Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

More details are leaking about why Disney decided to settle with Trump for 15m after repeatedly calling him a rapist:

"George Stephanopoulos was repeatedly told by his executive producer not to “use the word rape” before going on the air to discuss Donald Trump but the ABC News anchor ignored the warning — a decision that cost the network $16 million, The Post has learned.

Parent company Disney’s capitulation last week in the defamation lawsuit by Trump against ABC News and Stephanopoulos shocked media and legal experts, but the damning revelation could help explain why Mouse House CEO Bob Iger signed off on the settlement so quickly."

Despite it being so hard for public figures to prevail defamation suits the fact that "furious George" was warned by his executive producer that calling him a rapist was not a fair characterization of the jurys verdict it put "actual malice" firmly on the table.

ABC has probably already fired the producer because it was obviously his fault.
https://nypost.com/2024/12/18/media/abc-parent-disney-didnt-think-it-would-beat-trump-in-court-report/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not George's fault? He's the one who said it.

[John F. Carr]

A defamation case against a public figure requires proof of fault, not only proof of a false statement. If he hadn't been warned he might not be personally liable.

[Brett Bellmore]

And if the producer had pulled the plug when George first ignored his warning, ABC wouldn't be corporately liable.

[John F. Carr]

If Stephanopoulos is an employee performing his duties his employer can be liable for what he says on air. Company drivers don't get one free crash before the employer has to pay damages.

[Brett Bellmore]

But if they'd pulled the plug on the first occurrence, that would establish a lack of actual malice on the part of the corporation, and only George would have been liable.

It was letting it go on that established the corporation's liability.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given that the move to dismiss was denied and the case was going to trial it would seem that Iger thought it better to cut Disney's loses and avoid whatever discovery might reveal.

[David Nieporent]

Given that the move to dismiss was denied and the case was going to trial

The case was going to discovery, not trial. Nothing says that Disney couldn't have prevailed on summary judgment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, nothing except Disney's decision not to risk it...

[Sarcastr0]

You know that's not how risk works, Brett. And it's far from the only potential cost in making such a business decision.

[Brett Bellmore]

Disney's decision not to risk going forward with the case, at great expense, absolutely does establish that either they didn't expect to prevail on summary judgement, or they thought there was a significant chance that they wouldn't, and that failing to would have horrific consequences.

The more likely you suppose them to think they'd have prevailed at summary judgement, the more horrific those consequences had to be expected to be.

So the decision absolutely tells us a lot.

[Sarcastr0]

As usual, you assume one reason and don't even bother to consider there may be others.

They could fear reprisals from Trump, who has promised thuggery against those who oppose him.
Or they could have expected a long, expensive litigation that in the end was too uncertain to bother spending on (juries do be like that).

Most likely a combination of all 3.

So no, it absolutely doesn't establish anything like what you wish it did.

[David Nieporent]

As Ken White pointed out in his podcast, ABC didn't settle this; Disney did. Disney had already kind of unnecessarily stumbled into one political shitstorm with its feud with DeSantis last year, it may have just decided that it didn't want another such fight with Trump; it doesn't feel the need to be the symbol of resistance to the GOP. (Disney, in particular, is a mass market company; it may not want to alienate some percentage of its customer base by being seen as anti-Republican.)

[Lennyk78]

But Disney had no issue taking a stand on the parental choice law, and lying about it by calling it "Don't Say Gay."

They decided to alienate half the country to stand up for the 2% of deviants who like to do weird things with their genitals.

[David Nieporent]

But Disney had no issue taking a stand on the parental choice law, and lying about it by calling it "Don't Say Gay."

(1) It was not a "parental choice law," and I do not recall whether Disney (as opposed to others) ever called it "Don't Say Gay."
(2) You are overestimating how many of your fellow Klan members there are in the U.S.
(3) Disney was under different management at the time.
(4) Why are you saying "but" as if you're contradicting what I said, when that was exactly the point I was making? Disney stumbled into a political fight with DeSantis, and didn't want to repeat that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Or they could have expected a long, expensive litigation that in the end was too uncertain to bother spending on "

Which is just another way of saying, "They didn't actually expect to prevail on summary judgement."

[Mr. Bumble]

I stand corrected about going to trial but I think my point about Disney wanting to avoid discovery is a valid reason for the settlement.

[David Nieporent]

that would establish a lack of actual malice on the part of the corporation,

No, it would not, and also that doesn't matter for liability purposes. (It could speak to damages, including punitive damages, though.) SCOTUS really messed with people's heads by using the term "malice"; even when people know better, they still can't help but think of it as "ill will." Actual malice refers solely to knowledge of likely falsity. Whether they only said it once has nothing to do with whether they knew it was false; saying it five times doesn't make the knowledge more likely.

Also, there is no "the part of the corporation." Steph is an employee of ABC, which means they are fully liable for his torts. (In other words, they can't say "He said it; we didn't know.")

It was letting it go on that established the corporation's liability.

Nope. It was saying it even once, which the corporation — acting through its employee Steph — did.

(That all assumes it was defamatory, which I do not concede.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"In other words, they can't say "He said it; we didn't know.""

They can, however say, "He said it, after we directly told him not to, which is why we fired him."

The problem is that they didn't fire him when he said it. They let him keep saying it, which negated the bit where they'd told him not to.

[David Nieporent]

They can, however say, "He said it, after we directly told him not to, which is why we fired him."

Sure, they can say that. They can also say what I said "they can't say." What I meant was, "That's not a legal defense."

