Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Why was Dr. Jill making goo goo eyes at DJT?

[Mr. Bumble]

In case you missed it:
https://x.com/CalebJHull/status/1865828761947800029

[Kazinski]

Because she hates Kamala so much, and Trump beat her soundly.

No, its really because politicians and there wives basically play the same villain and hero game they do in the WWF, although of course each is playing to their base, not the whole crowd.

You could see it all week how empty all the lies were about Trump, Trudeau going to Mar a Lack (I saw the Canadian ambassador gushing on Bloomberg about how close they are), Brigitte Macron standing on top toes to kiss Trump, Prince of Wales William warmly greeting Trump.

There is no doubt Trump isn't part of the club, largely because he won't play the Paris climate charade, but nobody thinks he is Hitler.

[John F. Carr]

The CBC showed part of the Trudeau-Trump meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayww4mYnPi4

[tylertusta]

It's ironic that Biden inflicted Kamala onto Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party, probably out of spite for being ousted from the race.

[Sarcastr0]

That's...spinning quite a tail.

[David Nieporent]

*tale.

And yes, it is. Since every factual allegation is wrong. I don't even know what the words are supposed to mean. Biden wasn't ousted, and to the extent he "inflicted Kamala" onto anyone, it was in 2000 when he selected her as his running mate, which was of course before he left the race in 2024.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"in 2000"

I missed that.

[tylertusta]

I don't even know what the words are supposed to mean.

Try the dictionary:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oust

Biden wasn't ousted

Yes, he was.

How the Democrats finally ousted Joe Biden.

Why Biden Was Really Forced Out of the Race, According to Anita Dunn

and to the extent he "inflicted Kamala" onto anyone

Biden endorsed Kamala when he announced he was dropped out of the race. He gave Kamala a big enough boost that there was no breathing room for any competition for the nomination. According to various sources, Obama wanted someone else than Kamala to run as he feared she would lose.

[Life of Brian]

Biden endorsed Kamala when he announced he was dropped out of the race. He gave Kamala a big enough boost that there was no breathing room for any competition for the nomination.

Indeed. Pelosi confirmed that in so many words: "And because the president endorsed Kamala Harris immediately, that really made it almost impossible to have a primary at that time."

According to various sources, Obama wanted someone else than Kamala to run as he feared she would lose.

I'd imagine that was why he quickly hurled a statement over the transom within a few hours of Biden's tweeted resignation. It didn't take too much reading between the lines that he was trying to head off a coronation: "I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges."

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

You could have yanked the Biden dog's chain with tuition forgiveness, but you didn't, Nancy. It comes back at you and you are surprised ? What did have to fear or respect in you. 🙂

[David Nieporent]

There was no boost; anyone who thought anyone but Harris could ever have been the nominee was deluding himself (or herself). There was no time to do the primaries over again, nobody else had any campaign infrastructure, nobody else was of national stature, and nobody else was entitled to the existing campaign warchest. The reason some people had been reluctant to call for Biden to step aside was precisely because it was 100% guaranteed that Harris would be the replacement, and lots of people were skeptical of her chops as a presidential candidate.

[Kazinski]

Newsome and Whitmer had and have the national stature of Harris, but likely they would have lost too.

The only real chance would have been someone like Roy Cooper, or Andy Beshear, someone unburdened by what has been, like 9% inflation and the embrace of they/them.

Or as I have said before, a national unity candidate like Jerome Powell, or even Mitt Romney.

There were options, but the far left progressives would have screamed and tried to sabotage that strategy, which might have actually helped in November.

Trump obviously wasn't Hitler, because when you are fighting Hitler you don't use it to try to foist the most left wing candidate you can on the public, you go to the center and build the biggest tent you can.

[David Nieporent]

Newsome and Whitmer

Newsom has such a national stature that you got his name wrong. State governors who have never even run for national office do not have the national stature of VPOTUS. Sure, the sort of people who watch Fox and MSNBC all day probably know those names, but that's not the same thing as having been in national office for four years.

[Kazinski]

Funny that, because I'm a California native and I still spend at least a few months a year there at my summer home.

Its almost like I don't give a shit how his name is spelled, but I do know who the asshole is.

[Sarcastr0]

Its almost like I don't give a shit how his name is spelled, but I do know who the asshole is.

You sound like Riva or The Antisemite.

And you didn't say shit about what DMN's actually posted about.

[Bwaaah]

"You sound like Riva or The Antisemite."

Il Douche speaks having nothing intelligent to say.

[tylertusta]

Obama thought that a quick primary was possible. He wasn't delusional.

(I think this is a case of you using words that don't mean what you think that they mean)

If you're Obama and if you're convinced that Harris can't win, then what choice do you have except to hold a primary? Maybe entice Shapiro or Whitmer.

I for one think that Democrats were stuck in a catch-22. No matter what choice they made, they were in deep shit once Biden dropped out.

[Josh R]

They were in deep shit after the first debate. Biden needed to drop out in 2023.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Or the Dem. party could have done a better job at understanding what was happening and put on a more serious primary.

[Josh R]

It would necessarily been a single national primary run in less than a month. In addition to being very hard to pull off as a practical matter, it would likely have divided the party too much.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm suggesting that the Dems could have pushed for more options in 2023. They didn't need to wait for Biden to drop out.

The potential that Biden might not be up for the task was a very foreseeable risk.

[Josh R]

No way any Democrat with a serious chance of winning was going to challenge Biden.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No way Biden drops out when he still has a serious chance of winning. As he himself said.

The Dems have a whole apparatus set up to determine who the candidate will be. No need to blame Biden.

[Josh R]

Either Biden and his team knew, or should have known, his cognitive decline meant he could not win. To paraphrase Meredith Wilson:

Either you're closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by your candidate's cognitive decline. Well, ya got trouble my friend.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Same goes for the rest of the party. And Biden isn’t exactly objective in assessing his capacity, plus he’s factoring his own interests in.

[Josh R]

Much of the rest of the party was not aware of the extent of Biden's decline until the debate. The blame falls on Biden, his family, his inner circle and anyone else who was aware but kept quiet.

[David Nieporent]

Obama thought that a quick primary was possible. He wasn't delusional.

If he thought that, he was. First, there's no such thing as "a primary." There are 51 primaries that need to be held. (More, actually, because territories participate too.) Second, primaries can't really be held at all without the state election infrastructures, so what the party would've had to do would be to hold last minute conventions. Or create some gimmicky national online primary on short notice without actually having the software available to conduct such a thing securely.

And I reiterate: nobody was prepared for it. Nobody except Harris had a campaign staff, or had fundraised, etc.

Biden didn't drop out until July 21. That's basically a maximum of 1 month before ballot access deadlines passed, and then 2½ months to pivot to a general election campaign. There was no way that was going to happen.

[tylertusta]

Whatever the method, it's a primary. Not the big, state-sponsored primary, but it's a primary nonetheless.

Maybe a mass-mailer to registered Dems. I'm sure Biden's war chest could pay for it.

[Brett Bellmore]

All this depends on how early Biden had dropped out. Realistically, if he'd declared in 2023 that he wasn't running for reelection, there would have been plenty of time. The problem is that they kept up the farce that he was OK too long, by the time it became undeniable that he wasn't, there wasn't remaining time to find a replacement besides Harris.

I think the lesson of 2024, though I doubt either party will learn it, is that, forget anointing somebody, ALWAYS have primaries, force the presumptive candidate to prove that they (still?) have what it takes even if they're the incumbent. Twice now a major party has run a nominee who didn't have to win the primaries; The GOP ran Ford, and the Democrats Harris. And both times they got beat.

If they'd done that, Biden's incapacity and Harris' inability to effectively campaign would both have been exposed early enough to come up with a serviceable candidate.

[David Nieporent]

I think the lesson of 2024, though I doubt either party will learn it, is that, forget anointing somebody, ALWAYS have primaries, force the presumptive candidate to prove that they (still?) have what it takes even if they're the incumbent. Twice now a major party has run a nominee who didn't have to win the primaries; The GOP ran Ford, and the Democrats Harris. And both times they got beat.

In fact, this is 100% wrong. Ford in fact did have to win primaries in 1976. He faced a vigorous challenge from Reagan, so much so that Ford did not have the nomination locked up before the convention.

The lesson of 2024 is not "always have primaries," for two reasons.

1) The Democratic Party did have primaries in 2024, but — unlike the GOP's in 1976, but like each of the other elections in the history of the modern primary system — they were essentially pro forma when there was an incumbent president running for re-election. Parties do not support challengers to incumbent presidents.

2) You can't make serious candidates challenge a sitting president, so primaries don't "prove" anything in that context.

[Josh R]

I agree with David (there were no meaningful primaries because, as usual, there was no meaningful challengers). But to correct the record, LBJ was challenged in 1968 (Eugene McCarthy and then Bobby Kennedy after the New Hampshire primary) and Carter in 1980 (Ted Kennedy).

[Josh R]

Moved.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

An odd assessment. She was nothing without Biden. Never higher than 3rd in her own state when running for Pres. He picked her, he let her slouch for 3 yearts, he must have known also what Jill thought of the accusations about Biden molesting women...No, it's all on Biden, Kamala has no cunning at all, just a mindless and unserious clod.

[tylertusta]

Based on rumors coming out of the White House, Biden and Harris barely tolerate each other, and their respective staff were constantly sniping at each other. It also doesn't help that Harris is an awful manager and burns through staff like a baby goes through diapers.

Biden didn't endorse Harris out of goodwill to her. He knew what she was capable of and what she was incapable of. Yet he essentially locked her in anyways. Despite what David says, there was nearly a month between Biden stepping down and the convention. That's plenty of time to wrangle out the party's differences and come to a consensus nominee.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what "wrangle out the party's differences and come to a consensus nominee" means. The issue discussed above wasn't the party picking someone, but the call for a "primary" of some sort. That's what I'm saying that there wasn't nearly enough time for. Yeah, there was enough time for Obama and Pelosi and Schumer and some other party elders to hold a few Zoom calls and then pick someone.

But also, no: Harris wasn't going to step aside, so there was no possibility of a consensus nominee other than her. If she lost in primaries, that would be one thing, but to be pushed aside by various old people in the party wasn't going to happen.

And also also: you keep ignoring the fact that anyone else would've had to spin up a campaign from scratch.

[tylertusta]

The issue discussed above wasn't the party picking someone, but the call for a "primary" of some sort

This presumes that Democrats don't have an electoral problem. They do. Democrats' coalition has a gaping electoral wound in the working class. Biden was able to temporarily arrest those losses, but Harris clearly continued the losing trend and look what that got her. There's also the relatively recent division within the Party over Israel/Gaza. Harris was too tied to Biden's policies to step out from under his shadow.

Another nominee besides Harris had the potential to address these.

"Wrangling out the party's differences" means that the candidate makes concessions to each part of the coalition to get their support. You ignore parts of your own party at your own peril. If they feel like you're taking them for granted, they either sit it out or switch to the other side.

Harris instead opted for papering over the party's divisions and pretending they didn't exist. It cost her the election, and it was imminently foreseeable.

And also also: you keep ignoring the fact that anyone else would've had to spin up a campaign from scratch.

I'm not ignoring that. I think another candidate was the Democrats' only hope for winning.

The choice faced by Democrats was between running a (nearly) guaranteed loss with Harris, or running a risk by putting in someone else. They chose the guaranteed loss instead of trying to win.

[tylertusta]

Come now, Sarcastr0. I would hope that by now you'd know that I wouldn't be saying something out of nowhere. Democratic donor John Morgan went onto Cuomo's show and said this is what happened.

[Sarcastr0]

Democratic donor John Morgan went onto Cuomo's show and said this is what happened.

1. If you have a cite, make it. Otherwise it looks like you pulled it out of the air.
2. This cite is not great....A Democratic donor I've not heard of. And if you've ever been involved in party politics, you know donors are all about the ego, drama, and infighting. I've experienced that at the state level; I'd guess at the federal level it's not better!

I wouldn't put that as 'probably' at all. It's not even useful as gossip.

Maybe rumor.

[tylertusta]

Since it's you, Peanut:

https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/obama-pelosi-did-not-want-harris-democratic-megadonor/

[Commenter_XY]

LMAO, I knew you'd have the cite. You're wasting your time, unless you enjoy clubbing baby seals Sarcastr0.

[bernard11]

You need to learn to tell a serious cite from some random BS.

[tylertusta]

Are you saying that Morgan didn't say what I said he did?

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

because she hasn't spent much time around a real man.
Druggie pimps and a President who "‘used to drive an 18-wheeler’"
but a real man, Naaah

[Frank Drackman]

Women look that way at me all the time, guess you just don't have what it takes to please a woman.

[Swede425]

LOL!
He's her hero. I'm sure she voted for him.

[Bob from Ohio]

Probably, she wore a red suit to vote. Experience political wife knows all about symbolism.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why was Dr. Jill making goo goo eyes at DJT?"

She wants to stay First Lady?

[Don Nico]

What a bunch of pathetic comments responding to trolling on the internet.

[Bob from Ohio]

Lighten up Francis.

[John F. Carr]

That comment was funny.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Why was Dr. Jill making goo goo eyes at DJT?"

Because he was wearing Fight, Fight Fight fragrence, of course.

Send Trump $300 for a bottle, and maybe she'll make goo goo eyes at you too.

[ThePublius]

It's $200 - I checked. Ha, ha.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Just under 10 years ago, Prof. Volokh challenged readers to guess

: What are the highest-grossing movies set in (1) North America, (2) Latin America, (3) Europe, (4) Asia, (5) Africa, and (6) Australia [UPDATE: and (7) Antarctica]?

For the picky: I'm using U.S. … grosses, in nominal dollars (not adjusted for inflation),[.]

https://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_04_10-2005_04_16.shtml#1113423661

As best I can tell, most (but not, I think, all) have now changed.

Guess away!

[Mr. Bumble]

I think that would be 20 years ago and it is just too early to play this game.

[Noscitur a sociis]

*20 years, obviously.

For what it’s worth, I think the answers are (Rot13’ed):

1. Fcvqre-Zna: Ab Jnl Ubzr
2. Whenffvp Jbeyq, tbvat ol Cebs. Ibybxu’f pynffvsvpngvba. Sbe npghny Fbhgu Nzrevpn, V fhfcrpg vg’f Snfg Svir.
3. Ornhgl naq gur Ornfg (gur yvir npgvba bar)nf
4. Gur Cnffvba bs gur Puevfg (guvf frrzf penml ohg V pna’g svaq nal bgure pnaqvqngrf)
5. Gur Yvba Xvat (ohg abg gur fnzr bar nf ynfg gvzr!)
6. Znq Znk: Shel Ebnq (Fbeel, V qba’g ohl Cebs. Ibybxu’f Svaqvat Arzb gurbel)
7. Nyvra if. Cerqngbe

The following day Prof. Volokh asked the same question, but inflation-adjusted: feel free to guess those too!

[Frank Drackman]

(1) Gone with the Wind (2) The Mexican, (3) Schindler's List, (4) Ishtar, (5) Out of Africa (6) Mad Max beyond Thunderdome (7) Ice Station Zebra

[Paladin_44]

Ice Station Zebra is set at the North pole, not Antarctica.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Adjusted for inflation, "Gone with the Wind" has always been #1, I think.

[Krayt]

It pulls out even further ahead if you try to adjust for ticket price inflation, not just average inflation, and gets way further ahead if you try to adjust for America's and the world's vastly increased populations, as well as much easier movie theater availability in all corners of the Earth.

[Frank Drackman]

With good reason, the book's even better

[Josh R]

Gone with the Wind gets my award for the most overrated movie of all time by far.

[Ska]

Citizen Kane for me, but similar sentiment.

[Josh R]

Citizen Kane is fully deserved of its current standing as an all-time great.

[David Nieporent]

To me, Citizen Kane may be great cinema — it does all sorts of technical things — but it isn't a great movie. That is, people watch it because (a) it's a classic; and (b) it may show all sorts of things about moviemaking. But nobody¹ says "Hey, know what I want to watch? Citizen Kane."
​
​
¹Yeah, yeah, I know there's someone somewhere.

[Bob from Ohio]

cinema and movies as different things. Amazing.

"It's a classic" but not great. Also amazing.

Its an excellent story with some great acting.

[Ska]

Citizen Kane took me four attempts to get through because I kept passing out. I doubt I'll ever watch it again. I'll rewatch a movie I think is great, with the exception of The Deer Hunter, and I'm not watching that again for very different reasons.

The art students can talk about Citizen Kane all they want, and amateur movie buffs, too. I found it completely forgettable and dull. I'm with David N on this one. Just a boring movie, it's technical excellence (so it's said) notwithstanding.

[Bob from Ohio]

"kept passing out"

Try not drinking so much before hand.

Taste is subjective so not liking it is fine but Nieporent's reasoning is dumb. "Its a classic but no one watches it" reminds me of Yogi Berra.

[David Nieporent]

"Its a classic but no one watches it"

I did not, of course, say that nobody watches it. Indeed, I said that they do watch it because it's a classic. And then never again.

Classic and great movie are not mutually exclusive; Casablanca is both, for instance.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Are you referring to the original release, or to the director's cut with the explicit sex scene?*

*Disclaimer: I just made that scene up. As far as I know.

[Bob from Ohio]

"most overrated movie of all time "

Woody Allen erasure.

[Armchair]

Because I can...

1. NA: Avengers Endgame
2. LA: Not sure...
3. Europe: Avengers 2 - Age of Ultron
4. Asia: Avengers - Endgame (Hawkeye scene)
5. Avengers - Infinity War
6. Max Max, Fury Road.
7: (Avengers?)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Per Prof. Volokh, “for purposes of this problem, consider a movie to be set in some place if a substantial chunk of the movie takes place there.”

That’s subjective obviously, but I think it excludes your 4 and 5 (and 7) and probably 1 and 3.

[Armchair]

"if a substantial chunk of the movie takes place there.”"

While you're correct that the "substantial chunk" is subjective, I think we can agree on a quantitative definition, or at least quantitative limits. To give an example, if I was to say "I've spent a substantial chunk of my life in New York"...and the actual numbers were a 40 year old saying they've spent 10 years of their life in New York, I think that would be entirely accurate. Would you agree? By contrast, if I spent more time, ie, "a majority of my life" or "almost all of my life" in my life that would be >20, or >30-odd years, respectively. And it would be more accurate to use that wording, rather than "a substantial chunk."

Using that limit on a "substantial chunk" of ">25% of the time" a strong argument can be made that 1, 3, and 5 (Africa) are accurate, based on the screen time of the movies set in these locations. (Infinity War had several major scenes in Wakanda, but I have not calculated it precisely). I'll give you 4, that was a bit scene. Further using that definition, Furious 7 is set in Asia > 25% of the movie, so would meet the requirement there.

[Armchair]

Further however, there's the question of "Location" and how that is defined for a movie. Is the location explicitly mentioned with real world locations? Or can the location merely be heavily implied? It does matter, especially if we default over to definition 2 of "Substantial Chunk" which using your listed movies is really "almost all the movie (>90%) is on this continent," as the listed answers will change.

The problem is generally Disney movies, which are heavily implied they are in a location...but not explicitly. Movies like Frozen 1/2 (Europe), Beauty and the Beast (Europe), Aladdin (Asia) or the Lion King (Africa). Are they "actually" set on these continents? I'd argue yes, but then it changes some of the answers above.

Finding Dory is in a different boat, kinda being set in Australia (and beating out Mad Max),

[Armchair]

That all being said, here are my revised answers (using Wikipedia's non-inflation adjusted highest grossing films.) #1 and 2 listed

1. North America: Avengers Endgame, then Spiderman NWH
2. Latin America: Jurassic World, Jurassic World, FK
3. Europe: Frozen 2, Avengers 2
4. Asia: Furious 7, Aladdin (live action)
5. Africa: Avengers Infinity War, Lion King (live action)
6. Australia: Finding Dory, Finding Nemo.

[Noscitur a sociis]

3. Beauty and the Beast is ahead of both of those.

4. Passion of the Christ is ahead of both of those.

6. Never seen either, but from my understanding I don’t think it counts.

[Armchair]

3,4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films

As far as I can tell, Passion of the Christ doesn't pass the billion dollar mark.

6. Both are set in the Great Barrier Reef, largely part of Australia, with Nemo having significant screen time in Sidney Australia.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That’s worldwide box office, the challenge was domestic.

[Armchair]

Huh. That significantly skews the numbers.
Most people think worldwide these days, not just domestic.

For example, if I asked for the #1 movie in terms of box office revenue "Domestic"....I bet few people would get it without looking.

[Armchair]

As for #7, a more difficult task...

But the answer is clearly.... Happy Feet, a movie about animated singing penguins.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think this is right, actually.

[hobie]

I'll wager the one for Antarctica would be The Thing. You know, back when Carpenter made the coolest movies

[Zarniwoop]

Carpenter's "The Thing" is an excellent movie.

It's also the only movie I could think of off the top of my head that's set entirely or even substantially in Antarctica.

The wikis provide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_set_in_Antarctica

[Bob from Ohio]

Alien vs. Predator is on that link. Grossed 177 million, more than both "The Thing" combined.

[Armchair]

Happy Feet grossed $384.3 million...

[Kazinski]

Jonathan Last of the Bulwark thinks Democrats shouldn't expend any effort opposing Trump's mass deportation scheme.

The reason, because they are unreliable illegal votes, and what's the point of allowing massive illegal immigration if they aren't going to reliably support your party even if they do vote:

https://x.com/BlueskyLibs/status/1865916774417568042

This report from the NY Post is unrelated to Last's position, if they voted and voted correctly, even if illegally, he would be in their corner all the way:
"There are over 58,000 illegal migrants who are convicted felons or facing criminal charges roaming NYC — and close to 670,000 across the country, startling new data obtained by The Post shows.

Of the 759,218 illegal-border crossers living in the Big Apple the feds were aware of as of Nov. 17, a jaw-dropping 58,626 — 7.7% — were either previously convicted of crimes or had criminal charges pending, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency data.

And of the 58,626 migrants with rap sheets, 1,053, nearly 2%, are “suspected or known gang members,” according to the agency."

https://nypost.com/2024/11/30/us-news/nyc-is-now-home-to-over-58k-criminal-migrants-including-over-1000-gang-members-ice/

[Martinned2]

Well, as of this weekend Trump is also going to deport US citizens. So maybe someone should say something about that.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-vows-to-deport-us-citizens-in-new-immigration-policy/

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He doesn't want to break up families. He's a kind, compassionate man. Unlike the Democrats who accidentally or on-purpose created a massive child trafficking industry.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's a bit scant to say he intends to deport citizens. So maybe we should get some details before assuming the worst?

Trump teases plans during NBC News interview to deport Americans along with illegal-migrant kin: ‘Don’t have to separate families’

So, what does he say about this 'deportation' of citizens?

“If they come here illegally but their family is here legally, then the family has a choice: The person that came in illegally can go out or they can all go out together.”

So, NOT "deportation".

He also said,

“The Dreamers are going to come later, and we have to do something about the Dreamers, because these are people that have been brought here at a very young age, and many of these are middle-aged people now,” Trump said.

“I will work with the Democrats on a plan, and [see] if we can come up with a plan. But the Democrats have made it very, very difficult to do anything. Republicans are very open to the Dreamers.”

Moderator Kristen Welker asked Trump if that means he hopes the Dreamers can stay within the US.

“I do. I want them to work something out,” he explained.

A basic problem here is that media lie by omission when reporting what Trump says. If they're not inserting occasional words into paraphrases, they're taking things deliberately out of context. And, of course, they NEVER link to complete transcripts or recordings to make it easy to detect.

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess I should say that Trump isn't the only person who gets this treatment. Full in context quotes with links to source material are disfavored by almost all outlets, regardless of who they're reporting on.

Can't push the narrative if you give people enough information to form their own opinions.

[Sarcastr0]

The pattern of people on here denying Trump will do the things that they very much support continues:

“I don’t want to be breaking up families,” Trump said. “So the only way you don’t break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back.”
-------
In a wide-ranging interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" that aired Sunday, Trump was asked if he planned to follow-up on his promise to end birthright citizenship – under which people born in the U.S. are considered citizens – the day he takes office.

"Absolutely," he responded, adding that he’ll do it by executive order if he can.
https://www.fox5ny.com/news/trump-birthright-citizenship

[Brett Bellmore]

I literally linked to an account that included a statement by him that American families of illegals would have a choice about staying or leaving with the illegal family member. And you doubled down on pretending that he was going to deport American citizens anyway.

Family separation in the context of deportation is a choice, Sarcastr0. The family members with citizenship aren't being kept prisoners here, after all.

Which is more than you can say of when citizens get convicted of crimes and sent off to prison. And yet, how many people whine about the fact that when Daddy goes to prison, his kids are separated from him? How is this materially different, except that the kids CAN legally follow daddy out of the country?

I agree that Trump likely can't do anything about birthright citizenship for the children of people here illegally, short of a constitutional amendment.

""We’ll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it," he said."

So, he's thinking in terms of an amendment. I think such an amendment would be easily ratified, if you could get it originated. But originating it would likely require a constitutional convention.

Trump would be smart to pursue one, for multiple reasons.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, and I quoted Trump saying the *exact opposite.* Those two things cannot both be true.

You taking one of them as the real truth, and the other as fake news? That's you denying what Trump said.

"We’ll maybe have to go back to the people" is Trump describing his *fallback.* The question was about an executive order, Brett. And he said yes.

You're lying about the text of what Trump said, foregrounding the other contraditory stuff.
That is, itself disingenuous.

But the stuff he said is the stuff *you want him to do*.

Defending Trump by saying the stuff he's promised that you like is a lie is not how people act when they've won the argument.

What this looks like is trying to lower resistance to stuff you want, by pretending it's not a thing until the hammer comes down. Which is an authoritarian move.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

These aren't opposite statements:

“If they come here illegally but their family is here legally, then the family has a choice: The person that came in illegally can go out or they can all go out together.”

“I don’t want to be breaking up families,” Trump said. “So the only way you don’t break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back.”

Do you get paid in shekels or just "good boys" for all your lying you do?

[Swede425]

Gaslighto strikes again!

