/06/obama-warns-of-those-who-rig-elections-and-weaponize-the-justice-system/

Since you are interested: 1. I look at Reason/Volokh with some regularity. 2. Around presidential elections, I look at Breitbart as well as the selection of links at RealClearPolitics (liberal and conservative). Then I pretty much ignore those things for 4 years again, maybe check occasionally when there is some big political thing happening. 3. Whenever there is some current event that piques my interest I search it on Google and peruse whatever mainstream "News" results that Google chooses to show. 4. Very occasionally check WaPo homepage or the like to see what they are choosing to cover/emphasize at a certain time or how they are spinning it. 5. Any of the foregoing might have a lot of embedded tweets, and I will sometimes click through to those and browse those accounts. However I don't have the app or an account yet and unfortunately (or fortunately actually to avoid wasting time) under Musk, browsing twitter without logging in has become nearly useless/impossible.

[Absaroka]

And so? If someone posts 'look at this vid of Trump saying something dumb', I don't care if it is from nyt.com. nypost.com, kkk.com, or cpusa.com. I care that is is genuine, not taken out of context, and what is said in the video, not who posted it.

It's fine to attack the content of any news article, but
discounting news sources who aren't simpatico with your worldview means you are only getting one side of the story. Criticism of sources qua sources, vs the particular content at hand, is just announcing that you prefer a biased viewpoint.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, I wasn't ad homineming the content.
It's a dumb 'unequal things are equal' argument, but that's ML.

I'm making fun of his media diet.

I find it hilarious his response is 'No, I don't follow the TMZ guy I was just disguising yet another Brietbart link!'

I'll push back on Breitbart or his other, jankier sources when I feel like it.
Suffice to say I rarely think they're putting out good arguments or even credible facts, except when they quote the MSM to give them yelling fodder on this or that.

But it's lower hanging fruit to note how thoroughly ML's links show that his brain is pickled. At least he doesn't link Posobiec's twitter anymore.

[Michael P]

Seen online and endorsed, except for the missing qualifier around AI's name:

People who agree with Amnesty International accusation of genocide against Israel should be locked away in a dungeon, where I define “locked away in a dungeon” as “gently taught that words have specific meanings and can’t be redefined because why the fuck not”.

[Bwaaah]

Remember: silence is violence.

It's a holocaust all over again...a language holocaust.