Again: it doesn't matter whether they told him not to, whether they fired him, whatever. He's their employee; they're liable for what he does on the job.

[Lennyk78]

Only if he's acting in the employer's interest. I will admit it's been many years since I sat through respondeat superior in law school, but remember enough that an employee merely having done it doesn't prove liability.

[not guilty]

"I will admit it's been many years since I sat through respondeat superior in law school, but remember enough that an employee merely having done it doesn't prove liability."

Lennyk78, I find it very difficult to believe that you went to law school. When and where was that?

[Krayt]

Remember, corporations speaking has full, capital L Left support now.

Moreover, they've always wiggled through SC-approved (and Congress-approved) holes in laws if they were huge donor, er, huge editorial page supp...uhhh, media corporations.

[Sarcastr0]

Corporations speaking has Supreme Court support; it's the law of the land, like it or not. Left or right has little to do with it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It always had it. NAACP v Alabama, Times v. Sullivan, etc.

[Kazinski]

The producer has that kind of authority for a movies, but not a news show, Stephanopoulos is the big boss on his show.

[bernard11]

Hey Brett,

I thought you disregarded anonymous sources. When the NYT or WaPo cites one you sneer at it. But when the source backs Trump you cheer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/abc-news-trump-settlement-backlash-george-stephanopoulos-1236253269/

[Commenter_XY]

The more interesting question to me....how many more MSM orgs will be making generous donations to the Trump Presidential Library. There will be more; of that, I am certain. My advice: Better be careful.

Pres Trump has the resources of a billionaire. The process is the punishment. The settlements are just a bonus. Do you think Trump gives a shit about the money? He does not.

One effect here might be a return toward objective reporting, versus the advocacy journalism (e.g. agitprop) that is in vogue today.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Do you think Trump gives a shit about the money? He does not."

Thank you for that point! I've lost track of how many times people here have accused Trump of running for President for the graft, when being President objectively cost him huge amounts of money.

Trump WAS money obsessed at one time, but at this point as a result he has FU money, and knows it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Trump pretty clearly continues to be interested in making money, or else he wouldn’t be constantly trying to exploit his supporters by hawking NFTs, commemorative coins, dubious stocks, perfumes, and so on.

[tylertusta]

True. However, I think it's an interest in liquidity and not in a bottom line valuation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably just force of habit. It's still the case that he has enough money that it's just a game to him at this point, and he's willing to lose a billion just to get another entry in the history books.

[Sarcastr0]

Confronted with a direct contradiction to your thesis, you find a telepathic reason why you're still correct.

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for the loser comment. Here's back at ya'.

In light of your incessant non-substantial remarks about Brett this and Brett that, have you considered the nature of your obsession with him?

[bernard11]

Don't bother Brett with facts. He makes them up on his own.

[Armchair]

The point which is being made, is that money is not Trump's primary concern.

He may have a minor interest in making money, like some people are interested in "saving money" or other items. But it is not his primary concern. It is a minor means to an end, not a primary concern.

If "making money" was Trump's primary concern these days, he would not have run for President. It is not a money-making operation for him. In fact, it loses money. In terms of the settlement, as commenter writes "The settlements are just a bonus."

That's accurate in this context. A bonus. The real "win" is the settlement where ABC gives in.

[Commenter_XY]

That is the point that I think Team D partisans see only dimly. It is not strictly business, some of it is personal. This is a man who has the resources of a billionaire, and is unafraid to use them in a legal context.

The Donald doesn't need the money, LOL. The Donald seeks personal vindication.

[bernard11]

That is the point that I think Team D partisans see only dimly. It is not strictly business, some of it is personal.

I think that point is very clear to everyone. As is the fact that some of his lawsuits are just aimed at intimidation.

[Lennyk78]

Yes, just like lawsuits against Armslist and gun manufacturers are aimed at intimidation.

Or lawsuits against bakeries or florists who don't want to participate in the "wedding" you and the Rev. Kirkland partake in.

[SimonP]

Are you really unable to see how dangerous this is? Are you unable to view this except through the lens of "Trump wins, therefore good"?

[Brett Bellmore]

How dangerous this is?

They objectively libeled him, knowingly and deliberately. Why should he not win?

It IS about time these media outlets gave up on being all in for one party, and returned to at least a vague approximation of impartiality.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

To him, that's dangerous. The same attitude is sweeping across Europe.

[SimonP]

I'm not going to debate your lies, Goobs.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

SimonP, what do you think Disney's motive was to settle the suit?

[SimonP]

Based on what? The anonymous statements of "sources" speaking to the NYPost? Are we supposed to credit anonymous sources now, or not? I can never keep track of where MAGA heads land on that.

The apparent motivation is to put to rest a nuisance suit. Disney has plenty of dealings before the federal government and is not interested in dragging out litigation with a deep-pocketed, vengeful idiot like Trump.

If we were to credit the anonymous sources cited by the NYPost - and one should keep in mind that the NYPost's practice on anonymous sourcing is to apply the journalistic standard on anonymous sourcing more broadly than most media would - then it sounds like Disney has some bad facts that would come out in discovery, facts that would preclude a summary judgment and likely not be viewed favorably by the jury (even if those facts should not ordinarily be fatal to their defense of substantial truth). So they settled a case they knew would be hard to win.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I can never keep track of where MAGA heads land on that.

If you look closely, I think you actually might be able to see a pattern!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

First you say it's a nuisance suit by a vengeful idiot.