[Brett Bellmore]

You quoted Trump saying that he didn't want to break up families, and they wouldn't be broken up if they left together. I quoted him saying that the family members who were citizens would, of course, have a choice about it. Both are perfectly capable of being true at the time time. You want to blow off the latter statement, because it's important to you to maintain your conviction that Trump is some kind of monster, so you have to ignore anything that might contradict that view.

""We’ll maybe have to go back to the people" is Trump describing his *fallback.* The question was about an executive order, Brett. And he said yes."

Yes, I'm perfectly aware that's his fallback. I SAID that I didn't think he could abolish birthright citizenship by any other means. I'm not absolutely sure that's true, because, as I've pointed out repeatedly, worse constitutional takes occasionally win at the Supreme court, so you basically can't rule out them having a brain fart and buying some obvious rationalization.

But, yeah, he's going to try by executive order first. How is he going to get a test case before the Court if he doesn't? They don't do advisory opinions, you know.

[Sarcastr0]

“Send them all back” says what it says.

Ridiculous that you pretend otherwise

You have also switched from what Trump wants to do re:14A to what you think he will succeed in doing. Wildly different goalposts.

You are working very hard to deny the very clear.

Trump said lots of contradictory stuff. Among them deporting citizens and using executive authority to strip birthright citizenship from the Constitution.

That is the truth of what Trump has said, and your work to deny it is bad and you should feel bad.

[Riva]

Who said they would deport citizens?

[Brett Bellmore]

You've just lost it at this point. You can read what he said, listen to what he said, and if he says something that doesn't make him look like a monster, you just can't comprehend it. Your brain treats it like noise.

[Sarcastr0]

KRISTEN WELKER:

The 14th Amendment, though, says that, quote, “All persons born in the United States are citizens.”

PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP:

Yeah.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Can you get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action?

PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP:

Well, we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it. We’re the only country that has it, you know.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Through an executive action? You’re going to —

PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP:

You know we’re the only country that has it. Do you know if somebody sets a foot, just a foot, one foot, you don’t need two, on our land, “Congratulations you are now a citizen of the United States of America.” Yes, we’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Through executive action?

PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP:

Do you know — well, if we can, through executive action. I was going to do it through executive action but then we had to fix COVID first, to be honest with you. We have to end it. It’s ridiculous. Do you know we’re the only country in the world that has it? Do you know that? There’s not one other country.
-----------

Brett - he tried to evade, but in the end he absolutely said executive action.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you somehow under the impression that said anything that contradicted anything I said?

Yes, he will try to do it by executive order. He will probably, but not 100% certainly, find that he can't.

[Sarcastr0]

And you're flat denying the plain meaning of:
“I don’t want to be breaking up families,” Trump said. “So the only way you don’t break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back.”

I fully admit Trump contradicts himself all the time. You're the one insisting this is unambiguously not what it says.

[Brett Bellmore]

He didn't contradict himself. You'd understand that if you could just lay off your habit of reading into what people say more than what they actually said, and then discounting anything they said that contradicts your preferred reading.

1) He doesn't want to break up families.
2) He is determined to deport illegal aliens.
3) As he notes, if you go to prison, your family gets 'broken up', and how is deportation any different from that? So if families do get broken up due to deportation, that's not any different. Unfortunate, but it happens.
4) Families can avoid being broken up by having the citizens leave with the illegal family member.
5) But this is a choice that said citizens get to make.

[Michael P]

Gaslight0 is, of course, right about what Donald Trump said if you merely ignore what Donald Trump actually said.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, what do you think the 'all' in "you have to send them all back" means?

Are you arguing 'sending back' is voluntary on their part?

Silly man.

[Brett Bellmore]

All illegal aliens, obviously.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
You seem completely intent on having and argument and calling Brett a liar just to troll him. Of course he takes the trolling and responds.
It is just childish when seen from the outside.

[Kazinski]

Well lets actually look at current law and how USCIS implements it. If someone is here illegally and has children that are American citizens those children may not file a petition to legalize their parent until the child is 21.

If the illegal alien is married to an American citizen or green card holder then they can file a petition to legalize their spouse.

However if the illegal alien has been in the united states for more than 1 year, then they need to go back to their home country and wait 10 years before they can get their green card and immigrate to the United States.

However their is a hardship waiver that can be granted but only extreme hardship, these are examples of ordinary hardship which would not qualify under current law and practice:

-Family separation;
-Economic detriment;
-Difficulties of readjusting to life in the new country;
-The quality and availability of educational opportunities abroad;
-Inferior quality of medical services and facilities; and
-Ability to pursue a chosen employment abroad.

In short, Trump is proposing to implement current law and regulations. Read it for yourself:

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-9-part-b-chapter-5

[bernard11]

As he notes, if you go to prison, your family gets 'broken up', and how is deportation any different from that? So if families do get broken up due to deportation, that's not any different. Unfortunate, but it happens.

First, it's not a good thing, at all.

Second, at least with a prisoner, family members can visit, without the expense and bother of going to a foreign country or, often even having to travel very far.

Third, prisoners get out, they finish their sentences, get paroled, etc.

Fourth, prisoners have committed serious crimes. Illegal immigrants haven't.

But hey, you've stumbled on a "logical" analogy and fallen in love with it in your usual unthinking way.

[Kazinski]

Oh come on Bernard:
"Second, at least with a prisoner, family members can visit, without the expense and bother of going to a foreign country or, often even having to travel very far."

Sure its more expensive to go to a foreign country, but it is not a prison, you can stay a couple of weeks, learn or brush up on a foreign language, learn about a different culture.

The take that freedom in a foreign country is worse than prison is pretty jingoistic: "an American prison is heaven compared to the shithole countries these people are from" is quite a take.

[bernard11]

Kazinski,

You have a sort of point about my second item, but it's not quite as strong as you think. Let's not minimize the expense and trouble of visiting a foreign country, possibly with a family. Do you think the families of the deportees are going to be able to jump on a plane whenever they feel like it to go visit Junior? And they very likely already know something about the culture and speak the language somewhere between minimally and fluently.

Anyway, I wasn't saying US prisons are better than deportation. I was disagreeing with Brett's glib, thoughtless, comparison. Maybe lifetime deportation is better than a prison sentence, maybe not. Depends on the length of the sentence, the destination country (Not many illegals coming in from France or Italy, for example) and probably other things. But the deportation is for life.

And one other thing. The prisoner has presumably committed a serious offense, worthy of relatively severe punishment. The deportee, IMO, has not. Sure, it's a misdemeanor or something to enter illegally, but whether it's harmful or even beneficial does not seem to be clearcut.

Look at it this way. Someone committed a minor offense ten or more years ago (see my cite to Pew, above) and you and Brett have no problem completely fucking up their life and that of their family. That just looks evil to me. I don't know about you, but Brett claims to be a Christian. IANAC, but it seems like a bizarre version of Jesus' teachings to me.

And remember, the deportation is for life.

[Kazinski]

Well no Bernard, Deportation is not for life its only for 10 years, that is if you haven't violated any serious laws.

But if you think that's harsh, that's pretty much the standard wait time for a visa for the sibling or adult child of an American citizen that has never violated any immigration or criminal laws and done everything legally.

And yet you advocate someone that violates our laws and comes here without authorization or vetting of any kind goes to the head of the line.

[bernard11]

Kazinski,

Yes.

I do think that's harsh.

And the wait time for a visa for the sibling or adult child of an American citizen has zero to do with it. That should be vastly shorter. That we can't get out of our own way to get whatever needs to be done accomplished in much less time isn't the fault of the would-be immigrant.

Note, incidentally, that it's often going to be easier to vet the guy who's been here for years than someone who has lived his whole life in another country.

[Riva]

I think the argument against granting constitutional birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens is fairly strong, both from the legislative history surrounding the 14th amendment and, more importantly, the text itself.

[not guilty]

I think the argument against granting constitutional birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens is fairly strong, both from the legislative history surrounding the 14th amendment and, more importantly, the text itself.

Wrong. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), settled the question -- irrespective of what Riva or anyone else thinks.

[Michael P]

not guilty is, as usual, not right. Wong Kim Ark's parents were legal immigrants to the United States at the time of his birth, and could legally remain in the United States indefinitely. Their status wasn't exactly the same as current lawful permanent residence (blue card status) because, for example, they could not naturalize as US citizens -- but it was relatively close.

[William of Brooklyn]

My understanding is that Trump may try to get Congress to define "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" from the 14th Amendment to exclude children born to illegals. Not clear how that squares with wanting to do something for Dreamers.

[Michael P]

Does "wanting to do something for Dreamers" have anything at all to do with the Constitution, except perhaps as a violation of the Take Care clause?

[not guilty]

"Wong Kim Ark's parents were legal immigrants to the United States at the time of his birth, and could legally remain in the United States indefinitely."

That is a red herring. What language from Wong Kim Ark indicates that the parents' residence at the time of the habeas petitioner's birth mattered to the decision?

[Michael P]

What language from the ruling indicates that children of illegal immigrants are legally in the same position?

You don't like that it's a trivial basis to distinguish the Wongs' case from current issues. You presumably also don't like that the Slaughterhouse Cases decision said:

The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction,' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.

Your dislikes do not mean that the Wong Kim Ark court squarely addressed cases that arise 125 years later.

[Josh R]

I agree Wong did not squarely address the case of children born to parents unlawfully present in the USA. However, I don't see how the text supports the distinction and the quote from the Slaughterhouse case makes no such distinction either (the part pertaining to "citizens of foreign states" was rejected in Wong).

[Riva]

So, NG, it's of no significance to you that the factual context before the Court in Wong Kim Ark solely concerned legal resident aliens?

[not guilty]

The Court in Wong Kim Ark explained that the dictum from the Slaughterhouse Cases was not binding. 169 U.S. at 676-680.

[Commenter_XY]

Wait....so NG, there really is not a case on point, is there?

Meaning, the citizenship status of a child born in this country to illegal aliens. That question has never been squarely addressed.

Suppose Pres Trump calls you, and says, "not guilty, my man, I need you aboard the Trump Train, and I need a good argument that denies US citizenship to children born of illegal aliens on US soil even more"

And you, in a fit of temporary insanity, say 'Yessiree! I will do that. But I need my red MAGA cap first"

What's the argument to deny citizenship?

[David Nieporent]

What language from the ruling indicates that children of illegal immigrants are legally in the same position?

WKA is an interpretation of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment makes no distinction whatsoever based on the status of the parents (if for no other reason than there wasn't any such thing as "illegal immigrants" at the time). The only thing citizenship turns on under the 14A is whether the people are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. — something that 100% does not rely on immigration status. Not then, not now, and not at any time in between.

There are only two interpretations of the 14A:
1) Immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S., and therefore no children of immigrants are citizens at birth.
2) Immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S., and therefore all children of immigrants are citizens at birth.

#1 is consistent, but is insane in so many ways. First, it would have meant that the 14A essentially only applied to blacks — but that's an incredibly bizarre way to write an amendment designed only to apply to blacks. Second, it would have rendered massive swaths of the U.S. population non-citizens. Third, it would have caused the 14A to actually narrow the concept of citizenship from what it was before the 14A was passed.¹ And fourth, it overturns a 125-year old precedent that has never been seriously questioned by anyone.
​
​
¹ I think many people don't appreciate that birthright citizenship was always the U.S. standard even before the 14th amendment and Wong Kim Ark, going back to British common law. It was Dred Scott that was the aberration, inventing a new rule that some people born here (outside the narrow categories of children of diplomats and foreign soldiers) weren't citizens. The 14th amendment makes birthright citizenship explicit, of course, and it might be vulnerable without that, but it was the rule.

[David Nieporent]

Wait....so NG, there really is not a case on point, is there?

Wong Kim Ark is directly on point. That it doesn't mention illegal immigrants doesn't make it not on point any more than the fact that it mentions Chinese people rather than Mexican people does. That's a factual distinction, but not a legal one.

[not guilty]

"Suppose Pres Trump calls you, and says, "not guilty, my man, I need you aboard the Trump Train, and I need a good argument that denies US citizenship to children born of illegal aliens on US soil even more"

There is not a good argument there, apart from proposing an amendment to the Constitution. A lawyer advocating that position in federal district court would risk sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2), with the caveat that counsel could make it clear from the outset that the claim is foreclosed by existing law and that he is presenting an argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law. Even that is sanctionable if the court finds the argument to be frivolous.

Rule 3.3(a)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct would require disclosure to the court of United States v. Wong Kim Ark and candid discussion thereof.

[Kazinski]

Even if you are right, then there is an important consequence you should be aware of and acknowledge:

If illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then all illegal aliens have what amounts to diplomatic immunity. Any crimes they commit, from shoplifting to murder are outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and state and local jurisdictions.

So the only punishment available for say for instance Laken Riley's killer, is deportation.

Are you willing to take that tradeoff, assuming your interpretation of the law is correct?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The question was about an executive order, Brett. And he said yes."

He said he'd do it if he can. And he can't. So what are you complaining about?

[David Nieporent]

It won't ultimately work, but that doesn't mean he can't cause major suffering in the process.

[Riva]

What citizen family members? Are we talking anchor babies? Well the constitutional distortion of granting birthright citizenship to illegal newborns is also being addressed.

[Sarcastr0]

You sure are helping!

[not guilty]

"A basic problem here is that media lie by omission when reporting what Trump says. If they're not inserting occasional words into paraphrases, they're taking things deliberately out of context. And, of course, they NEVER link to complete transcripts or recordings to make it easy to detect."

The full broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UsHJWEAj_I NBC has published the full interview (which I have not watched in full) here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b607aDHUu2I

And speaking of lying by omission, Brett curiously omits Trump's blather about abolishing birthright citizenship "on day one," notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amendment guaranty.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's strange: In response to a comment by Martinned2 about Trump intending to deport citizens, I didn't talk about something else; How nefarious!

And then, when Sarcastr0 brought up the birthright citizenship thing, I addressed the birthright citizenship thing. I said, "I agree that Trump likely can't do anything about birthright citizenship for the children of people here illegally, short of a constitutional amendment."

Thanks for the link. Notice that the sources cited by Martinned2 and Sarcastr0 didn't link to it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems that "birthright citizenship" based on the 14th Amendment turns on a question of what jurisdiction means.

[not guilty]

Think so, Mr. Bumble? If so-called "illegal aliens" and their offspring born here are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, then their unauthorized entry is no crime, and the federal government has no deportation authority.

[Kazinski]

Not so NG. Diplomats with diplomatic immunity are an acknowledged case of persons not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Yet they can be expelled at will without due process or even sufficient reason. A simple "get out, or we will put you on a plane" is sufficient.

[David Nieporent]

I agree with Kazinski on that. Diplomats of course can be expelled, despite not being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. They cannot be prosecuted, though, because of said lack of jurisdiction.

[Brett Bellmore]

By the way, that interview? The interviewer is pissed. I don't think I've ever heard an interviewer who sounded that just flat out MAD at the person being interviewed.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I should have linked to the transcript.

It does show you're full of it. Seems like you reflexively moved out without checking the transcript - deciding the multiple sources were all wrong.

I should also have been more diligent, but believing multiple independent secondary sources is not nearly as silly as insisting they all got it wrong without checking on the primary.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It does show you're full of it."

It shows nothing of the sort, and you'd understand that if you could limit your reading comprehension to what people actually SAY.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The transcript is what he said you fucking retard.

[Brett Bellmore]

Then stop ignoring the parts that don't support your position, like blowing off his statement about the citizen family members having a choice.

[Commenter_XY]

You know Brett, the level of caterwauling is directly proportional to the likelihood that Pres Trump will actually follow through. Such wailing, and gnashing of teeth. And he hasn't even taken the oath of office.

It will be an entertaining 4 years.

To me, the question is: How quickly can a case get before SCOTUS that directly addresses the question of citizenship status of children born to illegal aliens on US soil? A week? A month? A year? Two years?

[not guilty]

"To me, the question is: How quickly can a case get before SCOTUS that directly addresses the question of citizenship status of children born to illegal aliens on US soil? A week? A month? A year? Two years?"

Trump theoretically could issue an executive order revoking the citizenship of such children and threaten or attempt to enforce it. Properly situated plaintiffs would challenge such an order in United States District Court, and the Court would likely issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the order following an evidentiary hearing. I expect that ruling would come within several weeks of filing suit, with no stay pending appeal.

The government would appeal to the U. S. Court of Appeals. The government could move the appellate court for a stay pending appeal, which is unlikely to be granted. The government could seek review by SCOTUS of the denial of the stay, which likely would be unsuccessful.

The government could seek certiorari before judgment, which is unlikely to be granted. Briefing and argument in the Court of Appeals would at a minimum take a few months. The Court of Appeals would affirm the preliminary injunction issued by the District Court.

The government could petition SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari, which may or may not be granted. If so, oral argument would likely be heard sometime during the term beginning in October 2025, with a decision coming in the spring of 2026,

[bernard11]

Oh fuck this : "they have a choice" idiocy.

The choices on offer b you are:

Break up the family, or
Deport the entire family to the foreign country, never mind that they may have, indeed often have, been here for years - decades even - without trouble. According to Pew Research

About two-thirds of unauthorized immigrants (66%) had lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years as of 2017, up from 41% 10 years earlier. Conversely, newly arrived unauthorized immigrants (those in the U.S. five years or less) accounted for 20% of the unauthorized immigrant population in 2017 versus 30% in 2007. For Mexicans, the pattern is even more pronounced. The vast majority (83%) of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico have been in the country more than 10 years, while only 8% have lived in the U.S. for five years or less.

Some choice.

[bernard11]

It seems to me that you and Brett are doing a lot of caterwauling.

[Lennyk78]

How many of them, even if they're behaving, are social and financial burdens?

How often do you see someone on TV, a crime victim or what not, being interviewed with a translator, despite having been in the U.S. for 20 years?

[David Nieporent]

Trump theoretically could issue an executive order revoking the citizenship of such children and threaten or attempt to enforce it.

Trump's reported plan — or, rather, the plan of his minions, since Trump doesn't know enough about the law to spell any of the words correctly — is to order federal agencies to treat the children in question as non-citizens (e.g., refusing to issue them SSNs or passports). This would then force said children to bring suits, which would tee it up for judicial decision. Since the suits would be brought by the children (or advocacy groups on their behalf), they would not initially be brought in Kacsmaryk's courtroom or O'Connor's, or anywhere in the 5th circuit. (It should not matter, of course, since there's binding precedent, but who knows whether they'll pull a "illegal aliens are invading soldiers so the 14A doesn't apply" bullshit?) District and Circuit judges should find the cases very easy, thanks to said precedent. And then Trump asks SCOTUS for emergency relief, and I strongly doubt SCOTUS grants that. But perhaps there's 4 votes for cert. (Don't think so, but then I was mistaken about the fake presidential immunity.)

[Riva]

Well, he certainly can’t abolish it before he’s sworn in so day one will have to do.

[jimc5499]

Yeah, but, check this out.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/gop-senator-calls-out-nbc-omitting-part-14th-amendment-trump-interview

[Longtobefree]

" . . . make it easy to detect."

It is obvious; NBC. That says it all.

[hobie]

Brett, if I were you (a racist xenophobe) I'd still be worried. Your Philippino war bride may be here 'legally' but still, by yours and Tucker's and MAGA's definition, her brown presence is a potential dilution of American white blood. Now that you're all drunk on power, it's just a matter of time until y'all crater into the Nationalist party of 1938

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you well?

[Don Nico]

"Your Philippino war bride..."
That comment is plain racist and you know it. Shame on you.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know that I'd call it racist, but remarkably stupid. I mean, obviously my wife of 18 years IS a Filipina, but she's hardly a 'war bride'.

And I can't count how many times I've said here that I don't give a damn about immigrants' color, so he's just imagining that "by yours". I care that people coming here contribute maximally to the welfare of existing citizens. That they be English literate, educated, law abiding, and have compatible cultural values, and not be flooding in at a disruptive rate. If they check those boxes I literally don't care if they're albinos or jet black. If I cared about that sort of crap why would I have married a woman who's as dark as half my 'black' neighbors?

Can't speak to Tucker because I don't watch him.

I think Hobie desperately wants his political foes to be evil, because that would mean he's engaged in some grand and glorious fight, not just taking one side in an ordinary political dispute.

[Don Nico]

Brett,
"war-bride" is certainly a slur and especially when couple with the hobie's "brown-skinned," it is a racial slur.

[Brett Bellmore]

I took it as a really stupid claim that people who marry immigrants inter-racially are particularly racist and xenophobic. Which IS a claim I've seen before, as stupid as it is.

Kind of like people who live on mountain tops are typically afraid of heights, I guess, and hydrophobes are notorious for scuba diving.

[Kazinski]

I knew one "war bride" pretty well, she was my mother in laws best friend for 50 years.

Her Husband won the Congressional Medal of Honor in the Pacific, and of course lived thru the experience, which a lot of his co-medalists did not.

Being close family friends, my children and the "War Bride" and MoH's grandchildren grew up as very close friends.

Hobie, you really should try not to humiliate yourself that way, at least not on a public forum, however much you enjoy it in private.

[hobie]

Brett of all people should be grateful for our permissive immigration policies, yet he likes to have it both ways and spew his hate...largely at people I consider my friends. Clutch your pearls elsewhere, Don

[Bob from Ohio]

I find it impossible to believe you have friends.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm sure "acquaintances with mutual enemies" serve much the same purpose in his life.

[Commenter_XY]

hobie, you're very angry. It is great that you're past the denial stage, but long-term anger isn't healthy. With chronic anger, you cause excess cortisol to be released into your system; and in turn, that triggers insulin release. You don't want that.

[bernard11]

You realize he's lying, and would deport the dreamers at the drop of a hat?

All he's doing here is preparing the ground to blame the Democrats when no agreement is reached, no matter how obstructive he and his tuchus-leckers in Congress actually behave.

[SRG2]

I think it was Rod Dreher who coined the term, "merited impossibility", talking about left-wing activists' goals, but it's applicable here. Basically, "it won't happen and they deserve it".

[David Nieporent]

Jonathan Last of the Bulwark thinks Democrats shouldn't expend any effort opposing Trump's mass deportation scheme.

The reason, because they are unreliable illegal votes, and what's the point of allowing massive illegal immigration if they aren't going to reliably support your party even if they do vote:

Were you trying to be funny? Because you failed. And/or you're lying. As evidenced by the fact that you quoted some shitposting twitter troll rather than Last while talking about what Last said. He didn't say anything about "illegal."

[Brett Bellmore]

The topic of the root comment was an illegal alien whose citizen children voted for Trump It in no way implies voting BY illegal aliens.

Last's comment is pretty revealing, though, in that he apparently sees the only reason to oppose deportation as garnering votes. It was never, apparently, about concern for the actual illegal aliens, but instead purely transactional.

Which is pretty much how conservatives see the Democrats' support of illegal aliens: As just a way to bolster their voting base. Last agrees with this...

[David Nieporent]

Last's comment is pretty revealing, though, in that he apparently sees the only reason to oppose deportation as garnering votes. It was never, apparently, about concern for the actual illegal aliens, but instead purely transactional.

(1) It was a sarcastic tweet about a ridiculous comment, not an essay.
(2) You know Last is a conservative, right?

[Kazinski]

Yes, Last is the kind of conservative that only votes for and endorses Democrats, and get financed by left wing billionaires.

A leading conservative thought leader.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, Bashar Assad is safely in Moscow. Will the ICC be issuing warrants for his arrest anytime soon?

[Martinned2]

No, because the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Syria. (Unless the UN Security Council says otherwise.)

[Mr. Bumble]

So real crimes against humanity will get a pass?

[Martinned2]

Lots of crimes unfortunately get a pass. Whether something is a "crime" when there's no legal mechanism for individual criminal responsibility is a more philosophical question. (Which may or may not involve some interesting opinions about the Nuremberg Tribunals.)

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

NO, that was not the point. He has committed 'crimes against humanity" so ius gentium comes into play.

[Martinned2]

I assume you mean ius cogens? The problem is that, like other international law, it normally only binds states.

Of course, the Nuremberg Code is authority for the proposition that individuals can be charged with certain crimes regardless of whether there was a specific treaty or domestic law that created criminal responsibility. But the victors of World War II didn't exactly give the impression that they were willing to apply that principle universally.

[Bob from Ohio]

"CC does not have jurisdiction over Syria"

It does not have jurisdiction over Israel either.

[hobie]

Bob, serious question. Which country do you have more allegiance to: America or Israel? It's often hard to tell

[Don Nico]

You woke up in an ugly mood today.

[Martinned2]

No, but it does have jurisdiction over the State of Palestine, wherever that is.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
The correct wording is "whatever it is." That is what the fight will continue to be about.

[Martinned2]

Yes, the defendants will have ample opportunity to make that argument if/when they're tried.

[Bob from Ohio]

The PLO isn't a sovereign, it can't join treaties.

[Martinned2]

The PLO certainly isn't. The Palestinian Authority might be. That is something that the pre-trial chamber considered a few years ago, and that the trial chamber will also look at in due course.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, but it does have jurisdiction over the State of Palestine..."

The State of Palestine that's currently at war with the State of Israel? Did the ICC look at what the State of Palestine's getting and say, "Yeah, I want me some of that!"

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a mythical entity anyway.

[Martinned2]

Are you suggesting that someone should use violence against a court?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm suggesting that violence is likely if someone chooses to intervene in an ongoing conflict on behalf of one of the belligerents.

[Kazinski]

It doesn't have jurisdiction over anything.

After all how many divisions does the ICC have?

[Martinned2]

How many divisions does any other court have?

[Michael P]

This jurisdiction issue goes away as soon as some rebel group holding territory in Syria claims to sign up to the ICC, right?

[Martinned2]

When a body that purports to be the government of Syria ratifies the Rome Statute there is arguable jurisdiction, yes. In due course the Court will then have to decide whether that is all on the up and up. (As the PTC already did with respect to the ratification by Palestine.)

[Commenter_XY]

Mr. Bumble, yesterday the United States executed dozens of air attacks on targets throughout Syria. That was an act of war. The Congress hasn't said anything about Syria.

Did the US violate Int'l law?
Could the ICC issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of POTUS Biden, and Sec Def Austin?

[apedad]

The strikes were against ISIS not Syria - so not an act of war and not a violation of international law.