Then you say it would be one that's hard for them to win.

If it's a case that's hard for them to win, especially with defamation, which from my understanding, is generally hard for the plaintiffs to win, then it's most likely not a nuisance suit but one with merit.

But you do you. Don't think about things, just react, foam at the mouth, and be all angsty and high stressed for the next four years. Lord knows your braintenders have had you guys hooked on fear porn for over a decade now. Probably hard to get off that tit.

[SimonP]

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

I think I was quite clear in saying that I was inferring two possible motivations based on which facts we choose to credit.

The bit about "fear porn" is rich. Tell me more about those apartment building takeovers by Venezuelan gangs, the poor housepets in Ohio, the kids being "transed" at school without their parents' involvement, etc. I'll admit that I tire of the media's reliance on clickbait and panic. But at least the media I consume is drawing reasonable inferences from observable facts, rather than simple fantasy. When the NYTimes reports on Trump's being a "dictator on day one," they are at least pointing to something he actually said.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Things that are fear porn fantasies or hoaxes:

CLIMATE CHANGE ITS THE END OF THE WORLD, ALL HUMANITY IS AT STAKE, RAISE TAXES, VOTE DEMOCRAT, GLOBAL WARMING, GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!

COVID COVID COVID FEAR FEAR FEAR COMPLY COMPLY OBEY COVID EVERYONE WILL DIE IF YOU DON'T OBEY! VOTE DEMOCRAT! GIVE UN BILLIONS AND NEW GLOBAL TREATIES!

Things that actually happened
- apartment building takeovers by Venezuelan gangs
- the poor housepets in Ohio
- the kids being "transed" at school without their parents' involvement

> When the NYTimes reports on Trump's being a "dictator on day one," they are at least pointing to something he actually said.

What about day two? Will he be dictator on day two?

[SimonP]

You don't seem to think too gud, Jesus.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Simonp,

If you genuinely believe human carbon emissions are threatening our very existence, what are you doing to reduce your own carbon emissions?

If you believe that your actions are contributing to the extinction of mankind, yet refuse to make a change in them, then that makes you a psychopath. All of humanity is at stake, in your mind, what are you personally doing about it? Nothing?

[SimonP]

I don't know how we got from a criticism of the media to a strawman about climate change. In any event, I'm not taking the bait.

Jesus, quality trolling requires some continuity through the thread. An abrupt shift in topic and childish stomping of the feet risks losing your target's interest.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I was trying to decipher your cryptic retardese, but since I don't speak your language I took a guess that you were being critical of me not believing your Malthusian Climate Cult nonsense.

[bernard11]

You think the pets business in Ohio actually happened?

Because JD Vance says so, while anyone with any information says it utter bullshit?

You think kids are being subjected to surgery without their parents' knowledge?

You can't tell the difference between a home invasion and the takeover of a whole building?

You're a bigger fool than I thought.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"practice on anonymous sourcing is to apply the journalistic standard on anonymous sourcing more broadly than most media would"

After four years of the journalist standard of "people familiar with Trump's thinking". (Scroll down to 2. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-anonymous-sources-are-worth-paying-attention-to/)

lmao, which of course could be literally anyone they want.

[David Nieporent]

They objectively libeled him, knowingly and deliberately. Why should he not win?

They did not. At the very least, the gist of the statement was true, and of course he suffered no damages from the statement.

[Armchair]

"of course he suffered no damages from the statement."

Being inaccurately libeled as a "rapist" would imply damages.

[Sarcastr0]

The enthusiasm people here have for splitting hairs between rapist and sexual-assaulter-by-digital-penetration is amusing.

[David Nieporent]

But it's not inaccurate. What he did is colloquially called rape. And Trump's reputation is already as low as it can get. Except with MAGA, but they're not going to care what George Stephanopoulos says about him.

[Commenter_XY]

Then Disney (ABC) just capitulated, is that it, David? Bob Iger woke up one morning and said, "The hell with it. We didn't break any law, but 15MM is chump change. Trump wins"?

No, I don't think so. Defamation has a high bar. Shortie had a major brain-fart and crossed the legal line. And Iger paid the bill.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, Disney just capitulated. $15 million is not a nuisance settlement, but (a) is relative chump change to them; and (b) is covered by insurance anyway. (And they did not "break any law" even if it was defamatory.)

[Armchair]

It is inaccurate. What was repeated, multiple times, was that Trump was found "liable for rape". There was a specific rape charge in the civil case and Trump was not found liable for it.

It is directly inaccurate and contracts the clear facts. Redefining words by their "colloquial" definition then applying them in a legal context...especially when the OPPOSITE was found in the legal context...is a form of libel.

If I say, repeatedly, David has been found by a jury guilty of murder, but you were actually found not guilty of murder...that's a form of libel. It's not a reasonable defense to say "well, I redefined murder by another definition that wasn't used by the jury".

[Sarcastr0]

"What he did is colloquially called rape."

Legal formalism is explicitly not what DMN was talking about. And that is what you're talking about, even if you call it facts.

[David Nieporent]

that's a form of libel

It's only a form of libel if the "gist" — to use a legal term that means the same thing as it does in colloquial English — is untrue.

It's not a reasonable defense to say "well, I redefined murder by another definition that wasn't used by the jury".

That's true — but it is a reasonable defense to say, "Well, I used a definition of 'murder' that most people use."

[Armchair]

Here's your problem. There was a court case. It explicitly looked at whether Trump was liable for rape. And it found Trump not liable for rape.