“'The strikes against the ISIS leaders, operatives, and camps were conducted as part of the ongoing mission to disrupt, degrade and defeat ISIS, in order to prevent the terrorist group from conducting external operations and to ensure that ISIS does not seek to take advantage of the current situation to reconstitute in central Syria,' CENTCOM’s statement said."

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5029424-us-launches-airstrikes-against-isis-camps-in-syria/

[Commenter_XY]

The strikes occurred throughout Syria. A distinction without a difference, apedad.

[apedad]

This is a law blog and the distinction is very real.

[Krayt]

Either the nation lets the bad guys operate there, in which case they're in cahoots, or it cannot stop them, in which case we have every right to do so. This assumes war or at least clear direction from Congress, of course, on top of that.

[Martinned2]

Yes, "unable or unwilling" has been the US reasoning for getting around art. 2(4) UN Charter for about 20 years now. But it has yet to be adopted by the international community at large, so for now it's not an acceptable defence under customary international law.

[Swede425]

Is that because the "international community at large" is so much more ethical or because they lack the capability to project force in any meaningful way? Nobody thinks of Europe when they think expeditionary capabilities.

[Swede425]

Or maybe the "international community at large" simply lacks the will to project force in protection of their interests? That may play a significant factor, as well.
Look at how many European countries are allowing themselves to be invaded by third world savages who not only have no intention of assimilating, but have clearly stated time and time again that it is Europe who will change.

[Krayt]

I read a SF short story a few decades ago, where two UN enforcement pilots were going against some terrorists hiding in the mountains.

One pilot was so damned dedicated to the UN, he flew his plane, with bomb, right down ths throat of the cave and blew it up, Doomsday-machine style.

Then he sat back and took his drone remote control helm off. The UN had some bite in that story.

[Bob from Ohio]

"so for now it's not an acceptable defence under customary international law"

Nobody cares.

"the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" as always applies

[Martinned2]

Yes, and you will note that the Athenians ended that war being "the weak" rather than "the strong".

[Bob from Ohio]

So? We are not a city state.

[Krayt]

Well, at least you qualified who it was not acceptable to: a nebulous international community with little to no will, money, or capability to do anything.

"We do not find that acceptable. Now..."

[David Nieporent]

It may not have been "adopted by the international community at large" in some formal sense, but it has been accepted more broadly than you say.

[Martinned2]

Not enough to make it part of CIL.

[Commenter_XY]

We agree the distinction is real. The point is, apedad, the statement is flatly untrue. The attacks were not confined to just ISIS leaders, operatives and camps; the attacks occurred throughout Syria. That is a different matter, altogether.

I am not crying at the prospect of a bunch of judeocidal terrorists taking a dirt nap, far from it. I would like the Congress to speak to the matter, as they should.

There are US troops on the ground, in Syria.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>The strikes were against ISIS not Syria

So Pentagon vs. CIA.

[William of Brooklyn]

This is silly. It suggests that wars can only occur between recognized States, which would surprise everyone from the Confederacy to Hamas and Hezbollah. Congress is indeed supposed to be the authority for war-making, and that is precisely what the AUMF does -- it authorizes war. Against groups. And international law is not really law in any sense of the word; it is merely a highly flexible arrangement between States, those that are powerful for the moment, for their own ends. There is no Sovereign, and those States are not subject to it. It's just a tool of Statecraft.

[Martinned2]

It suggests that wars can only occur between recognized States

How do you figure? There is lots of international law, including entire Geneva Conventions, about non-international armed conflict. What there isn't is a rule that allows the US to attack Syrian territory without the consent of the government of Syria, even if there are bad guys hiding there.

[William of Brooklyn]

Actually, not. As you're no doubt aware, the Geneva Conventions as a treaty, have the force of a federal statute. They do not constitute a constitutional amendment. Therefore, Congress retains its ability to declare or authorize war, and the Executive retains its authority to wage it. And as a statute passed subsequent to the adoption of the Conventions, the AUMF supersedes any constraint found therein. As I mentioned above, there is no International Sovereign. "International Law" is a quaint notion used by more powerful States to their own ends. States are free to act in any manner they wish, and take the concomitant risks associated with that action.

[Don Nico]

"Did the US violate Int'l law?"
No. It just did the sensible thing.

[John F. Carr]

Has his presence been confirmed? A picture of him in Moscow turned out to be a recycled picture of him in Syria.

[Martinned2]

This weekend I accidentally strayed onto the rest of Reason, because Google sent me to an article where someone argued that maybe the Senate shouldn't confirm an FBI director who thinks his job is to go after the media when they write critically about Trump. Wow, the comments under that article make the VC comments section look like a meeting of the Young Democrats. If I didn't already despair about the future of US democracy, I sure do now.

[Mr. Bumble]

US democracy will be fine. Save your despair for your adopted home under Herr Starmer.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It's been mentioned before, but the level of juvenile trash/misogyny/racism around here escalated greatly when Volokh moved to Reason.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it's leaking in from the rest of Reason.

In a generally low moderation internet, the real crazies/scum are all over the place at a low frequency, because there really aren't THAT many of them. So they're a minor problem.

But as heavy moderation becomes more and more prevalent, the few sites that are determined to retain free speech practices get flooded with them, not because they're doing anything to attract them, but just because they don't relentlessly drive them out.

Of course, there's also the issue that, if you've become used to strict moderation with an ideological slant, it warps your perception of what's really crazy; You start to think perfectly ordinary views in the mainstream are 'way out there'.

[Sarcastr0]

as heavy moderation becomes more and more prevalent

Any evidence this is actually happening?

[Brett Bellmore]

30 years of using the internet?

[Lennyk78]

Go to Reddit. 90% of the subs will delete legitimate questions because it's "low effort" or some other nonsense.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

As a general matter, you're full of shit as usual.

Personally, I can believe that you get rightfully banned wherever you go, as your racist views are reprehensible.

Just like your old account got banned here by Eugene.

[SimonP]

It's always a conspiracy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seriously Capt. Dan, grow up.

[SRG2]

One of the oddities of those comment sections is that they're dominated by right-wing authoritarians and nationalists who seem permanently pissed off that Reason doesn't agree with them.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was a subscriber to reason for many years, I first started reading it in the late 70's. I have to tell you that a lot of the readers back then would be pissed off at today's Reason.

[SRG2]

But I assume that the readers then would not have been pissed off at Reason for advocating for easier immigration laws, against tariffs, etc. i.e., for articles running counter to Trump's non-libertarian policies. And perhaps more readers then were actually libertarians as opposed to right-wingers who claim to be libertarians but whose only evidence for their libertarian thinking is their opposition to the Democrats.

[Brett Bellmore]

The libertarian movement has always had it's right and left wings. And the libertarian movement, much to the discomfort of its left wing, has always been much more adjacent to the right in America than the left. I think because the left in America, while it has its complaints about WHAT the government does, really does want powerful government, while the ideological right wants much more limited government, powerful only in limited areas.

Then there are the civil liberties that libertarians and the right agree on, like gun ownership, where the right actually is serious, while the left is more... nuanced about its support for the civil liberties where it theoretically was better than the right. (See the ACLU's evolution.)

So, you've always had a lot more overlap between the libertarian movement and the right than left-wing libertarians were comfortable with.

Now, back in the day, when Reason was just a print publication, who knows how many conservatives read it and raged? You'd not have known, because of the (Unavoidably!) limited and curated letters to the editor, any more than reading The Nation you'd have known how many libertarian readers were pissed off. Well, you got some indication from the way they raged about the libertarian movement over at National Review...

Reason's comments are largely unmoderated, and for all practical purposes not limited as to volume, so you've got a window into what the readers actually think.

I know that back when the NRA's publication The Rifleman had a public forum for NRA members, and they moderated it quite lightly, criticism of the NRA (For being too compromising, of course!) was rampant.

You might be shocked at what the readers of other publications actually think, if they weren't so determined to deny their readers an uncensored forum to express it in.

[SRG2]

I started writing this a while ago and haven't finished as I proceed from right to left:

Different species of American libertarians:

The Federal libertarian – aka the Paulista: he is a genuine libertarian – with respect to the Federal government. He wants a small Federal government, cuts in defense, reduced international entanglements and Federal drug legalization. But when it comes to the states, why then the case is altered. He’s fine with states imposing drug restrictions and banning abortions. And he will defer to state and local police, particularly when it comes to “those people”. Basically, he regards the Feds as “them” and states as “us”.

The conservative fake libertarian, type 1: he thinks that there is some kind of cachet in describing himself as a libertarian, but aside from wanting the gubmint to leave him alone and one or two minor concessions, he’s just another conservative.

The conservative fake libertarian, type 2: to some extent he resembles the Federal libertarian. He is libertarian with respect to those he identifies as “us” but is just as much a law-and-order type as any right-winger with respect to those he identifies as “them”, and is pro defense expenditure and international entanglements because most foreigners are “them”. The government should leave “us” alone, but it’s okay for it to interfere with “them”.

The pseudo-philosophical conservative libertarian: he thinks he’s a mix of conservative and libertarian philosophy, but he doesn’t know enough about conservative thought to realize that libertarianism is antithetical to conservative thought: conservatism is all about deference to existing institutions and resistance to novel ideologies – particularly ones derived along theoretically rational lines, while libertarianism is an untried ideology: as well be a meat-eating vegan.

The axiomatic or dogmatic libertarian: government action bad, individual action good, axiomatically. He refuses to accept real-world outcomes or any evidence that suggests that not always does government involvement lead to adverse consequences or will be worse than individual or free-market actions. Regardless of what the evidence would appear to say to support government action, axiomatically it cannot be right. Ergo, it’s wrong.

The principled libertarian: even if government action or involvement in some cases may be more effective than private or individual, he doesn’t want the government to act or get involved. Only when government action is recognisably (by him) necessary will he accept government action, though he will still view it sceptically.

The pragmatic libertarian: he operates on the heuristic, does this government (in)action result in greater or lesser freedom long-term? And he isn’t concerned about whether in theory the action seems to infringe on liberty or not – unlike the principled libertarian above. Where there is no way reliably to judge the long-term effects, he’ll bias towards preferring the freest outcome.

The left-wing “libertarian”: he makes a sharp distinction between economic and political freedom not always justifiable in practice and doesn’t really believe in the effectiveness of the free market. He justifies his claiming to be a libertarian by arguing that slightly less economic freedom leads to far greater political freedom.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The Federal libertarian"

This sounds more like a simple originalist believer in federalism; He's actually in favor of restoring the federal government to its original constitutional bounds, according to an originalist reading of the Constitution. According to that same reading, of course, states are constitutionally entitled to do ANYTHING not on the short list assigned to the federal government, or that they're not specifically forbidden to do.

The relevance here is that when the federal government acts expansively outside of its assigned role, you have not only a classic libertarian problem, but also a rule of law violation, as the Constitution is the highest law of the land. For states, the lesser concern is because 'only' the libertarian problem is present, the states can do a lot of non-libertarian things and not be behaving unconstitutionally.

[Brett Bellmore]

"conservatism is all about deference to existing institutions and resistance to novel ideologies – particularly ones derived along theoretically rational lines,"

This really does come across as a description of conservative thought that only a liberal would take seriously; Less descriptive than dismissive, a parody. Like any good parody there's an element of truth to it, but only an element: Conservatism can't be ALL about deference to existing institutions, in a world where some institutions have been captured by or created by people who embody such a 'novel ideology'; It would require that, the moment conservatives lose a fight, they have to resist anybody who'd try to recapture the lost ground!

[Dan Schiavetta]

To me this is the Libertarian Party. White guys going uptown to slums to give toy guns to little black kids coming out of school. Do you remember how the parents reacted?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett requires exceptions based on what doesn’t pass his personal vibes check, or else the ideology doesn’t count.

What you are describing is just tribalism, Brett.

Party based vibes before ideology. Yelling about how pure you are all the whole.

[Martinned2]

This is where the US has come to now: It's news that Trump will not try to fire someone he has no power to fire.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/08/business/trump-fed-chair-jerome-powell/index.html

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why are the institutions overseeing our country that are unaccountable even to the President?

[Mr. Bumble]

Because as every body knows, experts chosen by experts will expertly manage the economy better than some dumb fuck elected by the people who are effected by their expert opinions.

[Kazinski]

Well Trump is actually the one who appointed Powell in the first place, I think he was a good pick.

[Commenter_XY]

What I appreciate about Jerome Powell.

One, he put all his assets into low cost index funds, to eliminate any hint of bias. This is rare.

Two, he recognized early that 'transitory' was bullshit, unlike Yellen (who turned out to be completely useless). And changed course very dramatically - and correctly, in hindsight.

Three, he acknowledges that it isn't over (inflation). He isn't taking the 'victory lap' that you'd expect political animals do. It is true: We are not out of the woods yet.

[Lennyk78]

He might say that, but he intentionally printed too much, waited too long to raise rates, waited too long to stop printing, and lowered rates too quickly this time based on nothing.

Powell's primary goal is inflating the stock market for his rich buddies.

[Martinned2]

Fortunately it's not the Fed's job to "manage the economy".

[Jmaie]

Correct, only the inflation and employment parts...

[bernard11]

Actually, they will do a much better job of it than your typical elected official, even the smart fucks.

Amazing how many people think technical expertise is critical to what they do, but not to anything else. Look, the will of the people comes into it because the person making the appointment is elected. The Fed Chairman is not selected by a committee of bankers and economists.

When I had surgery in February I wanted it done by an expert surgeon trained by other expert surgeons, not some random elected official.

[Moderation4ever]

First these institutions are not unaccountable but rather have leader with longer term positions, typically ten years. The idea is to provide some isolation from politics, much like long term or lifetime appointments for judges. Presidents pick the heads and then allow them to serve. Again, in making the choice the President is looking for a person to have the long-term skills to guide the institution without being subject to quick changing politics. It not the best method for all institutions but does have value for certain institutions that benefit from the isolation from politics.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Isolated from politics? You mean isolated from the Executive? Many are also self-funded, so they are also isolated from Congress.

>It not the best method for all institutions but does have value for certain institutions that benefit from the isolation from politics.

Why should any governing institution be isolated from the will of the people?

[Bwaaah]

"Why should any governing institution be isolated from the will of the people?"

Because the "will of the people," as an aggregation of emotions, becomes unhelpfully destructive at times. The "tragedy of the commons" is but one reason for such destructiveness, as can be raw momentary passion.

Anyway, we quite rationally delegate decision-making to [usually] cooler heads, in recognition of our periodic inclinations to shit our own beds. And to be clear, those decision-makers are not isolated from the will of the people, but quite intentionally, they are *not* proxies for the "will of the people" or any other particular semantic ideology.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Because the "will of the people," as an aggregation of emotions, becomes unhelpfully destructive at times."

How is this different from the will of the unelected bureaucracy? They're perfectly capable of being unhelpfully destructive, too.

[Bwaaah]

Also correct.

In delegation of responsibility, I grant authority to act, and expect the exercise of expert judgement within the rule of law and in contemplation of public opinion. We're talking about people, government actors, and their exercise of discretion. Our elected officials are the proxies for the will of the people, not the agency actors.

Elections are where the will of the people gets factored into the plan.

Don't blame the tax collector for taxation. It is not his job to execute the will of the people. Our failure is in choosing elected officials who don't satisfactorily restrain state action. (I am hopeful that the new administration will trim some of that back.)

[bernard11]

Probabilities and professionalism might provide a clue for you, Brett.

Experts aren't perfect, and claiming that those who tend to rely on them in technical matters is a red herring, commonly used by those who don't like the experts' conclusions for no very good reason. It's just random expert-bashing - "Expert, shmexpert.That guy was wrong in 2011 so he's obviously wrong now."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

In other words, people are too human to self-govern, and we need other people to govern them free from accountability to the people they are governing.

>And to be clear, those decision-makers are not isolated from the will of the people, but quite intentionally, they are *not* proxies for the "will of the people" or any other particular semantic ideology.

Self-funded, independent agencies that can rule-make absolutely are isolated from the will of the people.

[Bwaaah]

"In other words, people are too human to self-govern, and we need other people to govern them free from accountability to the people they are governing.

Not at all, as long as "self-governing" doesn't mean everybody gets to do whatever they want. The project of establishing government implies delegation of authority and permission of some denial of individual autonomy. There's a conflict there that can only be avoided by the absence of government itself. Otherwise, I expect contention between government action and the will of the people.

The reality is that there is no "will of the people." There are all the many people, each with his/her own will. And there are government actors, hopefully doing as they have been directed, as reflected in our laws. As I described above to Brett...it is our elected officials that must be held to account for state actors; not the actors themselves (except when they operate outside their charge).

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

There are institutions who can rule-make but are insulated from elected officials.

That's the issue.

[David Nieporent]

They are of course always subject to ultimate control by elected officials; Congress can change their rules — or abolish the institutions entirely — at any time.

[bernard11]

You mean like the federal courts?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump, presumably, will swear to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

Does a pattern of picking cabinet secretaries who are manifestly unqualified, or who have announced opposition to the lawful purposes for which a cabinet department was created, amount to a violation of a president's oath? If Senators vote to confirm an oppositional cabinet secretary, or one who is manifestly unqualified, do they violate their oaths?

It has been customary for cabinet heads to swear oaths prior to taking office. Given that the cabinet is not mentioned in the Constitution, and is solely an Article II creation, on the basis of what constitutional power are cabinet secretaries and department heads even required to swear oaths?

Should oath breaking be punished, or has the time come for the Supreme Court to decide that oath swearing not stipulated in the Constitution cannot be enforced, and that customary or legal requirements to do it are thus meaningless?

If so, could an elected or appointed official, including a President subject to a Constitutionally required oath, refuse to swear or affirm an oath, and take office anyway?

Are oaths which are stipulated in the Constitution even enforceable? Could a law be passed in Congress, and signed by a President, to define and punish the breaking of Constitutionally required oaths? If that happened, could a President charged with breaking the oath, or who refused to take the oath in the first place, be tried and punished for it?

How many think Trump should not be required to swear an enforceable oath to defend the Constitution? How many think the presidential oath is meaningless ceremony, and properly without legal or practical effect?

Who among the commenters thinks the Supreme Court is properly empowered to decide such questions, and on what Constitutional basis?

[Mr. Bumble]

WTF!

[Commenter_XY]

Are any prisons big enough to hold all of lathrop's imagined oath breakers, Mr. Bumble?

[Joe_dallas]

WTF response to Lathrop is correct

He fails to see how incompetent bidens cabinet secretaries are

https://dailycaller.com/2024/12/06/victor-davis-hanson-donald-trump-nominee-kash-patel-rfk-pete-hegseth/

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The current DNI director, a cabinet level position, was a bookstore owner.

That's it. She owned a bookstore. Where was your pearl clutching when she was appointed?

Face the truth, your brain tenders have you up in arms over Reformers who intend to reform some corrupt and vile organizations, and you're just gleefully, and uncritically, parroted what they want you to parrot.

[David Nieporent]

The current DNI director, a cabinet level position, was a bookstore owner.

She was probably also a babysitter at some point, as well as a fast food worker. What's your point?

That's it. She owned a bookstore. Where was your pearl clutching when she was appointed?

Oh, that was your point: you're a fucking liar. No, that's not it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"she dropped out and with her future husband purchased a bar in Fell's Point, Baltimore, which had been seized in a drug raid;[5] they turned the location into an independent bookstore and café."

So who is lying?

Yes, she was a lawyer later.

[David Nieporent]

Still lying (well, you're a different person than the previous poster, so "still" may be unfair in this case.) Alina Habba, who Trump wants to make a senior advisor, is "a lawyer." Who represents parking garages. In contrast, Haines wasn't "a lawyer." From Wikipedia:

In 2001, Haines became a legal officer at the Hague Conference on Private International Law.[16] In 2002, she became a law clerk for United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Judge Danny Julian Boggs.[17] From 2003 until 2006, she worked in the Office of the Legal Adviser of the Department of State, first in the Office of Treaty Affairs and then in the Office of Political Military Affairs.[18] From 2007 until 2008, she worked for the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as Deputy Chief Counsel for the Majority Senate Democrats (under then chairman Joe Biden).[19]

But wait, there's more:

Haines worked for the State Department as the assistant legal adviser for treaty affairs from 2008 to 2010,[20] when she was appointed to serve in the office of the White House counsel as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs at the White House.[21]

On April 18, 2013, Obama nominated Haines to serve as Legal Adviser of the Department of State, to fill the position vacated after Harold Hongju Koh resigned to return to teaching at Yale Law School.[22] However, on June 13, 2013, Obama withdrew Haines's nomination to be Legal Adviser of the Department of State, choosing instead to select her as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.[23][20] Haines was nominated to replace Michael Morell, the CIA's deputy and former acting director. The office of the deputy director is not subject to Senate confirmation, with Haines subsequently taking office on August 9, 2013, the final day of Morrell's tenure.[24] Haines was the first woman ever to hold the office of the deputy director, while Gina Haspel was the first female career intelligence officer to be named director.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]

Is that the only thing relevant to her appointment as DNI? Well, no, not at all.

After serving as deputy director of the CIA, Haines was tapped as Deputy National Security Advisor (DNSA), the first woman to hold that position.[38][39][40]

So, in other words, she was neither just a bookstore owner nor merely a lawyer. In fact, she had extensive experience in foreign policy and the intelligence community before she was named DNI.

[Commenter_XY]

All the more reason it is time for Avril Haines to seek alternative employment, David. It would be my preference that she never returns to government. I am sure she never noticed the cognitive issues with POTUS Biden, either.

Avril...Great job with the 'heads up' on Syria. And Ukraine. 😉

[Bob from Ohio]

"she had extensive experience in foreign policy and the intelligence community before she was named DNI."

As a lawyer.

She might have read some books on spying while owning a bookstore, maybe she learned something there.

[David Nieporent]

No, as a high-ranking official in intelligence agencies, not as a lawyer. DNI is not a position for retired undercover operatives; it involves a different skill set than stealing the blueprints for Chinese satellites and assassinating Iranian scientists. It's a managerial position, and she has the requisite experience at managing an intelligence agency, whereas Trump's nominees to the various cabinet positions generally have no SME of any sort or managerial expertise either.

[Bob from Ohio]

"high-ranking official"

high-ranking lawyer as I've said

Plus a brief term as a DEI ["first woman"!!!!] patronage Deputy Dir at CIA.

[Martinned2]

Given that the cabinet is not mentioned in the Constitution, and is solely an Article II creation

FYI, "Heads of Department" and "the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments" are mentioned in the Constitution. (But yes, technically the concept of putting them all in a room together isn't. But then that concept is completely irrelevant in the US.)

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-2/ALDE_00013694/

President George Washington established the practice of the Executive Branch department heads meeting collectively to advise the President as a Cabinet. Consequently, Cabinet meetings are not required under the Constitution.

[Kazinski]

"Given that the cabinet is not mentioned in the Constitution, and is solely an Article II creation".

After that I have no response, other than the fact that if Congress creates a cabinet position there is nothing unconstitutional about abolishing it.

I myself was educated before Jimmy Carter and Congress created the Education department, so I am very sympathetic to the argument that its not necessary.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — If a congressionally created cabinet post requires its occupant to swear an oath, should the oath be treated as legally meaningless?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Does a pattern of picking cabinet secretaries who are manifestly unqualified, or who have announced opposition to the lawful purposes for which a cabinet department was created, amount to a violation of a president's oath?

No.

If Senators vote to confirm an oppositional cabinet secretary, or one who is manifestly unqualified, do they violate their oaths?

No.

It has been customary for cabinet heads to swear oaths prior to taking office. Given that the cabinet is not mentioned in the Constitution, and is solely an Article II creation, on the basis of what constitutional power are cabinet secretaries and department heads even required to swear oaths?

The cabinet is mentioned in the constitution, and its members are officers of the United States who are required to take an oath under Article VI.

If so, could an elected or appointed official, including a President subject to a Constitutionally required oath, refuse to swear or affirm an oath, and take office anyway?

No.

Are oaths which are stipulated in the Constitution even enforceable?

Only through section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Could a law be passed in Congress, and signed by a President, to define and punish the breaking of Constitutionally required oaths?

It wouldn’t violate the laws of physics or anything, but no.

If that happened, could a President charged with breaking the oath, or who refused to take the oath in the first place, be tried and punished for it?

No.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur — So as to, "How many think the presidential oath is meaningless ceremony, and properly without legal or practical effect?," you number yourself among those who agree?

More generally, do you consider government to be the nation's sovereign? If not, does the nation have a sovereign? If it does, what makes it legitimate?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Noscitur — So as to, "How many think the presidential oath is meaningless ceremony, and properly without legal or practical effect?," you number yourself among those who agree?

Federal oaths of office cannot be enforced by criminal prosecutions if the office holder doesn’t do a good enough job. I disagree that that renders the oath meaningless.

More generally, do you consider government to be the nation's sovereign? If not, does the nation have a sovereign? If it does, what makes it legitimate?

If you want to throw down a logorrheic rant about your self concocted amateur political “philosophy”, you’re going g to have to do it without my participation.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur — What meaning do you suppose an unenforceable oath conveys, after it has been ignored with impunity by the person who swore the oath?

More generally, whatever you think about the political philosophy I sometimes mention, it is not mine, and it is far from amateur. I cite with almost tedious repetition historically relevant and highly prestigious sources among Americas' most influential founders. You never address those citations, except with vapid denials. Looks like I will have to do without you because you are incapable to participate.

[Kazinski]

I agree with most of that but the violation of ones oath can and should be "punished" by impeachment.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Sure. They can also be “punished” (depending on the office) by regular firing, or by the sovereign people exercising their pleasure to vote for someone else.

I don’t think that’s what Stephen Lathrop was talking about.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, nominating somebody Stephen Lathrop doesn't like isn't a violation of his "take care" duty.

[Frank Drackman]

Carrot Top would be a better pick than Alejandro Major-Dork-Ass, Winkin, Blinkin, and Nod, the Ugly Doc in a dress, the Tranny who stole women's clothes, Lloyd Austin Powers, and FBI Director Fay Wray (I know, a "45" pick, he'll get it right this time)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — It is obvious you understand I said nothing about personal preference for anyone.