The "gist" to use a colloquial English definition is the "Main point or essence." And the main point, made repeatedly was that "Trump was found liable for rape". That point is untrue. The legal system, in fact, found the exact opposite. That Trump was NOT liable for rape.

If a person directly asks "Did a New York Jury find Trump liable for rape"...the answer is no. It did not.

You want something like "well, the gist is they found him liable for rape...but they didn't find him actually found him liable for rape rape, but they did find him liable for rape, so yes, he was found liable for rape...even though he wasn't actually found liable for rape."

It's double speak at its worse. And if it went up before a judge or jury, ABC would be nailed on it, to the wall. Especially as they were warned against saying it.

The "gist" argument works if the main point of the argument is something else, and it's a minor detail that's wrong. Like saying "Trump has travelled all over the country, he gone to Kansas and North Dakota and California and Florida. He's widely travelled and seen all types of corners of the country". The main point is that Trump is widely travelled. If a mistake is made about him not being in North Dakota...that can get a pass.

But here, the arguement was repeatedly that "Trump was found liable for rape". And it's directly wrong.

[David Nieporent]

Here's your problem. There was a court case. It explicitly looked at whether Trump was liable for rape. And it found Trump not liable for rape.

Incorrect. It found Trump not liable for rape-as-that-term-is-used-in-the-NY-Penal-Law. It found Trump liable for rape-as-that-term-is-colloquially-used.

[not guilty]

"If I say, repeatedly, David has been found by a jury guilty of murder, but you were actually found not guilty of murder...that's a form of libel. It's not a reasonable defense to say 'well, I redefined murder by another definition that wasn't used by the jury'."

That analogy fails. Suppose I say Armchair has been found guilty by a jury of first degree murder, when in fact, the jury's verdict was guilty of second degree murder. The statement referencing first degree is false, but is it defamatory? (Those are separate inquiries, especially as to a public figure plaintiff.) The damages, if any, would be slight.

[Kazinski]

Actually its quite good, both for the press and the nation.

The press should be careful about getting the facts right before reporting something. Especially with such a large cohort of gullible fools out there that believe and repeat everything they say.

Although this case does present a somewhat more modest proposition: the pres can't repeat lies that they already know are false, and have been warned by their own staff.

If it results in a more responsible press, which leads to more people having confidence in them, which currently is at all time lows, then that will be good for both the press and the nation.

[bernard11]

So it's OK with you that Trump just pumps out lawsuit after lawsuit to intimidate people and cost them money?

Apparently so.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
It's the American way. Not nearly so much in Japan.
As soon as DJT takes the oath, new lawsuits will pop out from the left. That is the way our society works.

[bernard11]

Don,

To some degree it is, but that doesn't make it a good thing. Especially when the suits are utter BS, designed to intimidate and harass, rather than settle a serious matter of some sort.

Besides, I think you have to admit that Trump not only takes it to wild extremes, but sees it as a weapon against anyone he dislikes.

He is way outside the norms of even very litigious people.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — Are you talking about lawsuits from the left against the press, or against Trump as President?

[David Nieporent]

Do you think Trump gives a shit about the money? He does not.

He absolutely does. He's not nearly as rich as he pretends, he owes a lot in judgments, and he's a penny-ante crook. He ran his Trump University scam that netted him roughly that amount of money, and does multilevel marketing licensing deals that net him even less.

[Commenter_XY]

Trump the pauper? C'mon David. That pauper meme is almost as funny as casting Liz Cheney as a modern day Joan of Arc.

It is not about the money (although I believe he obtains personal satisfaction when he makes money). It is all about his sense of personal vindication. That is a perfectly understandable feeling; I think anyone can relate to that emotional experience (vindication).

[Joe_dallas]

There was no possible way for trump to win the the case under the nyt v Sullivan standard- unless there are facts that are not publicly available . Logical inference is that are facts abc knows that are detrimental to their defense

.

[not guilty]

There was enough to avoid summary judgment and take the case to trial, even under the actual malice standard. Even at that, the case would have been defensible, especially as to damages.

Donald Trump has a (self-inflicted) reputation for grabbing women by the genitals. He was found liable by the Carroll II jury for what in common parlance amounts to rape. Judge Kaplan's order explaining that would be admissible hearsay under Fed.R.Evid. 803(8)(A)(iii). The reputational difference between having been found liable for digital penetration and having been found liable for penile penetration is not great.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - That doesnt change the fact that
A) Stephan lied
B) Stephan knowingly lied,
C) Stephan was informed multiple times it was a lie and
D) there is very likely texts , emails and/or notes from the preplanning meeting where there were discussions on what was true and false which upon discovery which would destroy any line of defense they would have under Sullivan v nyt

[David Nieporent]

He didn't lie, so everything else you said is irrelevant.

Here's an objectively false statement, which George Stephanopoulos did not say: "Trump was found liable for rape-as-that-term-is-used-in-the-NY-Penal-Law."

Here's a different statement, which is what GS actually said: "Trump was found liable for rape."

I mean, one judge already ruled that the second statement is true. (Unfortunately for ABC, not the judge in this particular case.)

[Mr. Bumble]

"I mean, one judge already ruled that the second statement is true. (Unfortunately for ABC, not the judge in this particular case.)"
Don't think that matters?

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 31 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
He didn't lie, so everything else you said is irrelevant.
Here's a different statement, which is what GS actually said: "Trump was found liable for rape."