How, do you distinguish your reply from what it appears to be—an assertion that Trump gets to pick any clown he wants, with an eye to destroying a federal cabinet department by intentional mismanagement, and to do that in no way violates his oath of office? Do you, or do you not, assert federal oaths ought to be meaningless and non-binding?

[Brett Bellmore]

"How, do you distinguish your reply from what it appears to be—an assertion that Trump gets to pick any clown he wants, with an eye to destroying a federal cabinet department by intentional mismanagement, and to do that in no way violates his oath of office? "

I don't, because he does get to do that. Your opinion of what constitutes "mismanagement" has no legal significance at all.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Do you, or do you not, assert federal oaths ought to be meaningless and non-binding?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'd love for them to be binding, and they certainly weren't originally required in the expectation that they'd be blown away as meaningless ceremony, but I utterly reject the idea that having a policy disagreement with you constitutes a violation of such an oath.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — If Congress were to pass a law to narrowly define some instances of oath breaking, and to punish those criminally, and a President were to sign the law, would you concede a power in the jointly sovereign People to enforce the law by handing down federal indictments?

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 4 hours ago
"Trump, presumably, will swear to see that the laws are faithfully executed."

So did Biden and Obama swear to see that the laws are faithfully executed. That didnt accomplish anything

Unqualified Cabinet secretaries?
Blinken
Yellen
Austin
Garland
Buttigieg
Becerra

Their resumes may make them look more qualified, their actual performance says otherwise

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas — Which of those you mentioned vowed before confirmation to destroy an agency or cabinet department? Which announced opposition to the mission they formally swore to advance?

Bumbling in office is not the same as saying, "I plan to close the agency headquarters, and use its personnel instead to trash the Constitution."

Trump announced yesterday he plans to end birthright citizenship. Asked how he would do it, Trump replied he would refer that question to Bondi and Patel. On that basis, all three of them will be oath breakers the minute they complete the recital.

You are good with that, right?

[Joe_dallas]

Lathrop
A) Read the article below. In addition to reading the article make an attempt to actually understand the article.
B) none of the proposed nominees to the cabinet have promised or said they will destroy the agency. There is a huge difference to having an agency reorganization to return and agency to its core mission vs destroying the agency as you claim.
C) Your third paragraph is a change of subject, thus no response

https://dailycaller.com/2024/12/06/victor-davis-hanson-donald-trump-nominee-kash-patel-rfk-pete-hegseth/

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore and Joe_dallas example struggles which will challenge everyone after the last reputable media sources go under. Those two have better choices available, but lack discernment necessary to evaluate media quality.

My guess is that folks with better discernment, if they lack any media they can rely on, will at least not conclude they ought to parrot lies. That will be better than the worst the MAGA mediaverse is already serving up.

It takes reliable alternatives to debunk lies. But it takes only a habit to read for corroborative details to suspect lies. Folks who find corroborative details consistently missing will not be so easy to dupe as those who lack either the talent or the dispassion to recognize them, and sort trustworthy details from the others.

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 22 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Bellmore and Joe_dallas example struggles which will challenge everyone after the last reputable media sources go under.

Lthrop - NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, NPR, WP etc have not been reputable media sources for the last couple of decades. Not sure what planet you have lived on.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nobody here is going to take your assertions of 'credible or not' as anything other than a joke, given your demonstrated history of blatant lies.

[Joe_dallas]

typical mature response from jason

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're a liar. You've been caught multiple times. Deal with the reputation you've ruined for yourself.

And fuck off.

[Kazinski]

Nobody is proposing bumbling in office, but there have been several Supreme Court, and lower court cases in the past few years that give a strong presumption that most of the cabinet agencies are unconstitutionally promulgating and enforcing regulations with the force of law.

One might (I do), argue that sharply trimming back these agencies, personnel, mission, and enforcement activities, is definitely fulfilling the oath to support and defend the constitution.

[DaveM]

I'm here only to poke at you for misusing the word, "manifestly".

If you think Chocolate ice cream is better than Vanilla, it isn't "manifestly" true that Chocolate ice cream is better than Vanilla. That's just, like your opinion, man.

Opinions are cheap -- everybody has one.

[Stephen Lathrop]

DaveM, "manifestly," would indeed be misused if directed at questions of opinion, or personal taste. When it is chosen as a shorthand summarizer for abundant evidence which has been widely published, it reduces tedium.

Of course there is still a question whether some folks have trouble discerning evidence from their opinions, but to explore that would take us afield from your objection.

[SimonP]

I think we should prepare ourselves for Trump to behave in his second term much like he did in his first - pushing through actions that are likely illegal or unconstitutional, in order to notch a short-term "win" while legal challenges percolate through the courts, only to lose ultimately.

Appointing unqualified candidates to lead the agencies, taking immediate action to impound spending on disfavored programs and under-enforce regulations, and so on, are not ways to ensure that your policy agenda gets established, or the administrative state reformed. It takes time to lock into place meaningful change, which is why so many of Biden's regulations have come into effect only in the past year or so.

But Trump doesn't care about true reform; he cares about deflecting criticism and winning news cycles. And his supporters are easily won over by that kind of performative nonsense (as we've already seen here). That is what the Elon/Vivek pretend-time committee is all about - a lot of noisy, performative nonsense that will at best kick up some dust for a couple of years.

It will be interesting to see to what extent his administration will have taken the lessons from his first four years into account. As has been widely reported, the weasels behind Project 2025 have been planning for this moment for years and are eager to lock in their preferred changes. But Trump's appointments indicate that he remains a superficial and unserious man. He will demand quick action on at least some of his "priorities" and won't have much patience for the kind of work that has to go into notice-and-comment rulemaking (especially if the courts take Supreme Court holdings over the last few years seriously).

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I think we can safely say that, just like in his first term, Trump will behave in a manner that, and pursue policies that, the opposing party doesn't like.

[SimonP]

Not what I said, moron.

[William of Brooklyn]

What modern president hasn't lost many, many cases at the Supreme Court, often unanimously, for overstepping constitutional grounds through some power grab? Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump (1), and Biden certainly all have. As long as the Court is subsequently obeyed, that's just a feature of modern governance. I wish it were more rare, but it's just ahistorical nonsense to claim that Trump represents some special case.

[SimonP]

The question is not whether Trump will be cut back by the Supreme Court. The question is whether Trump will focus on doing things without a serious plan for reform.

Apart from Biden's various attempts to forgive student loans, I can't think of any tossed or invalidated Biden administration actions that were simply performative, effected for the sole purpose of notching a short-term "win." A lot of his regulations have been cut back by the courts, but in each case these were genuine attempts to exercise apparent statutory authority, to implement go-forward regulations that would protect and serve the American people.

[David Nieporent]

Apart from Biden's various attempts to forgive student loans, I can't think of any tossed or invalidated Biden administration actions that were simply performative, effected for the sole purpose of notching a short-term "win."

There was also his eviction moratorium. In its first trip to SCOTUS, five justices said it overstepped, but it survived because Kavanaugh said, "Well, it's destined to expire in a month anyway, so no need to stay it." And then it expired, and Biden reimposed it anyway.

[Jmaie]

Would taking oil from the strategic reserve to lower pump prices count?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Billy Brooklyn — Historical nonsense? What prior President enjoyed help from a solicitous Supreme Court, to tailor a blanket criminal immunity, post-indictment, to boost his election chances?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, you basically said that, only with a heavy dose of negative connotation.

Trump will not pursue policies you like, to be sure. He was elected to not pursue policies you like. If he pursued policies you liked, it would be an utter betrayal of the voters who elected him.

For elections to matter, you have to be unhappy for the next four years, just as I was unhappy for the last four.

[SimonP]

No, you basically said that, only with a heavy dose of negative connotation.

No, I did not. No one voted for Trump to achieve flimsy victories that will not outlast his administration.

I'm not going to spend all day explaining to you why the law does not permit Trump (or Elon or his Cabinet) to act in the manner that they are promising to do. Take Trump's promised executive order on birthright citizenship, for example - these are splashy, performative acts that are unlikely to survive full judicial scrutiny. But he doesn't care about shifting the norm or achieving a bona fide legal victory. He cares about delivering something on Day 1 that morons like you will celebrate and justify. When he loses, a couple of years later, all of you will have moved on to celebrate and justify whatever it is he's doing during that media cycle.

[David Nieporent]

When he loses, a couple of years later, all of you will have moved on

When he loses, a couple of years later, there will be more ranting and raving about the Deep State.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No one voted for Trump to achieve flimsy victories that will not outlast his administration."

They voted for Trump to achieve victories. "flimsy victories that will not outlast his administration" is more of your negative characterization.

Getting the Supreme court to rule that the children of illegals don't get birthright citizenship would be like winning the lottery in terms of likelihood, but like winning the lottery, you can't win if you don't buy the ticket. The EO is the ticket.

[Stephen Lathrop]

SimonP — You under-describe what has happened, leaving out a lot of the menace. In the interval between inauguration and completion of judicial review, Trump intends to inflict catastrophic damage on many folks who deserve Constitutional protection. Trump's MAGA acolytes will cheer that on while it happens, and revile its constraint if it ends. The victims will not be made whole.

[Commenter_XY]

Still though, it is an accurate recap, and response. 😉

Pres Trump has a short window of ~700 days to get what he wants done.

[Brett Bellmore]

And some members of his own party will be desperate to make sure it's wasted.

However, I think the Republican caucus in Congress has largely been self-purged of members who value thwarting Trump over remaining in office, and Trump is being pretty clear that any Republicans in Congress who stand in his way will go into 2026 with well financed challengers.

[Commenter_XY]

Steven Miller better have legislation drafted and ready to go, before day 1. From a legislative perspective, Pres Trump has an ambitious agenda: border security (he is already giving a masterclass on the use of soft power wrt MX, CAN), making TCJA permanent (with lower corp rates, I think SALT stays though), detention and deportation of illegal aliens (a whole lot of them), and deregulation.

Just from a legislation drafting perspective, it is a Herculean task.

[Don Nico]

Stephen this musings, always on the same core theme, don't do you proud.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, I think you may be right. I doubt you have yet comprehended even what my core theme will turn out to be. But with goads to discuss aspects of it continuing so fast and furious, I cannot suppose the day to lay it aside will soon arrive.

[David Nieporent]

Given that the cabinet is not mentioned in the Constitution,

You sure talk a lot about a document you've evidently never read. (Unless you just mean that the word cabinet isn't used, in which case, so what? Hint: look for the word "departments.")

and is solely an Article II creation, on the basis of what constitutional power are cabinet secretaries and department heads even required to swear oaths?

I mean, the N&P would cover it, if it weren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. But it is: see Article VI.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, are you trying to suggest the cabinet implicates separation of powers issues? If so, that only strengthens the need to look critically at the role of oaths sworn and oaths ignored.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, he’s suggesting that you don’t seem to have a very good sense of what is and isn’t in the constitution.

[Davy C]

>Given that the cabinet is not mentioned in the Constitution, and is solely an Article II creation

No, I'm not giving you that. The Constitution may not mention "the cabinet" (the term was coined a little later) but it does mention "the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments" and "the Heads of Departments".

> on the basis of what constitutional power are cabinet secretaries and department heads even required to swear oaths?

This is obvious enough that I'm not sure why you're even asking the question. It's here:

> all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

Surely the heads of departments count as executive officers.

>Who among the commenters thinks the Supreme Court is properly empowered to decide such questions, and on what Constitutional basis?

I am quite sure the Supreme Court would say that constitutionally required oaths are required to be taken, but that any consideration of whether the oaths have been broken is up to Congress to decide via impeachment. That's a nonjusticable political question.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Davy C, I may have been unclear. I was not asking about Constitutional text. I was asking about the source of Constitutional power. The distinction assists insight to identify the proper source of authority to decide whether performance of an oath has been satisfactory.

Congress, and the Supreme Court as well, with members who themselves must swear an oath, are only on par with oath takers in the executive branch. The proper judges of satisfaction with oath takers' performance are the members of the joint popular sovereignty, whose pleasure the oath takers have sworn to guard, protect, and implement.

It was the joint popular sovereign which required the oaths in the first place. It must be they who say whether or not they are satisfied. Their choice of means to express pleasure or displeasure cannot properly be constrained. Any attempt to do that would turn American constitutionalism upside down. None of the three branches of government can step in to do that without putting in doubt the question of the sovereign's actual identity.

[David Nieporent]

There is no joint popular sovereign. There is only the government.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieproent — So if you were empowered to remove just 3 words from the U.S. Constitution, you choice would be the first three?

[Commenter_XY]

The Tik Tok case....I am not following the 1A reasoning advanced by the DC Circuit majority opinion. And I def do not see how Moody v NetChoice fits; that case dealt with a platform, not an app.

What are the American people being protected from, wrt Tik Tok?

[Brett Bellmore]

An app controlled by a genocidal totalitarian state that's our chief world adversary? With a built in keylogger?

If China started marketing Orwell's 'telescreens' in the US, would we be obligated to permit their sale?

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, I can understand the federal government not allowing Tik Tok on federal government devices. I don't have an issue with that. Or an employer having the same requirement on a company device.

It is the reasoning to 'protect' us I don't follow at all. Tik Tok is an app. An app =/= platform. No one compels usage. It is entirely voluntary. You need to download and install the little bastard. Their data practices are disclosed. Caveat Emptor. Many apps come with keyloggers and tie into your personal data...look at FB. Or X. Or Microsoft apps. Or Google apps.

To answer your telescreen question in a word: no.

The majority stated that banning Tik Tok was 'protecting' 1A. To me, the majority pulled out the magical 'National Security Card' that trumps (pun intended) all reason or logic.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, if the government is not obligated to permit the sale of Chinese telescreens in the US, is the government obligated to permit the sale of Chinese apps that turn ordinary TVs INTO telescreens? I'm having a bit of trouble seeing how the answer is different.

"Many apps come with keyloggers and tie into your personal data...look at FB. Or X. Or Microsoft apps. Or Google apps. "

Yes, and that's bad enough for apps that aren't controlled by, as I said, genocidal totalitarian adversaries. But this one IS.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Their data practices are disclosed.

One of the big problems is that Tik Tok has repeatedly lied about its data practices, particularly the extent to which it has given the Chinese government access to American users’ data.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

They can't be a genocidal totalitarian state and our chief world adversary in some cases, but not all cases.

They are allowed to buy up land near military installations.
They were protected by our federal institutions from embarrassment when caught spying on us.
They were notified by our Defense Chief that if the President launched a surprise attack on them, he would let them know in advance.
They are allowed to funnel millions of doses of fentanyl through our borders.

They clearly are not treated as "a genocidal totalitarian state that's our chief world adversary" universally.

[Lennyk78]

Is it better when anti-American elitists like Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, or Sergey Brin collect our data?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, unless you’re engaged in childishly performative contrarianism, it’s pretty obvious that it’s less harmful for American businesses to have user data than the Chinese government.

[Lennyk78]

Why is it obvious?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t actually believe that you don’t understand this. But if you somehow don’t, I’m not going to be able to explain it to you.

[David Nieporent]

Without endorsing the Voltage guy's performative silliness, I'm not really sure what the problem is with the Chinese government having "user data" of the sort that would be revealed by TikTok is.

[Brett Bellmore]

Some of that user data, due to the keylogger function, would be user logins and passwords for other sites. Potentially federal sites if a TikTok user logged in on their own phone.

[Lennyk78]

If the American businesses are run by anti-American liberal Jews, then, it's more harmful than in the hands of the Chinese.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Guess I remember why I had you on ignore.

[Moderation4ever]

More nanny state nonsense. Other Apps collect huge amount of personal data that is for sale. Anyone including the Chinese government can just buy the data. TikTok isn't a conspiracy it is just eliminating the middleman.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The point seems pretty clear to me. People here got pretty worked up about the free speech implications of the U.S. government even influencing the content users could post on various social media services. It’s much worse for the Chinese government to control that directly.

[David Nieporent]

that case dealt with a platform, not an app.

Not sure what distinction you think you're drawing here. That's the same thing; an app is just a way to access the underlying 'platform.'

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — You raise a question that stumped me from the first moment apps began to appear. Even then, there was no shortage of ways for a user to access an underlying, 'platform,' if convenience of access was what the platform operator wanted.

It was immediately evident that the invention of the app signaled something in addition to access. So that puzzled me, and I asked around, to discover what that something was. I was at that time managing editor of a generalist high tech journal, serving high tech workers around the greater Boston area. None of my sources could (or would) explain it to me.

Turns out, of course, that the apps were invented not to promote user access to the platforms, but instead to promote platforms' access to the users' devices. The aim of the app was then, and remains now, to mine users' data.

Right from the moment no one could answer, I resolved not to load apps of any kind onto my own devices. To further that aim, I have never owned a smart phone. Dumb flip phones all the way. That still gives me delight over the simplicity of it, the time wasting I avoid, and the money I save. But it remains a losing struggle on the privacy front.

Hardware and software designers push ever-more-persistently to foreclose app-free access to computing power. The two companies I most relied upon professionally, Adobe and Apple, turned up among the worst offenders. While I remain theoretically at liberty to wall myself off from those companies' intrusions, they have turned the effort to do it into a continuous one, by proliferating and diversifying automated pesterings, at shorter and shorter intervals, with an apparent eye to make it impossible to use their offerings without caving in.

If that is reckoned a means to convenience access to their products, it is an odd way to do it.

[David Nieporent]

I resolved not to load apps of any kind onto my own devices.

You know that "app" is just short for application, right? And a computer without applications is pretty much a paperweight.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — On a historical basis, you are wrong about that. When the term came into use, it was applied to bits of software designed and distributed as ostensible conveniences. An, "app," was typically developed by the creator of an, "application." The app was meant to reside on the users' devices. By contrast, the application resided on the creator's servers.

I got first-hand experience on what those distinctions meant when I signed up with a web service which offered marketing help to professional photographers. They accurately held themselves out as an online service to help photographers make online sales of images to customers.

The application the service made available to me via my browser turned out to be using surveillance software it installed on my customers' computers. When I first checked to see how things were going, I was startled to discover I could follow in real time, action-by-action, the browsing activities of any engaged potential customer. I watched it work for a minute or two, until the creepiness of it fully sank in.

I shortly afterward got out of that part of my photography business. In fact, it was the last time I attempted to use the internet to sell photographs.

[Absaroka]

Stephen, you are one hard core dude! I'd wager every other poster here wimps out and uses an application called a 'browser' to post here. While you are just telneting to port 80 and typing raw html. Sorting through the javascript by hand to post a comment is really impressive.

Oh, wait, telnet is an application too!

(also ... your flip phone is running apps, too. They have an operating system like smart phones (and sometimes the same one), and services like making calls and getting texts is done by apps running on top of the OS, just like with smart phones. This isn't to say it's wise to get a smart phone and promiscuously load every free app out there on it, and give them all every permission they ask for, but I don't think flip phones are the magic you seem to think they are)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, I get that you prefer to engage with imagined counter-parties, but what fun is it?

[Commenter_XY]

Another legal question....Can the FCC compel CBS (or any other broadcaster, for that matter) to release documents? Specifically, could the FCC be compelled to release the unedited interview of Kamala Harris that was made during the campaign?

Does the FCC really have that authority? What's the legal process?

[John F. Carr]

CBS the station owner needs FCC approval to renew its broadcast licenses. I could imagine a Trump-controlled FCC asking for embarrassing information during the application process. Who knows what would come of it. There is no specific policy on how to edit interviews with politicians. If the FCC invents one for this case it risks losing the same way it lost the "wardrobe malfunction" case. So in five or ten years maybe we see the unedited interview. By then, who cares?

CBS the network doesn't need the FCC to like it. Only the broadcast licenses are at stake.

[ducksalad]

CBS, before the licenses are up for renewal, could just sell the few stations it actually owns to spun-off independent corporations that would then just be affiliates. (Like most CBS stations, and all Fox stations.) The stations only possess finished, edited content, and could not comply with the request even if they wanted to.

[DaveM]

I'm no lawyer, but I can recognize compelled speech when I see it.

[Michael P]

So what does that mean for, say, the surgeon general's warnings on alcoholic beverages or tobacco products?

[Commenter_XY]

I see that the 'P Diddy List' is starting to be made public, one court case at a time.

Shawn Carter (aka Jay Z), accused of raping a 13-year old minor in 2000, while P Diddy and a friend watched.

What's the statute of limitations on rape of a minor?

[Frank Drackman]

Doesn't matter, he'll get a pardon from Parkinsonian Joe

[bernard11]

How much are you willing to stake on that?

I'll give you 5-4.

[Mr. Bumble]

13 year old minor is redundant.

[Jerry B.]

There’s a difference between a 13 year old minor and a 6 year old minor.

[John F. Carr]

The statute of limitations varies by state and can be very long. The last time I read about my state's law the statute of limitations ran to about the victim's 35th birthday if there was no corroborating evidence and many years longer if there was evidence.

[Commenter_XY]

Assassination of UHC CEO in the streets of NYC....

First, the reaction of many in celebrating this man's death is truly something to behold. It is not an exaggeration to say those people felt he got what he deserved.

Second, how is it the assassin has not been identified? Is he related to the DNC pipe bomber or something?

Bullet casings stamped with deny, delay, defend; and a backpack full of monopoly money...that is a very motivated, very angry individual. A lot of thought went into this. What 'turned him on'?

[Frank Drackman]

1: I'm not saying he got what he deserved, but I had more sympathy for Soul-man-ani or Assad, would have been more fitting just to put the guy in a wheelchair and make him fight with his Insurance Carrier for the rest of his life.
2: It's a big country, let me know when they catch DB Cooper. Life isn't a "Law and Order" episode
3: Duh, the real question is why this doesn't happen more often.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It is not an exaggeration to say those people felt he got what he deserved."

Yeah, that's why Obamacare turned the insurance companies into governmental sock puppets, instead of running things directly through a government agency: So that when things got ugly, people would point their anger in the wrong direction.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Right, between direct payments and regulation, the federal government controls as much of our healthcare as any European country controls theirs.

Yet, they are shielded from any blame. This is what a generation of Marxist government schooling does to people. They are trained to worship the idea of the Totalitarian State, and ignore all the empirical evidence to the evils of one.

[Sarcastr0]

Insurance companies sucked before Obamacare, and continued to suck after. In exactly this same way.

You need to do a fuckload more work to claim this is a conspiracy to frame the free market.

[Brett Bellmore]

Insurance companies sucked before Obamacare, but before Obamacare the insurance market was hardly a free market anyway.

Insurance companies sucked a lot WORSE after Obamacare, for the people who could afford insurance before it. Obviously it got better for the minority who were gifted subsidized insurance at everybody else's expense.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, dude. It was all a plan to frame the free market for government screwing up health insurance.

You can't blame Obama for this one, Brett. Though your ability to delude yourself means you're sure gonna try!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it literally was a plan to create a new entitlement program, and put it off budget, having it run by people outside the government, so that the government itself wouldn't get the blame for all the negative consequences.

[David Nieporent]

It literally was not, if for no other reason than that they did not think there would be "blame" and "negative consequences."

[Joe_dallas]

https://healthy-skeptic.com/2024/12/08/health-insurance-and-murder/

Gaslight0

You should get your info from credible sources, not the leftist echo chamber

[Sarcastr0]

Hell yeah the return of the Healthy Skeptic blog as a Joe Dallas appeal to authority!

You remain foolish and angry, Joe.

[Joe_dallas]

You remain grossly ill informed. That guy has actual expertise in the health care industry. He knows what he is talking about.

According 0/zero , linking to someone with actual knowledge is foolish.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Sure, dude. It was all a plan to frame the free market for government screwing up health insurance."

What free market?

[Commenter_XY]

PPACA did not solve the problem it was intended to solve. It was 'sold' as a means to cover everyone with some kind of plan. Reality is much different, and was predictably so.

PPACA was a policy failure.

[Bwaaah]

Il Douche: "Insurance companies sucked before Obamacare, and continued to suck after."

Insurance is intended to avoid catastrophic costs through averaging of relatively low risk. Insurance companies only started to suck when people started wanting them to eliminate their risk, i.e. pay their bills.

Imagine if you tried to use your homeowners insurance to pay for all the repairs and maintenance of your home. That's what health insurance has become: not insurance in any traditional sense of the word, but a third party payer system.

Third party payer systems suck.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yeah, that's why Obamacare turned the insurance companies into governmental sock puppets, instead of running things directly through a government agency: So that when things got ugly, people would point their anger in the wrong direction.

This seems pretty delusional even for you. The reason Obamacare was based around private insurance is that that was all he could muster the votes for (and that just barely). Do you actually doubt for a second that Obama would have gone for a single payer plans if he could have passed it?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yeah, I do doubt that. Obama remained a politics guy, not a markets guy. So before he was even inaugurated he looked around for economic advisers to tell him what to do about market-related stuff. I doubt Larry Summers would then have supported single payer.

[bernard11]

Sure, Brett.

Isn't it time for your therapy?

[Dan Schiavetta]

My son tells me the murderer has gained a nickname -- "the Adjuster".

[Commenter_XY]

That is hilarious....and atrocious! 😉

[Dan Schiavetta]

My reaction also.

[Commenter_XY]

Your son sounds fiendishly funny. I like him already Dan, heh.

[John F. Carr]

I love it.

I wonder if this pilot will be picked up as a series. I'm thinking of the Iain Banks novel Complicity.

[Nelson]

An Iain Banks reference? You win today!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What's funny is the people in government have done far worse to the population than any insurance company ever has, but these normie clowns don't bat an eye.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but government is proof that you can generally fool enough of the people enough of the time.

[Sarcastr0]

If only everyone were as enlightened and reality based as you, eh?

[Joe_dallas]

Mirror

[Sarcastr0]

No, Joe, you don't see me claiming that the government is fooling most of the people and only I am immune from the propaganda.

Brett's special.

This is something you should repeat for yourself as well:
"Even I am not immune from propaganda."

[Joe_dallas]

Almost all of brett's comments are rational, logical and reality based. None of your comments fit any of those parameters, nor do you even attempt it

[Sarcastr0]

"government is proof that you can generally fool enough of the people enough of the time."

Really? This is rational, logical, and reality based?

[Joe_dallas]

Yes it is a rational logical and reality based comment especially considering the context in which it was written.

[Sarcastr0]

What's the context, Joe?