DN - his actual statement which you cited is the lie
You know it is a lie thus every thing else you said is irrelevant and dishonest, though typical

[David Nieporent]

his actual statement which you cited is the lie

I mean, one judge already ruled that the second statement is true. (Unfortunately for ABC, not the judge in this particular case.)

[Joe_dallas]

DN - intentionally dishonest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

DN - you are an attorney - there a multitude of problems with the Judges statement which you know and its a display of your dishonesty in presenting the judge's statement as a ruling.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The judge’s statement was made in the course of an order in which he rejected Trump’s motion that he was entitled to relief because the jury found he had not “raped” Carroll. This type of order is known as a ruling.

[David Nieporent]

Polymath blowhard once again notes "problems" with a SME's work without actually being able to identify any such problems.

For the record:
1) It was indeed a ruling, not a "statement." (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.212.0.pdf)

2) It doesn't matter whether you agree with it — even if you knew what you were talking about, which you don't. The point is that it's a pretty high hurdle to establish that George Stephanopoulos knew that a statement that a federal judge had previously ruled was true, was actually false.
​
​
That having been said, that reminds me of another speculative reason I heard for why Disney might have settled: they were worried that SCOTUS would use this case as an excuse to narrow or overturn NYT v. Sullivan, as a couple of justices (including Thomas) have suggested they want to do. Such a decision would be devastating to the entire media industry. And depending on how significantly SCOTUS narrowed NYT, Trump could prevail in this case even if Disney would win under the current standard.

[Joe_dallas]

looks like a pattern

biased anti Trump judge make ruling based on facts contrary to jury's finding and a biased NY attorney praises a biased anti trump judges ruling based on judges version of facts which are contrary to jury's findings.

[David Nieporent]

Counterpoint: the judge is not "biased," and his ruling was not "contrary to" anything.

But I reiterate: none of that matters. The ruling exists, good or bad. And given the existence of the ruling, it seems exceedingly unlikely that Trump could establish that George Stephanopoulos knew his statement was "False."

[Kazinski]

It looks like then stopgap porkulus spending bill has been pulled.after Trump, and Ramaswamy came out against it.

It was likely Johnson would be replaced as speaker if he did pass it, so its hard to see why he was pushing it (other than the fact that speakers also need to be raise lots of money for their caucus too, and there were lots of goodies in the bill).

Johnson had already given up.passing the bill with Republican only votes, so he was willing to add a lot of pork to secure as many Democratic votes as he could get. That appears to be a failed strategy.

[santamonica811]

Congrats to Trump for personally torching the earlier border security bill. Hopefully, none of the 10-20,000 extra illegal immigrants who came in due to he action do any murders, rapes, etc..

Congrats also on torpedoing this spending bill. (I grudgingly have to give Elon Musk a decent amount of credit for this.) MORE GOVERNMENT shutdowns!!! We weak Americans need to just put on our big-boy pants and suck it up for a while. I'll continue to do just fine (I'm paid by the state and by private clients.) And if the poor, or elderly, or military suffers? Fuck 'em all.

Great job, Trump! It's not one of the things you actually ran on. But I'm sure it would have been, if you had thought of doing it.

[Michael P]

Democrat names for laws are often wrong, for example that border (in-)security bill and the Inflation Reduction Act that caused enormous amounts of inflation.

[Moderation4ever]

It is pretty common to put good sounding names on any laws passed. It not a feature of the party but rather politicians across the political spectrum.

[Don Nico]

"Democrat names ..."
Michael won't you ever learn. As Lenin said, "Language is a weapon in the class warfare."

[Dr. Ed 2]

For every dollar of spending, they added 80 cents of NEW pork.
It's the Democrats who caused this and I am sick and tired of them blaming other people.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Did you hear that everyone? Dr. Ed is "sick and tired of it." When Dr. Ed reaches the end of his rope you know it's serious.
Snowplows!

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, give me a break. Johnson and some of the Republicans have enough share of the blame. Pork is a bipartisan problem in Washington.

[bernard11]

How do distinguish between "spending" and "pork?"

I don't care for some spending items either, but "pork" to one person is "essential government function" to another.

[Jmaie]

Remember when Harry Reid said that $10,000 (or whatever) in the budget was critical to the preservation of Cowboy Poetry? Not sure what percentage would call this essential vs. pork, I think I'll take the under.

And because it was a good quip, I'll quote the Daily Caller’s Mary Katharine Ham, “John Boehner’s America is a land in which cowboys would be forced into back-alley poetry recitations.”

[Commenter_XY]

Perhaps we can determine who is essential, or non-essential, sm811. Washington DC bureaucrats were only too happy to do so during the pandemic, and arbitrarily enforce their rules and edicts.

The non-essential bureaucrats can be right-sized out of the federal government, as far as I am concerned. They simply aren't needed - they are non essential. No need to invite them back. They'll find other jobs very easily in this wonderful Biden economy, amirite?

[Noscitur a sociis]

In the real world, however, what’s going to happen is that once there’s a budget, those non-essential employees are going to get full back pay after spending however long it takes not working. Why anyone in favor of smaller government would deem that a win is not clear to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's not a win. But you can't eventually get to a win if you don't even try.

[Commenter_XY]

That's the point, Brett. Besides, anyone deemed non-essential is basically guaranteed a spot on the DOGE DC cut list.

If at first you don't succeed; try, try again. Nursery rhymes are great.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Are you actually delusional enough to think there’s any chance of that happening? Or do you just find it fun to pretend?