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 19 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
What's the context, Joe?

Read it instead of acting stupid

[Sarcastr0]

At this point, everyone can tell you have nothing.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 34 minutes ago
At this point, everyone can tell you have nothing.

Yes responding to nothing from you

[Noscitur a sociis]

Hahahahahaha!

Oh, Sonja.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'd forgotten about his sock puppet accounts lol.

[Nelson]

“ Almost all of brett's comments are rational, logical and reality based.”

You’re obviously thinking of someone else. We’re talking about Brett Bellmore, the conspiracy-loving engineer.

[Ed Grinberg]

Hey, Kamala lost, didn't she? She definitely wasn't the "small government" candidate!

[Moderation4ever]

The government is not making a profit. The anger here is that leadership of these companies are making millions and denying claims. The belief that their interest in profit is the reason people claims are denied. Someone has to be a gatekeeper, and whether that gatekeeper is the government or a private institution it is likely to draw the wrath of the public.

[Brett Bellmore]

The government, as an entity, does not make a profit. The people who make up the government, OTOH, profit mightily, which is why most of the wealthiest counties in America are where federal bureaucrats live.

[Sarcastr0]

The people who make up the government, OTOH, profit mightily, which is why most of the wealthiest counties in America are where federal bureaucrats live.
The folks living in the expensive real estate? Those aren't 'the people who make up the government.'

And neither those people nor federal employees are profiting because of denying insurance claims, Brett. That's the insurance companies.

Your market worship is making you conspiratorial again. To be fair, it doesn't take much.

[Noscitur a sociis]

They profit by… living in areas that are so expensive that their salaries can only buy them a less comfortable lifestyle?

[Absaroka]

I think it's fair to say that, say, San Fran real estate prices and cost of living are very high because 1)it's a great place to live, nice climate, access to ocean and mountains, and 2)partly because of that, and partly because of CA's excellent higher ed, some really profitable businesses got founded there.

Jackson Hole and Aspen the same, minus the profitable businesses; you have to be rich before you move there.

The DC Metro area has a really sucky climate and no industry besides the federal government.

Five of the top ten income counties are in the DC metro area, three are San Fran Bay area, and there is one around Denver and one around NYC. What is fueling that DC Metro wealth if not the presence of the federal govt?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Of course the presence of the federal government is what drives demand for DC area real estate. That doesn’t imply that governmebt service enriches those employees, and in fact suggests exactly the opposite, if you spend a couple minutes thinking about it.

[Absaroka]

"That doesn’t imply that governmebt service enriches those employees, and in fact suggests exactly the opposite, if you spend a couple minutes thinking about it."

You are saying, I think, something like 'Sux to be a Fed, having to live in such a high COL area'.

I'll buy that for a GS-5 janitor at the San Fran Federal building.

But it's not like DC is naturally expensive because the skiing is great, like Aspen or Jackson Hole. I'd posit it's expensive because a lot of highly paid people work there and they bid up prices because they don't want 3 hour commutes. And the high pay isn't because Google has a big office with lots of high paid coders. It's because there are a lot of pretty well paid federal employees, and beltway bandits.

(I've lived there twice ... when my father was a fed, and on my own working for a beltway bandit. Not a lot of neighbors who weren't working for the fed gov, directly or indirectly. The FedGov is the local industry, like cars once were for Detroit, steel once was for Pittsburgh, Boeing was for Seattle, and tech is for Palo Alto.)

[Sarcastr0]

As Noscitur implies, those wealthy counties are not full of federal employees.

They are full of law firms, defense contractors, and lobbyists.

[Absaroka]

Here are the top 4 places in the nation for number of federal civilian employees:

Location, num fed employees, total population
D.C. 162161 679K
California 147094 39M
Virginia 144047 8.7M
Maryland 142685 6.2M

It looks like fed gov employees per capita isn't all that uniform across the country.

Before you tell me that e.g. all the feds working in VA are in SW Virginia, farther down in that doc they list by congressional district. That dog won't hunt.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course lots of feds live in the area, but they aren't the ones driving the high income stats in those counties.

Fed work is good work, but almost all of use could command a higher salary in the private sector, albeit with less stability.

Remember, though, this is Brett's thesis: "The people who make up the government, OTOH, profit mightily, which is why most of the wealthiest counties in America are where federal bureaucrats live."

That's an utter mischaracterization of where the money goes.

[Absaroka]

Sarc1: "those wealthy counties are not full of federal employees."
Sarc2: "Of course lots of feds live in the area"

"Fed work is good work, but almost all of use could command a higher salary in the private sector,"

I've worked for the feds. My siblings have worked for the feds. My wife has worked for the feds. Both our fathers worked for the feds. So did my Mom. Maybe a quarter of our friends and extended family have. They were good people and worked hard, but they weren't bureaucrat-monks doing it out of the goodness of their hearts; they thought that the overall deal was better than they could get elsewhere.

[Bob from Ohio]

"almost all of use [sic] could command a higher salary in the private sector"

Assertion without evidence. It might be true for higher ups as "regulatory capture" but not generally.

Dr. Raymond Stantz : "I've worked in the private sector... they expect results."

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord Absaroka, an average means there are lots of people below that point!

Nothing you said about the quality of life of a federal position is wrong (though there are plenty of motives beyond money that drive me and my colleagues).
But the idea that they're the drivers of the average income inside the beltway is unsupported - the high paying jobs are in influencing and being influenced on behalf of. They spike up the average.

Most of my colleagues commute from outside the beltway. When we have kids I'll be joining them.

Bob, in return for less stability and benefits, federal contractors alone are paid more than their counterparts in career phase. That doesn't count the defense industry, lobbying, pharma...you have no idea what you're talking about, whereas I live it.

[Absaroka]

FWIW, I'm not saying feds are grossly overpaid, for example:

"(fed workers) currently have a median pay of $99,000, far higher than the private sector’s $63,000 median.

A big reason why government workers as a whole earn more is because they are older, more likely to hold advanced degrees, and more likely to have professional jobs than those in the private workforce. But that’s only part of the story: when comparing by education level, in many cases their pay and total compensation is actually lower than that of their private-sector counterparts."

And I think the higher you go, the more that's true: Robert Strange McNamara didn't come to DC to get rich.

That isn't in tension with 'feds are generally well compensated'. As you allude, fed workers don't usually spend a lot of time sweating buyouts and layoffs. State gov isn't too bad either - if I had hit my head and become a vegetable the first day on the job, WA would have paid my salary until age 65 and pension afterwards. That kind of (free!) disability insurance is unknown in the private sector.

"They spike up the average."

Would you happen to have a comparison of, say, median fed and private salaries for the counties around DC?

"Most of my colleagues commute from outside the beltway."

Sure. So is most of e.g. Fairfax County (#5 county in the country).

[Sarcastr0]

median fed and private salaries for the counties around DC?

Not really the question - the question is what is the main driver of the high average average income observed.

A small set of high outliers on the high side of either population would skew the average.

The Atlantic is paywalled and I'm too lazy to archive.io it, but here's their take:
"The federal government has a lot to do with this: The Capitol and the economy orbiting around it (including lawyers, defense contractors, computer engineers along the Dulles Corridor, and doctors near NIH) attract college graduates who reliably contribute to six-figure households. Crucially, there was a $1.7 billion increase in lobbying between 1998 and 2010, as Dylan Matthews explained. With each $1 million of lobbying "associated with a $3.70 increase in the D.C. wage premium," the money pouring into Washington wound up in the pockets of its residents."

Note it's not the feds they are talking about. Do you agree with this take? I do.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/why-there-are-so-many-rich-counties-concentrated-around-washington-dc/282481/

I also didn't know about the Dulles Tech corridor, another private-sector driver apparently.

[Absaroka]

We have a median fed *individual* salary of $99k[2].

Generally speaking, I'd expect the salaries at headquarters to be higher than the organization wide salaries.

Just eyeballing the 5 DC area counties we have a median *household* salary of a little over ??$130k??. Given that two earner families are a thing[1], I'm not seeing strong evidence that those counties are layered with the non-feds at the top and feds at the bottom.

[1]the overall US median household income is almost double the median individual income.
[2]n.b. that source says "median pay of $99,000", which seems to indicate just salary, not the total compensation - good health care, pretty nice retirement options, etc.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, what are your thoughts about a suggestion that a lot of what you take to be upward imbalance in DC-area wealth comes from a contrast with the national economy over pay for the least-lucrative jobs. Pay for federal janitors probably runs higher than for janitors nationally. If so, I don't see how that is legitimate evidence of profligate spending in D.C.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Your market worship..."

This must be what leftists call economics.

Sort of like primitive people thinking technology is magic.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

VA Administrators put vets on secret wait lists which directly led to their deaths for bonuses.

I guess a bunch of govies killing people for a few thousand dollars is expected, but if it were millions, WELL THEN THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Private insurers consider themselves successful if they spend 99 cents to prevent paying $1 in benefits.

[Moderation4ever]

I know a number of commentors are knowledgeable on firearms and I am wondering their take about the weapon used in the CEO killing. From what I can gather this was a Swiss designed weapon used by veterinarians. It seems this gun also find use among assassins. Does this point to a more professional killing and to a person that likely will never get caught? If it was a professional killing, does it suggest there is more to the motive that just anger at the insurance companies?

[Swede425]

I don't think the killer is a professional anything.
An easily followable trail before and after the killing.
Face (if correctly reported) uncovered and captured for everybody to see.
Malfunctioning weapon.
Probably somebody disgruntled by a personal insurance issue or with somebody they love.
As for choice of weapon, probably just something they had access to, not necessarily a preferred assassination weapon.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking: If it was a veterinary gun, that's just because the killer had access to one.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe he was symbolizing he was killing an animal, which misses the point, I have way more sympathy for animals than Insurance CEO's

[Frank Drackman]

Like Billy Bean said in "Moneyball" about the player who was a "Good Hitter"
"If he's a good hitter why doesn't he hit good?"
if his trail's so "Followable" why haven't the Authorities "Followed" and caught him?
but hey, he seems to wear a mask everywhere, just look for young guys wearing masks!
His weapon "Malfunctioned"? seemed to do what he wanted it to do.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

They trailed the guy who planted the fake bombs on January 5th for hours, too, and even identified the car he drove off in, and still haven't caught him.

Forget shows like Dragnet, these guys simply aren't that good at what they do.

[ThePublius]

They don't want to catch him, because he's one of their operatives.

[Sarcastr0]

What evidence do you have for this confident assertion, TP?

[ThePublius]

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 suppressor (no Nielsen device, a.k.a., 'booster') on a semi-auto pistol;
- 9mm is the caliber;
In addition:
- 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.

[Mr. Bumble]

This article might clear up some of the confusion about the weapon reportedly used in the NYC murder.
https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/review-b-t-station-six-9-pistol/

[ThePublius]

That's what the NYPD originally speculated, but that's not it. In the video you can clearly see the shooter racking the slide, which that gun does not have.

The video and analysis (see the article I linked, above) are that he used a suppressor on a semi auto pistol, perhaps a Glock, but without a Nielsen device[1], and thus, the pistol failed to fully cycle when shot, requiring the shooter to manually rack the slide.

Here's an excellent video on this topic:

Why Did Assassin's Gun With Silencer Malfunction In United Healthcare CEO Shooting?

[1] a Nielsen device, a.k.a., a booster, is necessary on tilting-barrel pistols with suppressors; it captures some gas from the shot and uses it to assist, i.e., boost, the cycling of the gun.

[ThePublius]

What Is A Nielsen Device?

[ThePublius]

Another couple of observations on the speculation he may have used that vet gun:
- they are expensive, and relatively rare: $2,284
- if he stole it, it would surely be missed by now, and the owner would have contacted NYPD or the FBI

[Absaroka]

"Swiss designed weapon used by veterinarians"

Disclaimer: I haven't been following the blow by blow, corrections welcome.

There were reports of unfired cartridges being left on the ground (as in the brass case, the bullet, etc). That is consistent with what you would see with a conventional semiauto w/o a Neilsen device that was failing to go into battery or was otherwise misfeeding - when cycled, a live round gets ejected. The Station 6 is a bolt action; you have to cycle it for each shot, but it would be ejecting only spent brass.

Secondly, I doubt a highly skilled professional assassin would buy a $4500 rare as hen's teeth manually operated pistol instead of just using a Glock or whatever. Working through the list of everyone who bought a Station 6 is a lot shorter job than the list of everyone who bought a Glock.

I would think the authorities know the type of gun by now from the rifling characteristics of the recovered bullets. Has that been released? If so, and it's a Station 6, them I'm all wet.

[Absaroka]

I should add, there are malfunctions - a too short firing pin or defective primers, for example - that would cause one to cycle unfired rounds through a Station 6. Or a Glock. But I still think that the Station 6 theory is hearing hooves and thinking zebras.

[ThePublius]

It is interesting to speculate based on the sketchy knowledge we have. But I noticed something. His poor shooting stance, with his right, firing arm bent and his left outstretched, straight, leads me to believe he knew he's have to rack the slide on each shot. If it were a Station 6, the bolt is actuated from the rear, and he could have had a straight shooting arm and bent left.

[bernard11]

Insurance companies only started to suck when people started wanting them to eliminate their risk,

Which long preceded Obamacare, and is a market outcome, as are/were the companies' nastier tendencies.

I personally don't think it makes sense to think health insurance should work like car or homeowners. They are different animals.

[bernard11]

I should add, there are malfunctions - a too short firing pin or defective primers, for example - that would cause one to cycle unfired rounds through a Station 6.

I know almost nothing about guns, but if I did, and were going to assassinate someone, I would be inclined to check the gun for defects before trying to do the job.

Are these the sorts of flaws that would show up when the gun is tested? If so, how can the guy be some kind of pro?

[Sarcastr0]

I know it's fun and all, but Internet gumshoeing only rarely uncovers something.

Fine for entertainment, but don't go beyond that.

[ThePublius]

Top 10 Times the Internet Solved Crimes

There are many examples of this. These are just 10 of them.

[Sarcastr0]

Many such examples!

I mean, you clearly get it: "It is interesting to speculate based on the sketchy knowledge we have."

You're just being oppositional.

[Moderation4ever]

This isn't just internet gumshoeing; this has been reported by the MSM including NY Post and CNN.

[Kazinski]

Well he's been identified now, and in custody.

[David Nieporent]

Well, someone has been. We'll see if it's the right someone.

[Kazinski]

Well there are a couple of indicators that its the right guy:

Gun matching the description of the gun on the video - check.
NJ fake is matching the one used at the hostel - check.
Dead ringer for the guy on the video including the face shot -check.
Manifesto railing against health insurance companies and CEOs -check.

[not guilty]

"First, the reaction of many in celebrating this man's death is truly something to behold. It is not an exaggeration to say those people felt he got what he deserved."

Commenter_XY, you have been commenting here for a while. Have you not yet become accustomed to bloodlust from fellow commenters?

[Commenter_XY]

It is a symptom of the time, not guilty.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeesh. More left wing political violence.

[apedad]

Jury’s murder verdict ‘not rational’

A Louisiana appeals court reversed a jury’s conviction of a man for the murder of his girlfriend, who was found drowned in a Louisiana bayou after the couple had been drinking and arguing. The reversal also vacates his sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor. The court agrees that the evidence did not support his conviction, writing that it was “not rational” for any trier of fact to “find beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant committed second degree murder.”

https://www.courthousenews.com/jurys-murder-verdict-not-rational/

How can an appeals court overturn a jury's decision?

I can see if the prosecutor, judge, or a juror did something illegal/incorrect that would lead to a mistrial - but isn't it the jury's sole decision to determine guilty or not guilty?

[Krayt]

I dont know about appeals court rules, but in general a jury conviction can be overturned, whatever you call it, but not guilty cannot be.

[Mr. Bumble]

Isn't that one of the reasons (purposes?) of appeals courts?

[ReaderY]

The 7th Amendment says:

“…and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the common law.”

Appelate review for sufficiency of the evidence, a re-examination evaluating whether there was enough evidence ro support a jury verdict, has been part of the the common law of England for centuries before the United States was founded (or even colonized).

So it’s right in the constitution.

In Jackson v. Virginia (1979), the Supreme Court reaffirmed earlier cases that a criminal defendent has a constitutional right to have a judge (although not necessarily an appeals court) re-examine the evidence and check whether it is sufficient, and can get federal habeas corpus if this is not done by state judges (every state does this). The “rational jury” standard the Louisiana court applied comes from this case.

It’s a routine thing. Happens every day.

[not guilty]

The Seventh Amendment applies only to civil cases tried in federal court.

[Dan Schiavetta]

True but the purpose of it was to make sure the (new) federal courts acted like state courts.

[not guilty]

"It’s a routine thing. Happens every day."

A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand, as it violates due process. The standard of reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the State proved every essential element of the crime to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

According to the opinion linked by apedad, Louisiana by statute specifies that when circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 mandates "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence."

Appellate review of whether the evidence at trial is sufficient to convict is routine, but actual reversal of a criminal conviction and dismissal of the indictment by an appellate court is exceedingly rare.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Appellate review of whether the evidence at trial is sufficient to convict is routine, but actual reversal of a criminal conviction and dismissal of the indictment by an appellate court is exceedingly rare.

That’s true. But on the other hand, there are something in the order of a million guilty verdicts every year. So even if only .01% lead to a result like this, that still gets us around enough for ReaderY’s “every day”.

[not guilty]

I don't know the statistics, but are you including in your million guilty verdicts every year the convictions that are based on guilty pleas?

According to Pew Research Center:

In fiscal year 2022, only 290 of 71,954 defendants in federal criminal cases – about 0.4% – went to trial and were acquitted, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest available statistics from the federal judiciary. Another 1,379 went to trial and were found guilty (1.9%).

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

Granted, states try more criminal cases than the federal system, but with the feds in the low four figures, I would be very surprised if the total for any year for all state and federal courts combined is anywhere near seven figures.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I misread the data I was looking at and am off by an order of magnitude. Divide all my numbers by 10.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is actually normal: Appeals courts can't overturn a jury acquittal, but a jury conviction is as subject to being overturned on appeal as a bench conviction.

[apedad]

Thanks all!

[Bored Lawyer]

How can an appeals court overturn a jury's decision?

If the evidence is so wanting that no rational jury could have convicted for the crime charged, and under the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. IOW, giving every inference and doubt to the prosecution, the evidence presented at trial is simply insufficient to convict. It's a tough, but not impossible, standard.

[Commenter_XY]

BL, does that happen much in our neck of the words (NYC/Philly metro areas)? I don't read about many NJ or NY convictions overturned at appeal. Am I wrong about that?

[Bored Lawyer]

Overturning on that basis is rare, because it's a tough standard. More common is overturning on other grounds. Like letting into evidence something that should have been excluded. Even then, most criminal convictions are affirmed on appeal. Judges don't want to get reversed, and usually neither do prosecutors.

After my second year in law school, I was an unpaid intern in the summer for the US Attorney in Manhattan. I remember watching a trial, about a drug dealer who had drugs found in his car. They also found a machine gun. The prosecution kept wanting to introduce evidence of the machine gun, and the judge kept resisting it. "Do you really need that evidence?" It was clear the judge did not want a reversal for allowing inflammatory evidence. In the end, it was not introduced, and the defendant was convicted anyway.

[John F. Carr]

The word "rational" is part of a legal formula, not an insult aimed at jurors' sanity. Quoting Jackson v. Virginia:

After Winship the critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction must be not simply to determine whether the jury was properly instructed, but to determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But this inquiry does not require a court to "ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S., at 282, 87 S.Ct., at 486 (emphasis added). Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

[SRG2]

The actual decision is here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/louisiana-murder-verdict-not-rational.pdf

I wonder what the prosecution and defence attorneys said and did during the trial - it is pretty clear that the defendant should not have been convicted.

[Kazinski]

Well its very common for the defense to ask for a.directed verdict after the prosecution present s it's case, which is close to the same thing, the judge saying that no rational jury would convict on that evidence, so no need to go further.

Its rare too, but does happen.

[not guilty]

It's close, but not exactly the same thing. A judgment of acquittal ordered at the close of the government's case is (ordinarily) not appealable. A trial court's posttrial judgment of acquittal is appealable by the government, like the sufficiency of evidence to convict is appealable by the defendant.

A trial judge will sometimes let a shaky case go to the jury for that reason.

[Malika]

Crimson Tide fans feeling the sting of being "snubbed" by the CFP choosing SMU over Alabama for inclusion in the college playoff...This kind of thing actually presents a very interesting case study of how thorny "merit" can be. Who "deservers" or has more "merit" to be in the CFP, the Mustangs who have one less loss in the season (and played an extra game in the ACC Championship) or Alabama who played a harder strength of schedule and wins over more highly ranked teams? If there are great arguments "objectively" for two teams, can or should a nod go to one on the basis of something like "established brand" (sort of a "legacy admit" for Alabama) or "new blood in the tournament" (sort of like "affirmative action" for SMU). The answer, I think, is merit is often not as cut and dry as people wish it to be.

[John F. Carr]

College football could switch to a chess rating system. Or go back to sportswriters having drunken arguments.

[Davy C]

A chesslike rating system would be interesting, but the problem is that every year the teams cycle a large percentage of their players (nobody can be on the roster more than 4 years) so the strength of each team typically changes greatly from year to year. It's hard to get accurate ratings after only 12 games or so; most chess rating systems would count that as a provisional rating and not claim much accuracy.

Or they could just have a 7 round 128 team knockout tournament.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

SMU earned their birth with out they played against Clemson.

Alabama lost to two 6 loss teams.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thankfully they weren't aborted before they earned their birth.

[Frank Drackman]

So Jesus gives Participation trophies now? (actually that's a pretty good description of what Hey-Zeus supposedly does, if he wasn't a made up imaginary being) SMU lost to Clemson, who lost to South Carolina, who lost to Alabama.
and there's the "Eyeball" Test, anybody with Eyeballs knows Alabama would gang rape SMU, so would Vanderbilt or Oklahoma, mediocre SEC teams at best.
But hey, I'm an Auburn fan, I love anything that gives Alabama fans sadness, we piss on Bear Bryant's grave, they poison our tree (a Tree Auburn had been wanting to chop down for years to tell the truth)

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

Alabama lost to Vanderbilt. QED

[Frank Drackman]

Vanderbilt would smoke any team in the (real) Big 10, I don't consider Oregon a (real) Big 10 team as they have an Offense that's evolved past the Single Wing

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Single Wing? lol were you born in the 1820?

[bernard11]

Vanderbilt would smoke any team in the (real) Big 10,

This might be true, but as a man following VU football for around six decades I find it an astonishing statement.

[Josh R]

This article takes a deep dive into your questions and concludes Alabama does not belong in the top 12 (nor does Tennessee, with South Carolina being the right choice!).

But the bigger picture is I have no sympathy for a team that argues they are the 10th best team and not the 13th best. You shoud have won more games and clearly been in the top 8. The new 12-team playoff system is thus better (but, there should not be automatic byes for weaker conference winners).

[Kazinski]

Seems li!e they are trying to judge who makes the playoff by merit, why not equity?

SMU being a private Methodist School with a 62k annual tuition, only 7% black enrollment, would hardly seem to qualify for AA or equity consideration.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Speech First v. Whitten is a cert petition for an injunction against Bias Response Teams which are the public faces of the infamous Behavioral Intervention Teams that are plaguing higher education today.

I don't see a certain organization that mentioned "nuking into the sun" involved in this, do I?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-361.html

[John F. Carr]

I see from the petition that "Munsingwear" is now a verb.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://speechfirst.org/case/indiana-university-case/

re: "I don't see a certain organization...involved in this"
Not sure which organization you meant, but there was a time when the ACLU would support such a lawsuit. (See here for an example from 1987.) Of course, they've since abandoned their pro-freedom-of-speech position:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they filed an amicus brief on behalf of the university!

Reason.com, 2021 (link):

Montana Becomes Latest State To Protect Free Speech With the FORUM Act
Now 14 states have legislation explicitly protecting free speech on campus.

Who'd have a problem with this? You guessed it:

The FORUM Act has predictably drawn opposition. Some critics have objected to a provision saying public universities cannot deny a group funding because of its "actual or anticipated expressive activity," fearing that this would protect religious organizations that discriminate against gays. "The American ideals of free speech must not be used as a sword for discrimination," the political director of the Georgia ACLU told Project Q Atlanta last year.

[David Nieporent]

Not sure which organization you meant, but there was a time when the ACLU would support such a lawsuit. (See here for an example from 1987.)

It's a callback to Friday's Short Circuit post about the Institute for Justice, which was writing about a case they handled utterly unrelated to any of the issues in this case but which our resident university president thinks is somehow similar.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The local police department sent a mailing to everyone in town which essentially said that the "brave men and women of the department" are having a fundraiser and citizens should donate between $20 and $200 to a certain Sargent in the department, giving the department's address as to where the money should be sent.

Ethical, no. But is it legal to do this?

I thought police fundraisers had to be done by RETIRED officers and not in the police station.

[ThePublius]

What town?

[John F. Carr]

Was the letter actually sent by the police department, or using the name of the police department?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It says "police associations" and gives the mailing address of the police station and lists "Attn. Sgt. [name] and is signed the same active duty sergeant who lists himself as the president of the police associations.

It was sent by presort bulk mail with no return address.

[apedad]

Doctor pardoned by Trump seeks rare federal expungement

Dr. Robert Corkern was the administrator of a nonprofit health care center in rural Batesville when he was indicted in 2011 for bribing a county administrator in order to steer $400,000 in U.S. Department of Agriculture money to the facility. He pleaded guilty the following year.

After serving two years of home detention, three years of supervised release and otherwise restoring his practice as a physician, Corkern was among a number of people nationwide who were pardoned by President Donald Trump on his last day in office in 2021.

But according to his attorney, Alfred Eugene “Rusty” Harlow, Corkern must continue to answer affirmatively when a legal document asks if he has ever been convicted of a felony. As a result, the Medicaid program will not allow him to receive or administer its federal funds.

In April, U.S. District Court Judge Glen H. Davidson denied Corkern's motion to expunge in his criminal case, finding there was a narrow window for expungement under federal statutes and that expunging the record would give Corkern more relief than if he had been acquitted at trial.

https://www.courthousenews.com/doctor-pardoned-by-trump-seeks-rare-federal-expungement/

Pardons are going to be big news stories the next 50+ days and it'll be interesting to see exactly what pardons do and don't do.

[Longtobefree]

I know that in these days of 'assault weapons' and 'transgender' and 'misinformation' and 'decimate' meaning other than 10% reduction, that English is no longer in use, but in the old days, you could only pardon a specific conviction.

[apedad]

Talking about expungement not pardon here.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty sure that's not true, unless "the old days" were at least 200 years ago.

Normally they'd be specific, but it didn't have to be a conviction, I mean.

[Davy C]

You know, I don't have a ton of sympathy for the guy not being able to receive or administer federal funds when he pled guilty to bribing someone to get federal funds. It's not just some generic felony; it's on-point.

[Frank Drackman]

in a short 5 weeks, "45/47" wins, Ohio State gets molested at home by Michigan, and Alabama gets left standing in the CFP musical chairs game
Truth is they'd probably win the thing, which makes their fan's tears even sweeter.
What did Milton say about ruling in Hell?

Frank

[ThePublius]

I don't think the founding fathers considered preemptive pardons with windows of time for any and all offenses that may have been committed during that timeframe, regardless of whether those crimes are known now, or have been charged, when they created the presidential pardon power.

I think they were thinking of specific offenses for which the person has been charged and convicted.

And I think the latter is as it should be.

A preemptive pardon isn't a pardon, it's immunity.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I can't see how that blanket immunity would hold up under any real scrutiny.

[SRG2]

FWIW Michael Flynn received a pre-emptive pardon as well, though not as blanketed as Hunter's.

[ThePublius]

Flynn pled guilty to two charges and was therefore convicted. The only "blanket" aspect of the pardon was for charges arising from these.

[Brett Bellmore]

Any pardon for an offense you haven't yet been charged with is 'preemptive' in some sense, but Trump's pardon of Flynn was definitely restricted to just matters related to what he'd already been prosecuted for, so that the DOJ couldn't later come back and prosecute him from a slightly different angle, so to speak, in order to defeat the pardon.

[apedad]

" . . . Flynn was definitely restricted to just matters related to what he'd already been prosecuted for . . . . "

Not fully true.

for any and all possible offenses arising from the facts set forth in the Information and Statement of Offense filed under that docket number or that might arise, or be charged, claimed, or asserted, in connection with the proceedings under that docket number; for any and all possible offenses within the investigatory authority or jurisdiction of the Special Counsel appointed on May 17, 2017, including the initial Appointment Order No. 3915-2017 and subsequent memoranda regarding the Special Counsel’s investigatory authority; and for any and all possible offenses arising out of facts and circumstances known to, identified by, or in any manner related to the investigation of the Special Counsel, including, but not limited to, any grand jury proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

[ThePublius]

"...arising from the facts set forth in the Information and Statement of Offense...."

That's pretty clear, no?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Now keep reading.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it pretty clearly limits the pardon to offenses related to things in the penumbra of the original prosecution. Nothing like Hunter's pardon for absolutely anything he did over the course of 11 years.

[SRG2]

It pretty clearly limits the pardon to any and all possible offenses within the investigatory authority or jurisdiction of the Special Counsel, not merely to the penumbra of the original prosecution.

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

That is pretty obviously broader than penumbra to the prosecution.

I agree, as I already said, that Hunter's was broader, but Flynn's is still pre-emptive.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, it’s narrower than the Hunter Biden pardon, but it’s still quite a bit broader than “matters related to what he'd already been prosecuted for.”

[SRG2]

for any and all possible offenses within the investigatory authority or jurisdiction of the Special Counsel appointed on May 17, 2017, including the initial Appointment Order No. 3915-2017 and subsequent memoranda regarding the Special Counsel’s investigatory authority;

As you say, clear.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure sounds restricted to me, yes.

[DaveM]

I agree, but who would have standing to even sue to bring the question? Catch 22. Be careful whom you elect to executive office.

[ThePublius]

The DoJ could indict and prosecute, and get it into court so the accused can argue that he has a preemptive pardon, and then see where that goes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I think they were thinking of specific offenses for which the person has been charged and convicted. "

Then they should have written that in the document.

[Brett Bellmore]

If they'd done that for everything, the Constitution "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind."

[Bob from Ohio]

Better than mind reading like Publius did.

[SRG2]

When the British Theft Act (1968) was passed, the drafters intended that it be clearly understood by the man waiting for the Clapham omnibus, and should be as simple and non-technical as possible.

It was indeed. However, it turns out that there is far more ambiguity in regular speech than was realised, and as a result there grew a veritable Library of Babel of interpretations, precedential cases, etc. Had the law been longer and more prolix, the library would not have been necessary.

[ThePublius]

Words matter.
Context matters.
If they meant immunity, they would have said immunity.

[Sarcastr0]

For most originalists, text beats intent.

Though I expect that to change, as the right tries to get SCOTUS to move beyond a lot of their Constitutional bette noirs.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments today in Kousisis v. United States. Petitioner won a government contract after lying about Disadvantaged Business Enterprise status. A wire fraud conviction followed. On appeal he argues no harm, no foul. The government got the work it wanted at the price it wanted. The prosecution argues that DBE status was designated as a material term of the contract.

The questions presented are

Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme.
Whether a sovereign’s statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services.
Whether all contract rights are “property.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kousisis-v-united-states/

[Commenter_XY]

I feel like I am in Khartoum, with three 'noes'.

[Bored Lawyer]

Seems like a no-brainer to me. He lied to get a government contract. Had he told the truth, he would not have gotten it. How is that not fraud?

Let's say a client comes to me and wants me to represent them in an ERISA case.
"Do you have any experience with ERISA?"
"Of course. I've done hundreds of ERISA cases in the last 20 years. ERISA is tatooed on my rear-end."
In reality, I have never done an ERISA case.
Let's say after billing the client a heap of money, he discovers I lied. Is that not fraud, just because I gave him competent representation up to that point?

[Michael P]

Fraud normally requires some kind of harm to the putative victim. What is the harm in either this case or your hypo?

For mail and wire fraid, an essential element is the scheme or artifice to defraud; if the argument is that there was a scheme to defraud that did not succeed in causing an actual loss/harm, what was the fraudulent goal of that scheme?

[John F. Carr]

People do get convicted of fraud for cheating on admissions tests. Defrauding the company that runs the test, not necessarily the school to which the test results were submitted.

[Bored Lawyer]

The harm is parting with money for a service to someone you would not have hired had he told the truth.
I once read about a guy with no medical training or degree who passed himself off as an experienced surgeon, and performed several successful surgeries. You seriously think his "patients" have no claim of fraud?

[David Nieporent]

It's almost certainly criminal fraud (along with other offenses), but if there's no harm, how is it civil fraud? Maybe one could gin up an IIED claim in the context of surgery, but fraud?

[Bored Lawyer]

We are talking about criminal fraud. SCOTUS is reviewing a conviction for wire fraud.
As for civil fraud, I think the payment to an untrained and unlicensed surgeon is the harm. The patient paid under false pretenses.

[David Nieporent]

We are talking about criminal fraud.

The comment I was responding to was "You seriously think his 'patients' have no claim of fraud?" That sure sounds to me like a civil question, not a criminal one.

As for civil fraud, I think the payment to an untrained and unlicensed surgeon is the harm. The patient paid under false pretenses.

That's not a harm. What is the measure of damages? One paid for a successful surgery, not a diploma, and one got the former. (I suppose that if this faux surgeon charged more because of his purported credentials than the run-of-the-mill surgeon, the difference in cost would be harm. But I think that's far afield from the facts.)

[Ridgeway]

Isn't this similar to the NYS AG fraud claims against Trump? He and his defenders claim no fraud (or at least no harm, no foul), because the loans were paid back. The AG says not so fast -- Trump paid less in interest than he would have absent the fraud.

In the surgery example, the patient would not have paid a normal doctor fee to an unlicensed surgeon, even though the surgery worked out in the end.

[John F. Carr]

Your experience is clearly relevant to your skill and billing rate even if everything turns out fine. This is closer to Hunter Biden lying on his gun paperwork. Is use of illegal drugs a material fact post-Bruen? If it is, it's not as clearly material as lying about a recent murder conviction.

There are three questions presented. I doubt the petitioner wins on all of them. I would rule for him on the second. Obedience to the law is not a property right. Perhaps 18 USC 1001 applies if there are federal funds involved. Then the analogy with Hunter Biden's gun form would be closer.

[Bored Lawyer]

"Petitioner won a government contract"

sounds like there was govt. money involved.

[John F. Carr]

He won a state contract. It's not clear from reporting whether there was enough of a federal connection to charge false statements to federal authorities.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The interesting question here will be "Public Policy" and if restricting the contract on the basis of race violated public policy.

If it did, then there is no charge on the grounds that the restriction itself was unconstitutional...

Imagine a state housing authority that required you to affirm that you only rented to White applicants and you did, while you actually rented to persons of all races. How could they prosecute you for lying when they had no right to make you make that affirmation in the first place?

Wouldn't this be like a contract with a hit man and then trying to force him to honor it?

[John F. Carr]

The legality of the DBE policy is not being litigated, except to the extent that defendants assign it no economic value.

As far as contract performance is concerned, reports say the company was ordered to return "profits" from the contract.

[Kazinski]

is lying on your resume fraud?

I better buy some prison stocks, because they are going to be building a few.

it seems like in this case the better remedy is civil, like perhaps barring him from additional contracts for 10 years or somesuch remedy.

It seems kind of crazy that over-incarceration seems to be a huge issue, unless its victimless whitecoller crime then give them 10 years, or shoot them on the sidewalk.

[tylertusta]

Sarcastr0,

I had some questions for you in my last reply in
our convo last week on the Carter Page FISA warrants and the FBI.

Here was my reply:

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.

[Sarcastr0]

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.
Dunno if we had a meetings of the mind that this was the nut of the argument.

But OK then what's your evidence?

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably the most obvious example was where they'd contacted one of Steele's sources, and told the FISA court that he'd seemed reliable, but neglected to mention that he'd reliably told them that the dossier was a steaming heap.

[tylertusta]

There were so many, many instances where the FBI found information that undermined probable cause but didn't include it in the application despite being required to.

It's hard to pick just one!

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, sure, but I thought that particular omission was especially obnoxious. To say that the supposed source some of the allegations seemed credible, and not relate that he'd told you they were nonsense?

[tylertusta]

Just to make sure we're on the same page, I've been referring back to the DOJ's Inspector General Report.

A summary that I made on some of the details of what they excluded can be found in this thread that I started last week, but I was merely summarizing the IG's report. I only made it partway through the list of errors before David sidetracked me, but I think you get the idea. You can read the errors themselves starting on page viii of the Executive Summary of the IG's report. The IG provides additional details for each error.

Of the 17 major flaws and material omissions in the FISA warrant applications, only one was due to Clinesmith's alteration of the email he received from the CIA (Error No. 9). Clinesmith's alteration was only part of a pattern of other omissions regarding Page's assistance to the CIA where the FBI continually omitted information on Page's relationship with the Agency despite the FBI needing to include that information per the law.

[Sarcastr0]

I won't speak for DMN further, but he did take issue with your interpretation of the DoJIG:
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/05/thursday-open-thread-220/?comments=true#comment-10825419

"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."
-----
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]

Edit: Comment section replied while I was typing. I guess Shift + Enter is a bad button combo to press!

[tylertusta]

I replied to David here and here.

David made four points, which I've summarized below in a sightly different order than he made them:

1) Probable cause does not require the FBI to include self-serving, exculpatory statements from the target.
2) I did not include a citation to anything showing that PC requires exculpatory information.
3) Page has a history with the Russians, and he's not a smart guy.
4) Woods Procedures are not substantive statutory requirements for what needs to be included in the warrant.

I'll address each below:

1) David is flatly wrong about how FISA warrant applications work and what is required for probable cause. I'm not surprised that he's ignorant of FISA, since he's assuming that PC in FISA is the same as in criminal contexts. In the criminal context, it becomes an adversarial process at some point. Ex Parte processes will likely be revisted upon at a later time by a Court. For example, a defendant will get an opportunity to challenge PC such as in a motion to suppress evidence that was gathered via a search warrant. This happens all of the time.

For FISA, there is no equivalent process to challenge a FISA warrant against a US person. FISA is an intelligence tool, not a criminal one, and since a target won't get an opportunity to challenge the warrant both Congress and the FISC have instituted additional due process safeguards. The FBI has created an internal process (known as the Woods Procedures) which guides the FBI towards complying the heightened PC requirements.

What are the statutory requirements? The FISC has informed the DOJ and FBI that the FBI is required to provide additional information under 50 USC § 1804(c). As the FISC puts it: "Those statutory provisions reflect the reality that, in the first instance, it is the applicant agency that possesses information relevant to the probable cause determination, as well as the means to potentially acquire additional information". The FISC has specifically stated that information relevant to determining PC includes information detrimental to FBI's contention that the target was acting as an agent of a foreign power. See the linked FISC order on Carter Page, footnote 8: "...statements made by Mr. Page to an FBI source in October 2016 that he had never met with Igor Sechin or Igor Divyekin were first provided to NSD in January 2017; all four applications included reporting that he met with both men in Russia in July 2016 and discussed lifting sanctions against Russia with the former and receiving derogatory information about Hillary Clinton with the latter, but did not include the denials by Mr. Page."

2) David is correct that, up until that point of the conversation, I did not cite a court order nor statute that said out that exculpatory, self-serving statements by a target has to be included for a FISA warrant to determine PC.

However, my direct reply to his statement and now in this reply to you, I have included both the FISC Order saying it was required in addition to the statutory authority the Court relies upon (50 USC § 1804(c)). Here it is again.

3) Page may not be an angel, yes. But this is a red herring. Page could have been the Antichrist, but that doesn't change the FBI's obligations. The police lying on a warrant to get a search is still lying. The FBI omitting information it is required to provide on a FISA warrant still constitutes misleading the FISC. If it intentionally does so, then it's lying by omission.

4) David is correct in that the Woods Procedures are not the same as statutory & FISC orders on what's required for a FISA warrant. Keeping in mind that I've already spoken about those requirements in #2 above, this complaint isn't a big one. The FBI's violation of its own Woods Procedures isn't was the OIG's report was about, but rather the constitutional and statutory errors that ended up in the warrant applications.

Think of it this way: The OIG documented dozens of errors in the Woods Procedures for the Carter Page FISA warrants. Omissions of facts in the Woods File (used by the OIG to audit the warrants) was the most common but not the most egregious. By not following the Woods Procedures, the result was 17 major errors across the four Page warrant applications.

[tylertusta]

Dunno if we had a meetings of the mind that this was the nut of the argument.

If you were referring to something else, please elucidate.

[not guilty]

In an interview broadcast on Meet the Press, Donald Trump said the Rep. Elizabeth Cheney and other members of the House committee that investigated his role in the January 6 attack should be incarcerated. “For what they did, honestly, they should go to jail.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UsHJWEAj_I&t=2387s (Trump's discussion of the House committee begins at 26:54.)

Trump did not identify any criminal offenses or facts supporting his contention.

If prosecution were to be brought there, the defendants could offer Trump's comments in support of motions to dismiss for vindictive prosecution. See United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 372 (1982); United States v. Meyer, 810 F.2d 1242, 1245 (D.C. Cir.), reh'g granted and opinion vacated, 816 F.2d 695 (D.C. Cir.), reh'g denied and opinion reinstated, 824 F.2d 1240 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 940, 108 S.Ct. 1121, 99 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988).

[Michael P]

What relevant legal right do you think those prospective defendants have exercised that would qualify charges against them as vindictive prosecution?

If you're going to apply your usual lame shtick to politicians appearing on talk shows, you could at least refrain from citing cases that have no bearing on your own argument.

[Brett Bellmore]

The speech and debate clause would probably immunize them against most obvious charges.

[Michael P]

That wouldn't meet the bar that ng set for himself in terms of "vindictive prosecution".

[not guilty]

I doubt that Donald Trump cares one whit about the Speech or Debate clause.

[not guilty]

Five of the seven members of the House Select Committee (including both Republicans) endorsed Trump's general election opponent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kamala_Harris_2024_presidential_campaign_congressional_legislators_endorsements

[not guilty]

"If you're going to apply your usual lame shtick to politicians appearing on talk shows, you could at least refrain from citing cases that have no bearing on your own argument."

Both Goodwin and Meyer allow for proof of actual vindictiveness. Justice Stevens opined in Goodwin:

In declining to apply a presumption of vindictiveness, we of course do not foreclose the possibility that a defendant in an appropriate case might prove objectively that the prosecutor's charging decision was motivated by a desire to punish him for doing something that the law plainly allowed him to do.

457 U.S. at 384 (footnote omitted).

Judge Mikva opined in Meyer:

The Supreme Court has established two ways in which a defendant may demonstrate prosecutorial vindictiveness. First, a defendant may show "actual vindictiveness" — that is, he may prove through objective evidence that a prosecutor acted in order to punish him for standing on his legal rights. See [Goodwin] at 380-81, 384 n.19, 102 S.Ct. at 2492, 2494 n.19. This showing is, of course, exceedingly difficult to make. Second, a defendant may in certain circumstances rely on a presumption of vindictiveness: when the facts indicate "a realistic likelihood of `vindictiveness[,]'" a presumption will arise obliging the government to come forward with objective evidence justifying the prosecutorial action. See Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 27-29, 29 n. 7, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 2102-03, 2103 n. 7, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974). If the government produces such evidence, the defendant's only hope is to prove that the justification is pretextual and that actual vindictiveness has occurred. But if the government fails to present such evidence, the presumption stands and the court must find that the prosecutor acted vindictively.

810 F.2d at 1245. A court considering a defendant's claim of vindictiveness should consider the totality of circumstances. "The critical question in this case, as in all others, is whether the defendants have presented such facts — whether the defendants have shown that all of the circumstances, when taken together, support a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness and therefore give rise to a presumption." Id., at 1246.

That means that on a pretrial motion to dismiss whatever Trump has said is fair game, along with Pam Blondie's pronouncement that "The prosecutors will be prosecuted, . . . the investigators will be investigated," as well as Kash Patel's enemies list.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"For what they did", what do you believe he is referring to, NG?

[not guilty]

Far be it from me to try to divine Donald Trump's thinking, but I can go by what he said.

Trump called out Rep. Cheney and Rep. Bennie Thompson by name, and then said "anybody who voted in favor --" and then the interviewer interrupted him with a question before he concluded that sentence.

Trump's specific reference was to what he claims was the Committee destroying its records (which is not a crime). The portions of the interview which did not air include a bit more detail on that point.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Do you think Trump might believe their destroying records might be an effort to cover up some illicit activity?

Or do you think Trump just wants to put them in jail for doing routinely legal actions just because he wants revenge?

[not guilty]

What I think doesn't really matter, but since you asked, I don't think Donald Trump knows or cares about the difference.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What you believe about his state of mind clearly is a key premise of your original analysis.

Why do I have to keep teaching you this basic argumentation and rhetoric shit? Don't they teach argumentation in law school, or has it become just class after class of how to hate Whitey and how to upend Capitalism and end human flourishing?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Ran off like a scalded DAWG! w00f w00f you coward

[not guilty]

I sometimes don't wish to distinguish off the wall rhetorical questions with an answer.

That having been said, you have never taught me basic argumentation and rhetoric shit. I don't take instruction from fools who don't care whether they tell the truth or not.

And why do you ask about my law school instruction from four decades ago? You know nothing on the topic, and I am confident that nothing I say will enlighten you.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You intentionally lied by omission in your original post.

You are a dishonest, no integrity, racist hack. It's one thing to slant your analysis, and goal seek. It's another to outright lie like a piece of shit.

[not guilty]

No, I didn't lie, by omission or otherwise. "I know you are, but what am I" is not even effective as a playground taunt.

And you wouldn't recognize integrity if it bit you in the backside. Even your chosen nom de plume is a lie. No one knows what Jesus's physical appearance was, but the likelihood that a Jew born in Palestine is 4 B.C.E. had blond hair and blue eyes is infinitesimal.

You simply don't care whether you tell the truth or not.

[Zarniwoop]

All of this whinging about Trump wanting to prosecute members of Congress for things they did as members of Congress in Congressional hearings is pointless. It's typically Trumpy performative bluster aimed at rubes, stirring the pot with no ability to back it up.

Whatever the Trump DOJ might hypothetically try to do - investigate, or jump straight to filing charges - they will lose quickly on an early motion to dismiss:

"for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place"

Art. I, sec. 6, cl. 1.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sports news: NY Mets sign another Yankees cast-off.

[Frank Drackman]

rare example of a (True) Lefty getting what he deserves

[hobie]

Now that Trump has largely peopled his administration, it's fairly obvious this is a Wall Street takeover of the American government. Corporatist elites and American oligarchs. The self-dealing is gonna be epic.

I also now see why Bezos and Zuckerberg started cowering mid-campaign. Musk's quarter billion payola is a drop in the bucket compared to all the government contracts he's gonna get. I read Skynet also want's to be the sole supplier of military satellites. If Bezos wants any chance of getting launch contracts, if Zuckerberg wants to avoid DOJ investigations preferential to X, they both better start kissing the ring.

[Frank Drackman]

Still in the anger stage I see, well, it's a start.

[hobie]

I skipped right on through to acceptance, Frankie. I'm fine. Now I get to kibitz

[Brett Bellmore]

If Bezos wanted a chance of getting launch contracts, maybe he should have tried actually launching stuff into orbit.

You think it takes some kind of invidious discrimination for SpaceX and Starlink to get oodles of contracts, when they have a track record of actually delivering promptly and affordably? It what world would an impartial contracting system NOT be giving Musk most of the work?

The only thing that's keeping his competitors alive is dual sourcing requirements, and that's not because of bias, it's because SpaceX is just that good at what they do.

[hobie]

Well, then I suppose Musk wasted his quarter billion if things were already in the bag. Also unnecessary was accompanying Trump on the stump, at the convention and to Notre Dame last week. Nothing to see here

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I don't think he wasted his time and money, it's just that he's not going to get the payoff in terms of financial kickbacks. He's going to get it in terms of living in a country where the bureaucracy isn't weaponized against him.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Bingo. Doesn't we have like Democrats at 12 agencies targeting him?

[SRG2]

e's going to get it in terms of living in a country where the bureaucracy isn't weaponized against him.

or indeed, weaponised in his favour.

[apedad]

"The only thing that's keeping his competitors alive is dual sourcing requirements . . . . "

No.

The difference is Musk's rockets are like Uber drivers while the big boys, e.g., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, etc., are like major international transportation companies.

Totally different scale.

[Michael P]

I work for a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, and I am sad to say that both LM and ULA are terrible in terms of cost or schedule performance against their plans, and their plans are typically much worse than what SpaceX actually achieves. Your analogy doesn't come close to holding water.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Aren't there two astronauts stuck up on the space station because Boeing's rockets are defective?

[M L]

As long as you have a system of legal plunder, as Bastiat described it, the self-dealing will always be epic. The only way to remedy this is to scale back government, stop having government decide everything, stop having government spend all that money. Instead, let markets and individuals make decisions of their own free will and keep and allocate their own money as they choose.

[hobie]

Leaving things to individuals and corporations is how the Cuyahoga river (in Cleveland) catches fire. Ah the EPA, one of the many agencies on your chopping block

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Meanwhile FEMA is having people arrested who are helping out the victims in NC, that they still won't help.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In 1969, there were no web sites, little email, long distance telephone calls were expensive, and there were three television channels.

Today if the Cuyahoga river caught fire, the companies polluting it would be so publicly shamed that they would clean it up. Anyone honestly believe that they wouldn't? Or wouldn't clean it up?

[bernard11]

So do you have anything to say, or did you just feel like recycling a rather trite, useless, rant.

[Sarcastr0]

“I don’t want to be breaking up families,” Trump said. “So the only way you don’t break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back.”

No, Brett, 'illegals' is not a legit parsing of what 'all' means here.

This is getting truly shameful.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's getting starkly pathological that you simply can't comprehend what Trump clearly said.

[Absaroka]

"No, Brett, 'illegals' is not a legit parsing of what 'all' means here."

You're right. And that isn't any different than what Brett is saying.

Alice is here legally. She marries Bob, who isn't, and they have a kid Cindy who is therefore a citizen.

Bob crosses the INS radar and is going to be deported.

You can argue that he shouldn't be deported because he is related to Alice and Cindy. There isn't anything wrong with making that argument.

You can argue that Bob should be deported despite being related to Alice and Cindy. and Alice and Cindy can elect to stay or go with him. This is what Trump is arguing. This isn't hard.

You can argue that all three should be deported because Alice and Cindy are illegal-adjacent. But that would be dumb, because that's not grounds for deporting citizens. You can't deport Joe Biden or Barron Trump because they are related to people who committed felonies.

(my personal feeling is that there ought to be some tough lines to draw. At one end of the scale, Bob is a notorious MS-13 hitman who fathered Cindy out of wedlock 10 months ago and then abandoned her. Deport him, she is better off without him. At the other end Bob fathered Cindy 20 years ago and has been a devoted father ever since. Give him citizenship. There is some hard line drawing to be done somewhere between those two)

[Sarcastr0]

You can argue that all three should be deported because Alice and Cindy are illegal-adjacent. But that would be dumb, because that's not grounds for deporting citizens.

This is exactly what Trump is saying in the above quote.

Is your argument that Trump couldn't be saying that, because that would be dumb?

[Absaroka]

"This is exactly what Trump is saying in the above quote."

That seems like a quite inaccurate reading to me. As in, I don't see how a native English speaker can possibly read it that way.

Trump will do and say a lot of unambiguously horrible things over the next four years. You won't lack legit causes for outrage. If you try and twist everything he says like this people will stop listening to you.

[Sarcastr0]

'keep them together and you have to send them all back' cannot refer to anything other than the family. So that's the whole family. IOW Alice, Bob, and Cindy.

It's absolutely dumb as hell, but I don't see what alternate reading there is.

Brett's reading that Trump switched from family to illegals without mentioning the word illegals just doesn't track.