[Life of Brian]

Maybe I'm misreading: do you actually think it's hopeless that we can ever stop the runaway train of profligate governmental spending, and we should just give up trying?

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you think that I said anything that can be remotely interpreted that way then yes, you’re misreading.

What I’m saying is that a government shutdown isn’t going to be any kind of progress towards reducing the scale, size, or scope of government. Instead, what’s going to happen is that most government employees will do no work and then get their full salaries back when funding is restored, while the rest will keep doing their jobs and will get their full salaries when funding is restored. All it’s going to do is cost the government more money and make it a little less efficient at performing its functions: it’s not going to result in Elon Musk firing the entire National Park Service or whatever it is that Commenter_XY thinks he wants.

[Life of Brian]

Thanks -- you had said that part already and as I read it Brett and C_XY didn't disagree that was likely the short-term outcome, so I thought you were making an additional point in opposition to their longer-view "But you can't eventually get to a win if you don't even try" and "If at first you don't succeed; try, try again."

So what in your view WOULD potentially be an effective tactic to try to stop the runaway train of profligate governmental spending?

[Nelson]

"do you actually think it's hopeless that we can ever stop the runaway train of profligate governmental spending”

Yes. Both parties are dedicated to it, so there’s no one to stop it.

“and we should just give up trying?”

No, but we need to stop pretending it is a D or an R problem. It’s everyone.

Ideally the increasing polarization of the parties will create space for a moderate option, although that’s less likely than balancing the budget.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe try something that's thought out, then? Not blundering into another shutdown based on some badly understood fear of the debt ceiling.

There's plenty of waste and fraud if you look. But MAGA doesn't want to look. Populism isn't into boring audits and inquiries - they want action and pain.

[Krayt]

People understand the need for debt ceiling increases, as they know pols won't balance the budget. By design, I keep pointing out.

But buying passage with still more increases is BS.

I remember the bank bailout under W. It was over $700 billion. But it didn't pass until it was over $800 billion, where $80 billion of pork was added.

Think about that. Some wanted to vote for it, but refused and were prepared to cancel it, unless they got something.

Others were prepared to vote against it out of some principle or other, but allowed themselves to be bribed into it.

[Sarcastr0]

What was designed? The ability for government to borrow money? The needless insertion of the debt ceiling to muck everything up? The fact that government programs in a republic tend to be popular ones, and not unpopular ones?

I don't really remember the bank bailout. As I understand, the choice was between risking our economic institutions crashing and letting them get away with being irresponsible.
We chose not to risk that, but passed laws to deal with the irresponsibility going forwards at least.
Until the GOP repealed most of those laws.

The pork issue is separate from that choice, since we don't really know the counterfactual where no pork was allowed and whether the bill would have passed or not.
Funny to call it bribery, though. It goes to the districts, not to the members.

We tried banning pork for a while. Most people from politicians to voters didn't care for that, so it got put back.

[Don Nico]

S0,
Your argument essentially nothing can be done and it is what will drive the debt to $50T and rather quickly.

[Sarcastr0]

My argument is that Krayt is a foolish zealot who has replaced all curiosity or understanding with passion.
He doesn't understand pork, doesn't understand the bailout, doesn't understand why people work for the government, and doesn't understand the debt ceiling.

So nothing like what you said.

There are ways to cut government spending. And even more ways to deal with sovereign debt.
This is not one of them. This is a whim by Musk and Trump some are trying to retcon.

[Mr. Bumble]

If you engage a douche you are likely to get wet.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The needless insertion of the debt ceiling to muck everything up?"

Talk about incomprehension!

The Constitution authorizes Congress to borrow money. For most of our nation's history, Congress did exactly that, by specifically authorizing particular instances of borrowing.

In the early 20th century, our government finally became so spendthrift that authorizing borrowing this way became a significant time sink for Congress, so they switched to authorizing borrowing up to a specific amount. That's the Debt Ceiling, it's like Congress giving the agencies actually spending the money a line of credit.

If you "got rid of the debt ceiling", Congress would have to go back to authorizing each specific instance of borrowing, because, constitutionally, the federal government can't borrow money without Congress authorizing it.

What you really want is an infinite debt ceiling. You want to eliminate all future occasions for arguing about whether we should borrow more money, so that federal spending loses what little constraint it still has.

[Sarcastr0]

If you "got rid of the debt ceiling", Congress would have to go back to authorizing each specific instance of borrowing

There is no fundamental requirement that requires each appropriation be separately authorized. Or that each debt be separately authorized.
How would you tell which spending was against the debt and which was against receipts?

Get rid of the debt ceiling means get rid of the debt ceiling.

[Brett Bellmore]

There IS, however, a fundamental requirement that debt be authorized. And that's what the "debt ceiling" is: Pre-authorizing debt up to a specific amount.

Specifically, the federal government only has the power to borrow because of a specific authorization in article 1, section 8: "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;"

And it is Congress that is authorized to borrow money, not the executive.

Again, what you want to do is raise the debt ceiling to infinity, so no occasion would ever again rise to have a debate over whether we should keep going deeper into debt.

Because it's a debate you're concerned your side will eventually lose.

[David Nieporent]

And it is Congress that is authorized to borrow money, not the executive.

And if Congress authorizes money to be spent, without raising revenues to fund it, then it is authorizing money to be borrowed. Nothing in the constitution requires Congress to explicitly and separately say that.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Nothing in the constitution requires Congress to explicitly and separately say that."