[Brett Bellmore]

"'keep them together and you have to send them all back' cannot refer to anything other than the family. "

Of course it does. Trump is absolutely determined to deport most illegal aliens, (He wants Congress to enact a statute so he doesn't have to deport the "Dreamers".) but would rather not break up families. Trump correctly reasons that, if you're going to deport the illegal alien, and he's a member of a family, the only way to keep them together is if they leave together.

The problem for your reading of his statements is that he THEN says, “If they come here illegally but their family is here legally, then the family has a choice: The person that came in illegally can go out or they can all go out together.”

That's the part you keep blowing off. That he's NOT proposing to deport citizens, he's simply pointing out that the citizen family of an illegal has the option of keeping the family intact by moving to the illegal alien's home country when he's deported. THEIR choice, not his.

That is to say, whether the illegal alien is deported is the government's choice, but whether the family gets broken up is the family's choice.

Again, I'll point out to you that, if the father of three children commits a felony, is caught, convicted, and sentenced to prison for 20 years, they don't waive the sentence just because it would 'break up the family'.

The difference is that the family of your bank robber or whatever do not have the option of moving into San Quentin. But the family of an illegal alien do have the option of moving to Uruguay or wherever.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, Brett. Trump says both things.

YOU think that obviates the first thing.

I think that just means he's down for whatev.

I think history bears out that I'm tracking how Trump actually works, and you're working very, very hard expending electrons to pretend he just didn't say the first thing at all.

Sending people back? That is not the language of choice.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I think that just means he's down for whatev."

I know, and that's the problem: You're so bloody determined to believe the worst of Trump that it is literally impossible for you to recognize information that contradicts your opinion of him. He comes right out and says the family makes the choice, and that Just. Doesn't. Register.

It has to be meaningless, because otherwise he's not living down to your opinion of him.

[David Nieporent]

That he's NOT proposing to deport citizens,

you keep them together and you have to send them all back. you keep them together and you have to send them all back. you keep them together and you have to send them all back. you keep them together and you have to send them all back. you keep them together and you have to send them all back. you keep them together and you have to send them all back. you keep them together and you have to send them all back.

[Brett Bellmore]

Somebody smack Nieporent, he's stuck again.

[Bored Lawyer]

No, you don't. The illegals have an option -- take their kids back to their own country, or give them up for adoption in the US. Staying here on the basis of their kids' citizenship is not an option.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And the children will lose their citizenship anyway.

[not guilty]

Uh, those children do not lose their American citizenship unless and until they go to a U. S. Embassy and renounce that citizenship.

[David Nieporent]

Donald Trump did not say that kids would have any such option. He said that you keep them together and you have to send them all back.

[Absaroka]

My last comment on this.

It's 'Bob goes back, and if the family doesn't want to split up, Alice and Cindy can go too, but Bob doesn't get to stay because of Alice and Cindy'. It's not 'Alice and Cindy get sent along with Bob whether they like it or not'.

Your reading is very strained. You do you, but I don't have to agree with that strained reading.

[Brett Bellmore]

"As in, I don't see how a native English speaker can possibly read it that way."

It's called "motivated reasoning". Sarcastr0 starts with such a strong premise that Trump is horrible, that the English language cannot prevail against it. Trump could write, "I like chocolate ice cream" and Sarcastr0 would swear it was a racist screed.

[bernard11]

my personal feeling is that there ought to be some tough lines to draw.

Correct, but still. I'd like to see some proof that Bob is a notorious hitman.

Or, Bob has been here for fifteen years, has stayed out of trouble, has a job, has been married to Alice, a legal US resident for three years, and they have a child - Cindy.

Should Bob be deported? Looks like a monstrous idea to me, certainly, to use XY's term, soul-less, but some seem to think so.

[ThePublius]

"President Trump to propose a plan to implement paper ballots, one day voting, voter ID, and proof of citizenship for all elections during his next administration."

"...ballots not counted by midnight won’t be accepted for congressional, Senate, or presidential elections. If California wants to spend five weeks stealing the election for some Democrat assemblyman or whatever, that’s their business. But the days of them stealing congressional seats in broad daylight have got to end."

[M L]

While these sound like good ideas, I believe they are in the purview of the states. A president no power to decide these policies.

[Michael P]

Congress has broad power to regulate federal elections. Article I Section 4 of the US Constitution says:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

(The exception clause was arguably modified by the Seventeenth Amendment.)

The federal executive branch probably has little power to impose those regulations, but he could propose something to Congress.

[David Nieporent]

While these sound like good ideas,

Can't wait to hear Trump argue that soldiers deployed overseas should have their votes tossed.

[ducksalad]

I'm not seeing this midnight rule.

So if the counting clerks in some district don't like how the results are going, and are willing to accept prosecution for not doing their job - or have been promised pardons - they can just decide to wait until midnight, and that's it, those ballots are tossed forever?

Or some protestors/rioters do their own local mini-J6 at the polling place, and if they can delay things past midnight, they win forever?

[bernard11]

While these sound like good ideas, I believe they are in the purview of the states. A president no power to decide these policies.

These are utterly stupid ideas, plainly intended to cut down on voting by city dwellers - you know, the real Americans.

[Joe_dallas]

worth noting several leftist commentators on the blog claimed Trump was wrong for stating crime was up.

Note that based on revised FBI ( actually just reported accurately ), crime is up

https://magnoliatribune.com/2024/10/25/is-crime-up-or-down-changes-in-fbi-reporting-system-make-recent-years-data-hard-to-interpret/

[Sarcastr0]

How does 'the data is bad' prove Trump was right?

People have also bee using the National Crime Victimization Survey, which data tracks the crime going down thesis, and is not part of this FBI change.

[ThePublius]

The stealth-revised FBI statistics show increasing crime. And it's well known that many agencies have simply stopped reporting. The only decline is in the reporting of crime, not actual crime.

[Sarcastr0]

stealth-revised FBI statistics
Don't make shit up.

And BJS is a seperate data source. I presume you think also made up?

If everything is made up, one wonders where you get your better data.
Not really - we know it comes from your ass.

[Brett Bellmore]

Cut it out with the denial. When you release favorable numbers to great fanfare, and then change them quietly to reflect a worse reality, that's absolutely stealth editing. The government does stealth editing all the time.

[Sarcastr0]

Reality is not worse! The data is different, and cannot be compared before and after the switchover.
So quit comparing it!

Meanwhile, you continue to ignore the BJS database.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Reality is not worse!"

Well, it's worse than the originally released numbers.

[Sarcastr0]

Being unable to make a comparison means just that.

A lower number that is an answer to a different question is not proving anything.

[David Nieporent]

What is the difference between "releasing… with great fanfare" and "change them quietly"?

[Joe_dallas]

Living in that leftist echo chamber.

[Sarcastr0]

You link to an article that says the data is hard to interpret. I agree that NBERS means you can't trace data back well, especially given it wasn't a simultaneous rollout.

But we have other data sources. And those track the crime has been droping thesis.

[Joe_dallas]

Brett's comment is very appropriate response to your comment

Brett Bellmore 23 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Cut it out with the denial.

Brett and others live in a reality based world unlike you in your leftist echo chamber

[Sarcastr0]

You are the king of the empty response.

If you had an argument, or evidence, to address my point I presume you would have provided such.

Instead, you just wanked about how I just don't have the full pic to be as delusionally paranoid as Brett.

Empty Brett cheerleading is just sad, even for you.

[bernard11]

Brett and others live in a reality based world

I don't know about your "others," but if you think Brett lives in a "reality based world" you're nuts.

[Michael P]

Good news for Daniel Penny in a case that never should have been brought: https://www.fox5ny.com/news/nyc-daniel-penny-verdict-trial-jordan-neely-death-subway-chokehold

[Swede425]

Great for him, but the damage is done.
Thought nobody would help you in NYC before?
This absolutely cemented it.
Don't stick your neck out, citizen, to help others or the government will punish you.
NYC sucks.

[David Nieporent]

Why shouldn't it have been brought? Unlike the guy in Texas who murdered a protester and was then pardoned by the execrable Paxton, I don't think this was a major miscarriage of justice. I would need to have been in the courtroom and heard all the testimony for that. But I don't see why when one person kills another under questionable circumstances the govt should just ignore it.

[ducksalad]

Correction, he was pardoned by the execrable Abbott, upon the (solicited) recommendation of the execrable Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Our AG Paxton is also execrable but has no pardon power.

[David Nieporent]

Thank you for the correction, yes. Paxton's name was more on my mind, but of course as AG he has no formal role. Apologies to the guy who's a crook; Abbott is the one who deserves condemnation here.

[M L]

Texas Federal Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Corporate Transparency Act https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2024/12/texas-federal-court-issues-preliminary-injunction-against-corporate-transparency-act

This is a nationwide injunction. Previously there were two cases granting injunctions but only as to the plaintiffs or class of plaintiffs.

As with the National Small Business Association (NSBA) case, NFIB argued that the CTA is unconstitutional on the grounds that it exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers, infringes upon states’ rights, improperly compels speech, and contradicts the right of anonymous association guaranteed by the First Amendment in addition to violating the Fourth Amendment by forcing the disclosure of private information. The Court’s injunction rests on its conclusion that Congress likely lacks power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause to adopt the CTA. The Court did not reach the plaintiffs’ arguments under the First and Fourth Amendments.

My guess is that this is principally a commerce clause case.

Anyone have any thoughts on whether the commerce power allows Congress to take a rather unprecedented step of regulating corporations and LLCs, which are creatures of state statutes and historically a state regulatory matter?

Specifically, the regulation requires all corporations, LLCs and other entities to file disclosures with a federal agency, FinCEN, disclosing all "beneficial owners" of the entity, which includes persons who have no ownership interest but have some managerial authority.

No entity is too small; this applies to a teenager's lawn mowing business or a hot dog stand if they form an entity.

[ducksalad]

The rules, unless it's buried deep in the weeds, don't even seem to distinguish between commercial entities and non-commercial entities.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-09-30/pdf/2022-21020.pdf

So it's hard to see how such a broad law can be justified under the commerce clause.

[M L]

True. It even applies to a small homeowner or condominium association. It certainly isn't limited to any sort of interstate activity either.

[Joe_dallas]

The distinction is large corporations 20 full time employees "and" $5m in gross receipts.

other exemptions as noted here:

https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/the-23-exemptions-from-the-corporate-transparency-act

I dont deal with HOA's so I am not sure if they are exempt (havent bothered to find out)

[M L]

Large operating companies, defined as you said, are exempt.

Whereas many federal regulations have a "only applies to companies bigger than this big" element, the CTA is the opposite. Only applies to companies smaller than this small.

HOAs are not exempt unless they are operating under IRC 501(c) which is not common. Most file 1120H under IRC 528 - if they even file at all.

[John F. Carr]

According to reporting elsewhere on Reason the injunction is nationwide because there are so many plaintiffs represented by the National Small Business Association. The government said it would be too hard to keep track of membership when enforcing the law.

[Joe_dallas]

My take is that BOI reporting is a 4th violation. Requiring ownership details without a warrant. Somewhat equivalent to requiring a dna sample from every individual without a warrant or probable cause. Maybe not the best analogy, though it gets the point across.

There are reportedly 32 milion entities requiring reports. The number seems exceedingly low. There are 350m people in the US, of which 300m-320m are children, wage earners or retired so they would have no reason to have an entity. That still leaves 20m individuals with businesses. Most every client that I have has 2-5 entities, so 20m x 2 = 40m would be on the low side

[M L]

With the injunction, are any of your clients choosing not to file at this time? Are you/your firm offering the service of filing the reports?

[Joe_dallas]

Most CPA firm's malpractice insurance is recommending against CPA preparing the BOI reports. We are doing it on a very limited basis. (emphasis on a very limited basis)

There is a potentionally nasty catch 22, My understanding is it a temporary injuction, which can be removed, lifted with the possibility of not knowing if there is a grace period added for delays caused by the injuction. Of course, a permanent injuction can also be lifted. The injuction may be lifted tomorrow or Dec 30th or any other date with no info on whether there is a new revised deadline. Then requesting abatement of the late filing penatly is simply a time consuming pain.

[M L]

You are correct about the potential time crunch. For those clients who chose to have us file BOI reports for them (versus just having them analyze exemptions or beneficial owners) most are choosing to go ahead and file because we are saying there's no guarantee we can file in time if you choose to postpone. But some are choosing not to.

[Joe_dallas]

ML curious what your malpractice insurance said as far as preparing the boi reports.

[M L]

They didn't have much to say. We are doing special engagement letters for it.

[ThePublius]

Breaking news: Daniel Penny is acquitted in death of homeless man on N.Y.C. subway.

Thank goodness! The jury didn't even hang in there for the free lunch today. 🙂

[Bored Lawyer]

After weeks of court food, they have had enough.

[hobie]

See? Stand your ground is a good thing. Just ask tiny (almost Plank length) helpless Saint Ashtray Babbitt

[Kazinski]

There may now be some justice forthcoming for Ashley Babbitt, although Lieutenant Michael Byrd might be among the pardons Biden grants, but he should probably be looking for a new job.

Even his union rep doesn't seem to be a fan:

“What a slap in the face to the rank and file officers of the USCP, especially all who were on duty on J6,” U.S. Capitol Police union Chairman Gus Papathanasiou said in a statement Thursday to Just the News.

Just the News reported Wednesday that House Democratic leadership pressured the Capitol Police to provide financial and other assistance to then-Lt. Michael Byrd after the shooting that included a $37,000 retention bonus, help with $160,000 in private fundraising, housing, and a promotion to captain. "

https://justthenews.com/government/congress/capitol-police-union-boss-calls-out-unequal-support-byrd-after-j6-wants-probe

Note: Those who grate their teeth at Just the News links should get used to it, I hear they have uncommonly authoritative sources in the new.administration.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've described her as a suicide by cop, and said that I'd have expected to have been shot under the same circumstances, but that's hardly to endorse the shooting; There were all sorts of reports at the time that the other officers present thought it was a bad shooting.

Then the higher ups decided to make a hero of Byrd.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Rule #1 for cops -- don't shoot other cops. Byrd damn near did.
THAT is inexcusable.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Note: Those who grate their teeth at Just the News links should get used to it, I hear they have uncommonly authoritative sources in the new.administration."

And if they don't, Solomon will just make some up.

Seriously though, you bitch about the credibility of the 'mainstream media' and yet you get your news from a site whose Editor-in-Chief has been fired from multiple news outlets for fabricating stories.

You people are dumber than fiction, and deserve what is coming. The real tragedy is that your stupidity is going to effect the rest of us.

[Absaroka]

"The jury didn't even hang in there for the free lunch today"

NY juries get free lunches? We had to buy our own!

[Bored Lawyer]

Trust me. Not worth the stomach ache to get that free lunch.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Daniel Penny not guilty in NYC subway chokehold death of Jordan Neely

https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/12/09/penny-verdict-chokehold-death-trial-jordan-neely-subway-2/

The jury was unable to agree on the manslaughter count & the prosecutor requested it be dropped & the judge agreed.

Given that, perhaps, it is somewhat surprising the jury unanimously completely decided on not guilty on the less count.

Still. I'm not too surprised. The facts were tricky to meet beyond a reasonable doubt. Tragic case.

[ThePublius]

The Atlantic referred to Neely as a "subway dancer," not the psychotic, drug addled, violent criminal that he was. That's the media for you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hardly tricky. He was alive when police arrived.

Don't turn it into another Floyd George or Little Tryvon bullshit story.

[ThePublius]

Yes, and while two other men assisted in restraining Neely, one hispanic and one black, I think, they only charge Penny, and in court the prosecutor repeatedly referred to Penny as "the white man."

[Bored Lawyer]

I wonder if someone will file an ethics complaint against the prosecutor for referring to him as the "white man." Sounds like a clear appeal to racial prejudice.

[ThePublius]

I hope so.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This was an absurd and unjust prosecution, but thus is also a silly complaint. This was in the context of a witness (who obviously didn’t know Penny or Beely personally) using descriptors rather than names: there’s nothing inappropriate about adopting the witness’s nomenclature (and, in a case where identity was more disputed than I think it was here, much more problematic to feed the witness a name).

[Noscitur a sociis]

Wow, autocorrect was brutal on this one.

[Joe_dallas]

I am surprised that the judge let the prosecutor get away with prejudice type comments. Maybe NG the esteemed defense attorney can comment, assuming daniel Penny is the right kind of defendent.

[not guilty]

I would need to know more context in order to weigh in. If defense counsel were worried about it, they could have sought an in limine ruling in advance of the argument.

The other commenters do not indicate whether counsel contemporaneously objected to the prosecutor's argument. If not, the judge was probably wise not to weigh in sua sponte. Any failure to object may have been tactical.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The father brought a civil case.

[ThePublius]

Shameless.

[Bored Lawyer]

In NY, as in many states, the damages from wrongful death are limited to "pecuniary loss." IOW, economic loss, not emotional damage. That can include lost wages, as well as lost services (like a child taking care of a parent in his or her old age.)

Given that this guy was a drug addict and in mental hospitals, and more or less abandoned by his family, what is their damages?

(That is something that a lot of lawyers fail to focus on: what are the awardable damages. If someone did a terrible wrong, but your damages are zero, you don't have much of a case, practically.)

[John F. Carr]

According to the internet New York also allows survival actions. The decedent's pain and suffering become part of the estate.

[Bored Lawyer]

There is a one-year statute of limitations on pain and suffering claims where someone dies. One year after the person's death. Neely died in May 2023. The civil suit was filed two days ago. So that claim is untimely.

The wrongful death claim has a two-year statute, but as I said, it's limited to pecuniary loss. I can't see that on these facts -- Neely was a drug addict and estranged from his family. What's their economic damage?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He was thirty years old when he died. I'm unclear about deciding he was some lost cause who could not have in the future provided services to the father etc.

The father's remarks also suggest he sees the suit as an attempt to obtain 'justice' which might involve finding liability but receiving minimal damages. This repeatedly arises in civil cases, including those people around here would find more sympathetic.

It might be argued to be an abuse of the civil justice system to use it to obtain "messages" but that is another matter.

[Kazinski]

In New York the legislature can pass a statute revising the statute of limitations and allowing different basis for damages years after the lapse of the original window for recovery.

[Bob from Ohio]

"father brought a civil case"

No deep pocket here.

"His mother said he was pursuing a degree in architecture from the New York City College of Technology and planned to later transfer. He was living at an apartment in the East Village, teaching swim lessons at a gym and working at a restaurant in Brooklyn." Who is Daniel Penny? What we know about the Marine veteran acquitted in Jordan Neely's subway death
By Alice Gainer, Renee Anderson Updated on: December 9, 2024 / 12:57 PM EST / CBS New York

[Frank Drackman]

He should sue his testicles for spawning such a piece of shit.

[Bored Lawyer]

The jury was unable to agree on the manslaughter count & the prosecutor requested it be dropped & the judge agreed.
Given that, perhaps, it is somewhat surprising the jury unanimously completely decided on not guilty on the less count.

Yes, that one makes no sense. If a juror thought he was guilty of manslaughter, then certainly he would be guilty of negligent homicide. Perhaps they had further deliberations and that juror or jurors were persuaded. Still seems odd.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That seems like what must have happened. I could imagine that the prosecution’s decision not to proceed with the top charge might have shaken the guilty-voting jurors’ confidence.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, in any event, Penny will now be able to choke subway criminals with impunity, because of double jeopardy.

[ducksalad]

Could it be that one or more jurors (regardless of whether their opinion is the correct way to look at it legally) reasoned that whatever he did, it certainly wasn't the result of "negligence"?

[Noscitur a sociis]

That’s not how this works.

[ducksalad]

Well, that's not how it's supposed to work. Jurors can think all kinds of things they're not supposed to.

[Roger S]

The jury instructions said that they had to agree on the reasons for the manslaughter acquittal, in order to convict on the homicide charge.

[ThePublius]

Brian Thompson muder update:

They got the guy, and they got the gun.

From Fox News:

"Person taken into custody in Altoona, Pa.
A source with knowledge of the investigation into the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson told Fox News that a person fitting the suspect's description has been taken into custody at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pa.

The person has a similar gun to the one used in the shooting last Wednesday, the source added.

Police tell Fox News that a person at the McDonald's recognized the individual from the wanted posters of the suspect and then alerted law enforcement

When police arrived, they spotted the person and found a weapon -- believed to be the one used in the murder -- in his pocket, along with a fake ID, according to police."

[ThePublius]

Just now, NY Times:

"The man who was detained at McDonald's showed the police the same fake New Jersey identification that the man believed to be the gunman presented when he checked into a hostel on the Upper West Side of Manhattan on Nov. 24, a senior law enforcement official said."

That pretty much nails it.

I hope he talks and we get to the motive.

Can't wait to see if I was right about the gun.

[Michael P]

Assuming this guy did it (which currently sounds like a safe assumption), good. I hope the charges stick. It's somewhat amazing to me that he didn't hide or destroy the weapon in the days since the murder.

[ThePublius]

Yes. Maybe he was planning on knocking off others.

[hobie]

He'll get off as long as he employs the Rittenhouse Doctrine: walk around the streets armed; become subjectively frightened; fire. Simples.

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha, aren't you funny. You either don't know the facts of the Rittenhouse case, or you don't care.

[Michael P]

He doesn't know the facts because he doesn't care what they are.

[Frank Drackman]

That's a stupid comment even from you, which is saying something.

[Kazinski]

Well he failed at that because he didn't get the attacks against him on tape including multiple attempts to evade his attacker.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I see a Not Guilty Insanity coming.

He was on antidepressants -- those drugs are dangerous.
Every one of these shooters is on them...

[bernard11]

I'll give you 5-4 on that one also, assuming you mean a verdict and not just a plea.

[ThePublius]

Where did you learn he was anti depressants? I haven't seen that at all, and I've been following this closely.

[ThePublius]

The gun. From NY Times:

"The man detained in the McDonald’s in Altoona had what investigators believe was a ghost gun — meaning it was put together with parts sold online — that matches the gun believed to have been used in the shooting, a senior law enforcement official said."

Bad news for firearms enthusiasts, though. I'm sure there will be more calls, and laws, and regulations to outlaw so-called ghost guns. Massachusetts is already requiring them to be serialized and registered.

[John F. Carr]

Since nobody tried to trace it the lack of a serial number didn't matter.

Is it legal to take a legally built gun across state lines if the gun has no serial number? Congress has left interstate commerce as an element of some gun crimes instead of declaring all guns to use interstate commerce. Prosecutors call expert witnesses to testify that nobody makes Glocks in Rhode Island, or whatever gun type and state fits the case.

[Absaroka]

"Is it legal to take a legally built gun across state lines if the gun has no serial number?"

There is no federal restriction. Some states object, I think.

[ThePublius]

"Is it legal to take a legally built gun across state lines if the gun has no serial number?"

I think so, if it's legal to bring it and have it in that state. Also, there was a recent federal court decision saying you didn't have to apply a serial number. (Sorry, I can't find the reference.)

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe they should outlaw First Degree Murder first

[hobie]

Well, it didn't take the hayseeds long to twist this into the 2A

[Jerry B.]

Rev? Is that you?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I hear 3D printed.
It would explain the jams.

It would explain the "fired a 9mm round" instead of "is 9mm."

[Lennyk78]

Seems too perfect. He could have easily field stripped the gun and thrown it a river and gotten rid of any fake ID he used to check into the hostel.

[ThePublius]

Yes. So, not a pro, but a deranged person. Police say he had multiple fake I.D.s on him, too.

[Lennyk78]

It doesn't take a pro to know to discard evidence.

[ThePublius]

I meant a deranged person might not dispose of evidence, especially if there were other targets.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So… what do you think actually happened?

[Lennyk78]

Someone had Thompson killed for unrelated reasons, and set this guy up to take the fall as a lone wolf to throw the police off.

[ThePublius]

Whew, that's out there, man!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hinkley part deux....

[Noscitur a sociis]

What

[ThePublius]

I guess the "elderly person" who recognized him and called 911 can claim the $60k or so outstanding in reward money.

[ThePublius]

NY Post:

"The man — who sources said is being eyed for the coldblooded, targeted execution in front of a Manhattan hotel last week — allegedly had a manifesto on him when he was taken into custody by cops in Altoona, Pa."

Think we'll ever see it?

[ThePublius]

NY Times:

"The handwritten manifesto found on the person of the man detained in Altoona criticized health care companies for putting profits above care, according to a senior law enforcement official."

[Swede425]

Depends.
Did he vote for Trump?
We'll see it tomorrow.
Part of the alphabet community?
We'll see it after it's been leaked in a year or so.

[Absaroka]

"Think we'll ever see it?"

I hope not for a long time. I don't want "Use One Weird Trick to Get Lots of Clicks for Your Manifesto", namely killing people, to become a thing.

[Frank Drackman]

They always come up with some excuse why they can't give the reward money

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Coming soon, the obligatory, "He was known to the FBI since YYYY" and the vanishing of his social media accounts, manifestos if they implicate trannies or homos, and any other thing that might incriminate the FBI, one of their ideological brothers like Antifa.

[John F. Carr]

We can all breathe easy knowing that the law will not rest if you kill an important person.

[Frank Drackman]

or a piece of shit black criminal like Floyd George, or whoever the guy in the NY subway was.

[Lennyk78]

At least now George Floyd and Jordan Neely are in that great waddymelon patch in da sky.

[ThePublius]

Does you wanna go to heaven?

[hobie]

Heh. Even when you're not being a racist in public, you fill your private time with this shit. At least you're consistent

[Mr. Bumble]

The NY subway guy was a Michael Jackson impersonator who just happened to have 40+ priors.

[ThePublius]

NY Times:

"The man being questioned in Altoona in connection with the killing of Brian Thompson is Luigi Mangione, 26, according to three law enforcement officials. Mangione, who was detained in a McDonald’s this morning, was carrying identification with his name on it, along with fake I.D., one of the officials said. He has not been charged in connection with the shooting."

Any relation to Chuck?

I found him, pretty sure by thte pic, on github:
M.S.E. and B.S.E. in Computer Science @ University of Pennsylvania

His X profile is still up.

Facebook profile is still up, too.

[Krayt]

Sounds like a brand of frozen lasagna and pizzas.

[ThePublius]

https://youtu.be/pKV74qkokmk?si=mq7Pxfuzu46oUr77&t=25

[not guilty]

Be careful about speaking ill of the alleged gunman. Some commenters here may call you out for anti-Italian bigotry.