That's just a rationalization to avoid future votes on whether to go deeper into debt, because you want nothing to get in the way of spending ever more money. 234 years of contrary precedent is against you.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing in the constitution, Brett.

You're making up law again.

[David Nieporent]

That's just a rationalization to avoid future votes on whether to go deeper into debt,

No; the spending votes are votes to go deeper into debt.

because you want nothing to get in the way of spending ever more money.

Incorrect. Unlike you and the rest of the big government MAGA crowd, who want to spend lots of money — but on hurting their enemies — I am a libertarian who wants to spend much less.234 years of contrary precedent is against you.Incorrect.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, when you have an unbroken line of the Constitution being interpreted to mean something not inconsistent with its actual text, for 234 years, I think it's fair to say, yes, in the Constitution.

In order to borrow, Congress has to authorize borrowing, and when Congress authorizes spending, they're NOT authorizing borrowing to pay for it. That's 234 years of unbroken precedent that you want to shitcan in order to avoid politically inconvenient votes.

[Absaroka]

DMN and Sarcastro: are you speaking 'is' or 'ought'?

It has been a pretty longstanding way of doing things. If congress adopted your view and someone sued, how sure are you that the SC would adopt your view?

[Sarcastr0]

Absaroka - I'm saying what the law *is*. There is nothing in the text at all indicating what Brett says.
It's a pretty out there Constitutional theory that creates stuff without *any* textual anchor.
Even Douglas' rights jurisprudence has the 9A to hang itself on.

I also reject the length of precedent. The modern era is a new lay of the land legally and institutionally such that projecting back is not apropos for a lot of stuff. Government budgeting is one of those things whose character has changed enough that it's tendentious to lean on 1800s precedent.

[David Nieporent]

It has been a pretty longstanding way of doing things. If congress adopted your view and someone sued, how sure are you that the SC would adopt your view?

Not sure who could sue. But setting that aside, I am pretty confident that if the debt ceiling were repealed, and then Congress subsequently passed a law authorizing the spending of far more money than it knew the government had, that this would be deemed an authorization to borrow that money.

It's kind of like when there's a military action, and Congress doesn't expressly authorize it, but it authorizes funds to be spent on that action. The authorization to fund the action is an implicit endorsement by Congress of the action itself

[SimonP]

Goobs approach to government: Let's break everything, and then see what we shouldn't have broken.

[Krayt]

It's a perfectly good algorithm, actually.

There's an old Dilbert, where the Pointy-Haired Boss announces, "There's a snowstorm coming. All non-essential personnel can go home early."

Then he stands at his window with binoculars, "Easiest round of layoffs ever."

[SimonP]

You're talking about the character whose ignorance and obliviousness is part of the gag, right?

[bernard11]

The process Nas describes sounds more like trying to lose than to win.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's likely that Johnson will be replaced ANYWAY.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe. Unlike majority leader, Speaker is by a vote of the whole chamber, so Democrats have a say. And "Will piss off his own party to give Democrats what they want." is a pretty attractive feature in a Republican Speaker, from a Democrat perspective.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who is up to herding cats?
We wouldn't be here if Cocaine Mitch hadn't caved to Dems and set this up the last time around just before the Republicans took over the House.

[Kazinski]

That's the way it functions on paper, but the rules of the GOP and Dem caucuses are that when they are voting for a new speaker then the majority caucus will vote as a block once they make an internal decision.

Certainly when there is a vote to jettison a speaker, which hasn't been allowed for quite a while, until the beginning of this Congress, then its Congress as a whole that decides if the Speaker survives.

Come January its a new Congress and the GOP caucus will make their choice without Democratic votes.

[David Nieporent]

And "Will piss off his own party to give Democrats what they want." is a pretty attractive feature in a Republican Speaker, from a Democrat perspective.

It is not — and of course there is nobody who can get a single GOP vote who will "give Democrats what they want" anyway — and we know that, because Dems refused to do anything during the last set of speaker battles to bail out the GOP from its embarrassing debacle just for the chance at getting someone who was 1% less extreme than the top GOP choice. Dems will vote unanimously for Jeffries.

[apedad]

I like the part where President-elect Trump wants to increase the debt ceiling.

[Brett Bellmore]

He knows that it IS going to be increased, and would rather it not be in the context of the usual game of chicken where the Republicans jerk the wheel over at the optimal moment to maximize their political damage.

Without a fundamental reform of the process, balancing the budget is hopeless. That reform has to be his first priority, not futile attempts to avoid going deeper into debt under the existing system.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, from a political perspective, is a shutdown at this point in time a bad thing for Pres Trump? I would say no. In fact, spiking the CR is a net plus, from Pres Trump's perspective.

POTUS Biden can resolve this tomorrow with one or two phone calls, if he so choose. This assumes POTUS Biden is even aware of the CR, and what's in it.

[Brett Bellmore]

From Trump's perspective, a failed shutdown is destructive, because it burns political capital that could be spent on something else, while not actually accomplishing anything. And Trump has to expect the shutdown would be a failure.

[bernard11]

You're blaming Biden for the mess, rather than Trump and the Congress of Worms that is the GOP caucus?

[Brett Bellmore]

Biden and the Democrats have had four years to reestablish the normal budget process, and do anything other than "Let's spend every cent we can even theorize we might get our hands on." And all they've done is to accelerate spending as the end of his term approaches.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden and the Democrats have had four years to reestablish the normal budget process
You're not this politically ignorant.