Has Mr. Mangione claimed that his arrest is a high tech garroting? Even Luca Brasi wasn't that stout. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdck7CPf3ho (Frank Pentangeli was, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPlpGprpFuY , but he came to a bad end otherwise -- albeit on his own terms.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think the Daniel Perry case was an appropriate use of the jury system to settle a controversial public dispute.

The fact some think it was easy one way or the other is unsurprising. The very nature of the dispute reflects a strong public divide. Nothing new there.

The limits of the criminal justice system are granted. But, working within the system we have, it was appropriate to bring the case and ask a jury to decide.

[ThePublius]

He should never have been charged. Why weren't the other two guys who helped him charged? Because DP was the only white guy there.

[David Nieporent]

Why weren't the other two guys who helped him charged?

Um, because they didn't kill Neely?

[Ska]

If I'm holding down a guys legs I guess I didn't participate? Seems pretty inconsistent with other scenarios where one is deemed to be acting in concert.

[David Nieporent]

Did they actually cause his death? Presumably not. Did they act with a culpable mens rea? Seems unlikely.

[Armchair]

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

[David Nieporent]

Um, that has literally no application here. Felony murder means that you don't have to prove intent to kill; instead, you have to prove that they were committing a felony when the person died. What felony do you think the other people were in the process of committing when the guy died?

[Commenter_XY]

Denial of civil rights?

[not guilty]

The predicate felonies must be specified by statute -- the theory being that intent to commit the underlying felonies furnishes the culpable mental state for the homicide. I am unaware of any jurisdiction that lists denial of civil rights as a predicate for felony murder.

[Armchair]

"The predicate felonies must be specified by statute"

Technically speaking, that is not quite inaccurate as it depends on the state. For example, in Montana the "Felony Murder Rule" lists a number of offenses, but also lists "any other forcible felony"

I suppose you could make a case that "any other forcible felony" is a "specified felony"....but eh.....

https://archive.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0450/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0020/0450-0050-0010-0020.html

[Armchair]

"I am unaware of any jurisdiction that lists denial of civil rights as a predicate for felony murder."

Missouri comes to mind. The "felony murder rule" there is as follows.

565.021. Second degree murder, penalty. — 1. A person commits the offense of murder in the second degree if he or she:

  (1) Knowingly causes the death of another person or, with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to another person, causes the death of another person; or

  (2) Commits or attempts to commit any felony, and, in the perpetration or the attempted perpetration of such felony or in the flight from the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony, another person is killed as a result of the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony or immediate flight from the perpetration of such felony or attempted perpetration of such felony.

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=565.021

Note the wording there. "Commits or attempts to commit any felony." That would presumably include "denial of civil rights"

[not guilty]

I don't know whether you are correct or not, but what Missouri criminal statute defines deprivation of civil rights as a felony? And if there is such a statute, what is the culpable mental state? Is acting under color of law (which Mr. Penny did not do) an element of the offense?

"Presumably" doesn't feed the bulldog.

[Armchair]

NG,

Do I have to do all your work for you?

"Any Felony". Not any "state" Felony. Any Felony. Including those defined by the US Federal code.

You need me to point you to that law too?

[John F. Carr]

Before Massachusetts effectively abolished the felony murder doctrine there was no statutory list of predicate felonies. There was a requirement that the death be caused by the defendant or a co-conspirator or joint venturer. The case abolishing the doctrine was Commonwealth v. Brown, 477 Mass. 805 (2017).

[not guilty]

"You need me to point you to that law too?"

A statute such as Missouri's would not have applied in Daniel Penny's case, even if it included federal felonies as predicates.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 242, the accused acting under color of law is an essential element. Conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 applies to agreements among private actors, but it requires proof of a specific intent for conviction -- that the persons charged conspired to act in defiance, or in reckless disregard, of an announced rule making the federal right specific and definite. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 786 (1966). That would not apply to multiple persons acting spontaneously.

[David Nieporent]

What denial of civil rights did the two people who held Neely's legs engage in?

[Commenter_XY]

Whatever civil rights Penny deprived Neely of, those are the civil rights.

Deprivation of civil rights was the only thing I could think of that might possibly apply. Is there a NY statute I can cite? Nope. I don't know the NY state constitution.

[not guilty]

Jordan Neely was not deprived of civil rights by anyone.

The Constitution forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law." But that does not extend to acts of violence committed by private persons. Daniel Penny and the other assailants were not acting on behalf of any government nor under color of law.

"[N]othing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security." Deshaney v. Winnebago County Soc. Servs. Dept., 489 U.S. 189, 196 (1989). See also, Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 284 (1980) (rejecting a claim that the deceased crime victim's right to life was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution; no federal cause of action where a state parolee committed murder five months after release).

[Armchair]

"What felony do you think the other people were in the process of committing when the guy died?"

Assault and Battery comes to mind. Point being it doesn't "always" have to "directly" cause his death. If Joe is holding John down, while Steve beats Joe to death....a reasonable case can be made that Joe is also culpable for John's death.

SECTION 125.10, Criminally negligent homicide is what may apply.

[David Nieporent]

Assault generally merges into murder, so in the vast majority of states it isn't a predicate for felony murder. (If it were, essentially every killing would be felony murder. Note that in NY, simple assault is a misdemeanor anyway; you have to show intent to cause serious physical injury or the use of a deadly weapon to make assault a felony.)

If Joe is holding John down so that Steve can beat him, that's a conspiracy. But here there was no evidence of any agreement at all between the leg holders and Penny.

[Armchair]

If Joe is holding John down so that Steve can beat him,

And if Joe is holding John down so Steve can "put him in a choke hold"? Looks like an conspiracy.

The argument "well, I didn't have a formal agreement with Steve, but I just kept holding his legs and arms while Steve beat and/or choked out Joe"...doesn't hold water.

[ThePublius]

Daniel Penny didn't kill Neely, either. He was alive when the police arrived.

[David Nieporent]

That's neither how biology nor criminal law works. Hint: if someone dies as a result of your actions, you've killed him whether he dies before police arrive, shortly after they arrive, or six months later. What matters is the causal relationship, not the timing.

[Roger S]

A bullet wound could cause a death the next day. It is hard to see how a chokehold could cause a death many hours later.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and the autopsy didn't list that as a cause.

[David Nieporent]

...and the autopsy didn't list that as a cause.

It certainly did:

The city medical examiner who performed Neely’s autopsy, testifying for the prosecution, ruled the cause of his death was “compression of neck (chokehold).”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/daniel-penny-subway-death-trial/index.html

[ThePublius]

This is very similar to the George Floyd case, in that the decedent was flying high on drugs, in a highly agitated state. The medical examiner is in the pocket of the corrupt prosecutor, in both cases.

[David Nieporent]

You mean it's similar in that rando Internet commenters think they can play long distance coroner, without even being familiar with the evidence?

[ThePublius]

And riddle me this: if you do something that requires another to prevent you from harming or even killing others, and in their attempt to stop you you die, who's responsible for your death?

For example, you burst into a liquor store wielding a gun and shout "someone's going to die," and a customer shoots you dead: who's fault?

Or, you burst into a subway car and shout "someone's going to die," and in the process of being restrained, and prevented from hurting others, you die. Who's fault?

[Bored Lawyer]

In theory, if you use too much force, or force after the person is restrained, then you could be criminally liable. Let's say someone like Neely is subdued and handcuffed (someone happens to have a pair), and then while restrained, someone comes over and kicks him hard and he dies. That person would be liable, probably for manslaughter.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That isn't the right question.

He was subdued. He did not need to subsequently be murdered by someone who decided that 'subdued' wasn't good enough.

You people are too stupid for society.

[hobie]

I've choked out (not killed) a couple of men. I've been choked out myself. Without a doubt you know when your subject is dying. Globally, I don't think Penny was wrong but, jesus, be a little more careful next time

[David Nieporent]

"Whose fault" is a weird way to phrase it. This isn't a lawsuit over liability; it's a criminal prosecution. Defense of others (analogously to self-defense) is a valid defense to a prosecution for assault or homicide. The jury has to decide whether (to put it in basic layman's language) the defendant's use of force was reasonable, both in terms of the type and amount of force. (Depending on jurisdiction there may also be a duty to retreat, but it only applies in cases where one can retreat safely; a subway car would not qualify.)

These present fact questions for the jury, such as:
A) What did Neely actually say and do;
B) Would a reasonable person have perceived Neely as a deadly threat;
C) What was Perry's intent;
D) Did he apply more force than a reasonable person would've, or apply it for a longer period of time than a reasonable person would've.
And any other antecedent questions that would help them assess his actions.

In this case (without carefully following the whole case), I believe it primarily turned on whether Penny maintained the chokehold for too long. The defense also argued that the chokehold wasn't what killed Neely. The jury could've accepted the defense's argument as to cause of death. Or it could've said that the chokehold did not go too long — there was a dispute about how long it lasted, and whether Penny kept it up after Neely had been rendered unconscious.
​
(Just a reminder: the burden of proof is on the prosecution, so the jury didn't need to believe Penny; it just had to find that the prosecution hadn't met its burden.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I've choked out (not killed) a couple of men. I've been choked out myself."

TMI, dude.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The city medical examiner who performed Neely’s autopsy, testifying for the prosecution, ruled the cause of his death was “compression of neck (chokehold).” She made the determination after performing an autopsy and watching the cell phone video on the subway but did not wait for the toxicology report, she testified. "
Well that sounds very professional, especially the cell phone video part.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It seems wrong to let the prosecutor change her strategy based on feedback from jury deliberations.

But it's awesome that her ploy seems to have completely backfired.

[SRG2]

In case you missed it, Trump's attempt to stay Merchan's gag order was dismissed by SC this morning. Not one judge would have heard the case.

[F.D. Wolf]

Not one judge would have heard the case.

How do you know that? Did one of the justices call you to share that information?

[SRG2]

A reasonable deduction from the absence of comment.

24A328 GOOD LAWGIC, LLC, ET AL. V. MERCHAN, JUSTICE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Alito and
referred to the Court is denied.

[F.D. Wolf]

No, it's not. It takes four votes to take up a case, as I imagine you are aware. Commenting on denials is very much the exception. Look at any day's order list, and you'll see hundreds of denials without comment. Do you imagine not a single justice thought any of those cases was worth hearing?

It does, however, yet again, cut against the incessant assertion by fringe leftists that this "MAGA Court" does everything in its power to help Trump.

[SRG2]

It does, however, yet again, cut against the incessant assertion by fringe leftists that this "MAGA Court" does everything in its power to help Trump.

I won't argue for what fringe leftists may or may not do, but I note that when it comes to Trump's SC cases, it appears to be the rule that justices will state whether they would have heard the case - unlike in so many other cases as you correctly note. I cite Texas v Pennsylvania where it seems that Thomas and Alito apparently unnecessarily said they would have heard the case.

[David Nieporent]

I cite Texas v Pennsylvania where it seems that Thomas and Alito apparently unnecessarily said they would have heard the case.

Not a good example; they weren't saying the case had merit. They were reiterating their long standing view that the court was required by the constitution to accept the case.

[SRG2]

Fair enough. My recollection was faulty.

[SRG2]

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/crk0ep61p2mt

A man has been arrested for the murder of the UnitedHealthCare CEO.

As he was unable to produce a current driver's licence he was released and told to come back later when he had the proper documentation.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Bucks County was probably trying to give him a ballot.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is there anything to prevent a pro se defendant from advocating jury nullification?

[Brett Bellmore]

You mean besides a new jury being empaneled, and risk of contempt of court? I suppose he could get away with it, once, if he stopped the moment the judge told him to shut up.

[ThePublius]

Didn't the original Philadelphia lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, appeal to the jury for jury nullification? I had no idea that was against the rules now.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, yeah: It went from being the very reason for juries, to a de facto crime to let juries know about. Because the lawyers in the courtroom are really determined to minimize the role of juries as much as possible.

[not guilty]

Juries have the right to nullify in a criminal prosecution. Neither counsel nor a pro se litigant, however, may argue for nullification. By doing so a pro se defendant may risk declaration of a mistrial or a judgment of contempt (less likely if there is no prior order, more likely in the case of a repeated incident). If the accused was previously on bond when a mistrial is declared, the court could increase the bond pending a retrial.

More subtle arguments, such as saying to jurors, "You are the voice of the community," "A conviction here would be simply unjust," or "Do the right thing according to your conscience" may be permissible.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Jurors don't have the right to nullify. An acquittal contrary to the law and the evidence is not appealable, but to say the jury has the right to do it is like saying the Supreme Court has the right to make lawless decisions because there's no appeal.

Certain concepts get confused nowadays, though. It used to be the the judge was the jury's *best* source of information on the law, but the jurors could interpret the law themselves. But don't take my word for it, hear Chief Justice Jay in 1794, instructing the jurors in a (rare) jury trial in the Supreme Court:

"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury; on questions of law it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court: for, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts, it is, on the other hand, presumable that the court is the best judge of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/1/

But the Supreme Court changed its mind and decided that juries always had to interpret the law exactly the way the trial judges interpreted it and anything else was nullification (even if the trial judge turned out to be mistaken).

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

[not guilty]

"Jurors don't have the right to nullify. An acquittal contrary to the law and the evidence is not appealable, but to say the jury has the right to do it is like saying the Supreme Court has the right to make lawless decisions because there's no appeal."

As Justice Robert Jackson said of his brethren on SCOTUS: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring in result).

[Commenter_XY]

NG, have you yourself seen a case of jury nullification?

[not guilty]

Are you speaking of my personal involvement? If not, O. J. Simpson's acquittal furnishes a good example, as do the acquittals of the cops who beat Rodney King and the acquittals on the more serious charges of the thugs who beat up Reginald Denny.

In the Jim Crow South, numerous juries acquitted white defendants of crimes against black folks.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, have you yourself ever gotten a jury to nullify? Don't answer if you'd get in trouble. I am curious how a good defense atty might do that.

[not guilty]

No, I haven't. I did have one trial where I represented multiple defendants charged with riding their motorcycles without wearing helmets. (It was in a funeral procession for a fellow biker who had been killed in a collision with a truck. The removal of the helmets was intended as a show of respect for the deceased.) The jury found my clients guilty, but imposed only a fine of $5 as to each defendant.

[SRG2]

I don't think OJ's acquittal was nullification. I think that the defence raised enough reasonable doubt thanks to incompetent policework.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Well, both wrong.
Jury nullification stands because you can't distinguish the validity of a vote or a jury or anybody because you peek behind their answer to see if it's 'religous' or whatever. I served on two juries.

Justice Jackson makes a semantic and logic error. His 'infallibility' must imply fallibility in the Founders. And they aren't final, there are Scotus decisions that admit that the Constitution is supreme even over the Court. Not to mention that the oaths to uphold the Constitution taken by all 3 branches means that there are 3 'infallibilities' --- see the response of President Jackson

Andrew Jackson famously resisted the Supreme Court by refusing to enforce their decision in the case of "Worcester v. Georgia," which ruled that the state of Georgia could not enforce laws against the Cherokee Nation living within its borders, effectively allowing the Cherokee to remain on their land; Jackson instead supported the Indian Removal Act

I knew BS talkers like the Justice , in high school. We all did 🙂

[M L]

Mitch McConnell is the epitome of being content with "managed decline"

https://www.breitbart.com/2024-election/2024/12/09/mitch-mcconnell-says-hes-not-responsible-americas-managed-decline/

[ThePublius]

Well, it's been a good day.

Daniel Penny was acquitted, as he rightly should have been.

Brian Thompson's murderer was apprehended.

And, Joni Ernst has come out to support Pete Hegseth's nomination.

I'll take it!

[hobie]

Joni Ernst. Like Biden another career politician. Want's to stay in power

[ThePublius]

"want's?"

[Bwaaah]

Yes. She want is to stay in power.

She not's that?

[Kazinski]

Damn right she does, and why should she believe anonymous sources to try and kill a nomination that her constituents want?

Christine Blasey Ford is not only not in charge, but never has been, and never will be.

But she did get her 15 minutes.

[David Nieporent]

I am quite certain the people of Iowa said to themselves on November 4, "I sure am eager to vote for Donald Trump tomorrow because I desperately want Pete Hegseth to be SecDef."

[Kazinski]

Well many of us voted for Trump because we want him to burn it all down.

Even the RINO's want him to decimate the federal government, but I'm sure even many of them think just a 10% reduction is too small.

[Martinned2]

Well many of us voted for Trump because we want him to burn it all down.

Yes, we know.

[ThePublius]

Oh, my, imagine calling a politician a politician!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In the Weimar Republic and the Jim Crow South, many influential folks thought it was OK to murder bad people, badness being assessed by the assassin and the assassin's supporters.

Are we seeing something similar with the killing of this insurance executive?

And how many people rejoicing at the killing online have previously signed petitions against the death penalty?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It was Dred Scott that was the aberration, inventing a new rule that some people born here (outside the narrow categories of children of diplomats and foreign soldiers) weren't citizens.

In antebellum times, many states had a policy of not making black people citizens. Justice Benjamin Curtis in dissent did not disagree. He pointed out some states made black people citizens.

Blacks were still not generally non-persons in a legal sense, which was something else Taney's rhetoric got wrong. They had certain rights. See, e.g., Until Justice Be Done: America’s First Civil Rights Movement from the Revolution To Reconstruction, by Kate Masur.

Missouri itself gave them the right to bring freedom suits as shown by this very case, including providing them legal representation.

At least in theory, even slaves had limited rights in certain places. Those charged with crimes were given due process rights. Depending on the state, there were certain limits on slavery. Of course, these often were empty in practice.

The "invention" was that the Constitution blocked all blacks, at least those who were descendants of slaves, from becoming federal citizens. It made a (questionable) rule practiced in certain states into a one-size-fits-all national rule.

[Kazinski]

The worst "Living Constitution" decision in 200+ years with no basis in text or history.

It certainly shows the danger of the court just making shit up because it cost a war an a quarter of a million dead to reverse the decision.

[Martinned2]

That's not Living Constitutionalism. As JoeFromtheBronx explains, that was just making stuff up.

[Brett Bellmore]

Living Constitutionalism IS just making stuff up. It's never been anything else.

I have literally never seen a living constitutionalist say, "Welp, I hate to admit it, but the Constitution has evolved in a direction I don't like. It used to align with my policy preferences in this area, but no longer."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Under Obama/Biden's watchful steady hand (and the CIA, naturally), we saw terrorists acquire control over two nations. Which of course means the Democrats and the Deep State will start sending them billions in foreign aid.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

666 comments? I will make it 667.

[Martinned2]

Interesting blog post about the implications of the Rome Statute for heads of state or government of non-parties against whom an arrest warrant is issued. (E.g. Putin or Netanyahu.)

https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-interplay-between-articles-27-and-98-of-the-rome-statute-a-familiar-friend-makes-a-new-appearance-in-the-arrest-warrants-against-netanyahu-and-gallant/

This confirms my sense that the position that France has taken - that it will recognise the immunity of officials of non-parties - is a reasonable one, at least if the French apply it consistently.

[Commenter_XY]

Could CNN get 'popped' with a billion dollar verdict?

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/12/09/jake-tapper-and-cnn-lose-major-challenges-in-defamation-case-by-navy-veteran/

[Bored Lawyer]

And the latest installment in the "We are not antisemites, just anti-Zionists" saga:

'Death to Jews': Inside the Home of 2 SJP Leaders at George Mason University, Police Find Guns, Ammo, and Terrorist Flags

https://freebeacon.com/campus/death-to-jews-inside-the-home-of-2-sjp-leaders-at-george-mason-university-police-find-guns-ammo-and-terrorist-flags/

Two sisters, Jena and Noor Chanaa, were arrested for defacing property at George Mason U. in Virginia.

Those activists caused thousands of dollars in damage, a felony in the state of Virginia, and police suspect the SJP leaders, sisters Jena and Noor Chanaa, led the group of vandals. Weeks after the incident, in November, a county judge granted a warrant—which is under seal until February, according to a Fairfax County court representative—allowing police to seize electronics from the Chanaa family home.

When officers entered the Chanaa family home, they found firearms—modern weapons, not antiques—as well as scores of ammunition and foreign passports, all of which sat in plain view, according to court documents obtained by the Free Beacon and sources familiar with the investigation.

They also found pro-terror materials, including Hamas and Hezbollah flags and signs that read "death to America" and "death to Jews," according to court documents and sources familiar.

And, of course, CAIR denounced the police action:

CAIR has denounced the "draconian measures used by law enforcement authorities" to "silence or intimidate those who seek to end the Israeli genocide in Gaza." A faculty group at George Mason, meanwhile, released a statement expressing "deep concern about the apparent targeting of two George Mason students for their advocacy for Palestinian human rights."

Nothing to see here folks. Just a mostly peaceful "Death to Jews" sign. And weapons to back it up.

Now time for the apologists and fellow travelers to pipe up.

[John F. Carr]

There are some things in the article that call for more details. In particular:

1. Some flags of terrorist organizations look similar to flags of non-terrorist organizations.

2. The Persian expression literally translated as "death to ..." really means "down with ..." Like Russian "we will bury you" might mean merely "we will outlive you." After the Islamic revolution "death to America" became a rallying cry for anti-American forces, murderous and not.

[ThePublius]

Then why the weapons?

Look, they are in our country speaking our language. When they say "death to America" and "death to Jews" we take them at their word.

As far as the flags go, are you kidding?

"They also found pro-terror materials, including Hamas and Hezbollah flags and signs that read "death to America" and "death to Jews," according to court documents and sources familiar."

Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations.

[David Nieporent]

Then why the weapons?

Don't lots of Americans own weapons?

[Bored Lawyer]

"Lots of Americans" don't have signs saying "Death to Jews" and "Death to America."

[Bored Lawyer]

The Persian expression literally translated as "death to ..." really means "down with ..."

These were Arabs, not Persians. Writing in English, not Persian.

But taking you at your word, I wish "Death to John F. Carr." Which means "down with" in Persian.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The Persian expression literally translated as "death to ..." really means "down with ..."

Um, "down with Jews" still sounds kinda antisemitic.

[ThePublius]

Are they here on student visas? If so, they should be deported.

[Commenter_XY]

Expulsion from George Mason would be a jolly good start, BL.

Commenter_XY will gladly pay the business class airfare to fly both Jena and Noor Chana to join their hamas homies in gaza, or hezball-less homies in Beirut. It would be....money well spent.

[Brett Bellmore]

Marc Andreessen on AI regulation and the Biden administration

"Marc Andreessen]
We had meetings in D.C. in May where we talked to them about this, and the meetings were absolutely horrifying, and we came out basically deciding we had to endorse Trump.

[Bari Weiss]
Marc, add so little color to absolutely horrifying. What did you hear in those meetings?

[Marc Andreessen]
They said, look, AI is a technology basically that the government is going to completely control. This is not going to be a startup thing. They actually said flat out to us, don't do AI startups, like don't fund AI startups.

It's not something that we're going to allow to happen. They're not going to be allowed to exist. There's no point.

They basically said AI is going to be a game of two or three big companies working closely with the government, and we're going to basically wrap them in a, I'm paraphrasing, but we're going to basically wrap them in a government cocoon. We're going to protect them from competition. We're going to control them, and we're going to dictate what they do.

And then I said, well, I said, I don't understand how you're going to lock this down so much because the math for AI is out there and it's being taught everywhere. They literally said, well, during the Cold War, we classified entire areas of physics and took them out of the research community, and entire branches of physics basically went dark and didn't proceed, and that if we decide we need to, we're going to do the same thing to the math underneath AI. And I said, I've just learned two very important things, because I wasn't aware of the former and I wasn't aware that you were even conceiving of doing it to the latter.

And so they basically just said, yeah, we're going to look, we're going to take total control of the entire thing and just don't- And what was their, and Mark, what was Steel Manit for the listener?

[Bari Weiss]
What was their argument?

[Marc Andreessen]
Why would- Well, it's more, so this gets into this whole, all these debates around AI safety, AI policy. So there's sort of several dimensions on it, and I'll do my best to Steel Man it. So one is just to the extent that this stuff is relevant to the military, which it is, if you draw an analogy between AI and autonomous weapons being the new thing that's going to determine who wins and loses wars, then you draw an analogy to the, in the Cold War, that was nuclear energy, that was nuclear power, and that was the atomic bomb.

And the federal government, the Steel Man would be the federal government didn't let startups go out and build atomic bombs, right? You had the Manhattan Project and everything was classified, and at least according to them, they classified down to the level of actual mathematics, and they tightly controlled everything and that, and look, that determined a lot of the shape of the world, right? And so there's that, and then look, there's the other, that's part one, and then look, I think part two is there's the social control aspect to it, which is where the censorship stuff comes right back, which is the exact same dynamic we've had with social media censorship and how it's basically been weaponized and how the government became entwined with social media censorship, which was one of the real scandals of the last decade, and a real problem, like a real constitutional problem, like that is happening at like hyperspeed and AI. And these are the same people who have been using social media censorship against their political enemies.

These are the same people who have been doing debanking against their political enemies, and they basically, I think they want to use AI the same way. And then look, I think the third is, I think this generation of Democrats, the ones in the White House under Biden, they became very anti-capitalist, and they wanted to go back to much more of a centralized, controlled, planned economy, and you saw that in many aspects of their policy, but I think, quite frankly, they think that the idea that the private sector plays an important role is not high up on their priority list, and they think generally companies are bad and capitalism is bad, and entrepreneurs are bad, and they've said that a thousand different ways, and they demonize entrepreneurs as much as they can."

[Bwaaah]

If they outlaw AI, AI will only be in the hands of government and outlaws.

Do I believe in government expertise here? No. Do I believe this can be squared with 1A civil liberties? No, I don't. Is this extraordinary overreach by people who don't know what they're talking about? Yes it is. What drives them? Fear of uncertain threats to their collective primacy.

Notice their effort to seize control and establish prohibition before a problem has even materialized.

"Trust us. You MUST trust us."

Behold the Genius Class...small people with outsized ideas. Not a single one can be held to account for their collective overreach. They are small, fearful, insecure people, and they're marching.

[Bwaaah]

FYI: Here's a link to the interview (starting at the quoted passage).