Don't pretend that was in the cards.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't say them not spending like drunken sailors was in the cards, I said that they were spending like drunken sailors.

[Sarcastr0]

You put this on a group of people that does not alone control the Congressional agenda.

[Don Nico]

He did not say that Bernard. He did say that even a lame duck POTUS can always sway some votes.

[bernard11]

Don,

He did say that.

He said not that Biden "could sway some votes," but that he could "resolve this tomorrow with one or two phone calls, if he so choose."

Seems like a big difference to me.

[Zarniwoop]

As of reporting today:

Republican Representative Ralph Norman told reporters that party leaders planned to hold a vote on a third spending bill, though he did not provide details.

Others said they would not try to win over Democrats whose support likely will be needed to extend funding past midnight Friday (0500 GMT Saturday), when it is due to expire.

"We're not working with Democrats," Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna said.

Last I checked, Pres. Biden is a Democrat.

So with respect, I think the notion that Pres. Biden can make a few calls and magically solve the Trump/Musk/House GOP's huge self-inflicted wound at the very last minute is hilarious ... except for the parts where it's delusional and sad.

Maybe Plan C will work. The Plan C that was supposed to be voted on this morning, per Speaker Johnson. Oh look, it's almost 2pm Eastern.

Yes, let's blame Biden for not making a few phone calls. I'm sure Trump will try to call this "the Biden Shutdown", too.

[bernard11]

Non-POTUS Trump can also resolve it tomorrow.

Either side of a dispute can resolve it by surrendering.

What you are doing is blaming Biden for not surrendering, without mentioning that Trump could do the same thing.

Presumably that's because you think Trump is always right. He's not.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Naturally you fail to identify anything in particular that supports your partisan ranting, and yet you are quick to arrive repeating your idiot's talking points.

It had bipartisan support, which generally means compromises were made, which most adults agree is a rational way of governance. Your chief dipshit and his cronies however, decided that they would rather interfere with the function of government when they aren't yet in charge and create problems where our legislature was instead about to create solutions.

You are all idiots.

[Commenter_XY]

Does Congress deserve a raise? On that alone, the CR should fail.

[SimonP]

It was a smaller raise than Elon was portraying it as, ultimately a drop in the bucket. Not worth a government shutdown.

If the government shuts down, you're essentially telling the federal employees who have to work through the holidays to keep the country running that they're working for IOUs. This is not responsible governance.

[Commenter_XY]

Would you like to answer the direst question, SimonP...Does Congress deserve a raise?

If you say yes, then state the case why Congress deserves a raise.

BTW, we can determine who is essential or non-essential during the shutdown. The non-essential people should immediately be placed on DOGE list for right-sizing.

[SimonP]

I'm not going to the mat for a congressional raise. I'm just saying that it's not worth a government shutdown, over a piddling amount.

Spiking the continuing resolution was about one thing, and one thing alone: blocking any Democratic priorities from being included in the package.

And you have no idea how the government works. Your take on "non-essential employees" is as moronic and fact-free as Elon's.

[Commenter_XY]

Very well then. Congress does not deserve a raise.

On that alone, the CR must fail.

[SimonP]

Proudly cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[bernard11]

Congress has been making the same nominal salary - $174,000 - since 2009. Prices have increased more than 40% since then. The proposed increase is 3.8%, about $6600, or about $3.5M total.

First, they deserve it, regardless of what you think.

Second, shutting the government down over $3.5M is idiotic. The shutdown would cost way more than that. It's nothing but stupid posturing.

Did you even look at the numbers before pronouncing that it must be done?

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
I know that it is a somewhat different topic, but those living on their SSA benefits pay tax if their net income is over a $35K threshold which has not been changed for 20 years.
Raise that threshold and Congress can get its raise.

[Sarcastr0]

You're opening up a new front that no one else has brought up. Even you admit it's off topic.

Not wroth a shutdown.

Not that cost-benefit is even in the mix here. This is the whims of Trump and Musk and there's no more to it than that.

[bernard11]

I'm all for raising the threshold, on that and on the portion of wages subject to FICA.

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico, raise the first bend point, and change the percentage to 95 (from 90). That will help the poor immediately.

Congress can get a raise the old-fashioned way; earn it. They haven't.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Congress can get a raise the old-fashioned way; earn it. They haven't."

You keep repeating yourself as though you have some kind of a point.

In reality, you're a partisan cunt objecting to their first raise - a minimal one at that - in nearly fifteen years for no other reason than the fact you're a dipshit who thinks the government should instead shut down entirely and tens of thousands of people get paid nothing in the meanwhile.

America deserves better than you and your stupidity.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason, the election is over.

The losers don't set terms. The winners do. Pace yourself. 😉

As it happens, the third time was the charm. A CR has passed.

[Krayt]

I thought essential was covered by other legislation to avoid this. And non-essential is what gets shut down and not paid.

[Kazinski]

Actually Congress should get a raise, they haven't had one since 2009 and having a second abode in Washington is expensive.

I want them to do a good job and living in poverty is not cohesive to that, or only electing the well.off, or having a spouse work for the swamp.

I don't want them pampered but adequately provisioned is fine.

[Brett Bellmore]

How about just providing them with a Congressional dormitory?

[Commenter_XY]

My thought, exactly.

[Sarcastr0]

The to assure only wealthy assholes in Congress is to make it so only wealthy assholes can afford to run for Congress.

Though you think those folks are our genetic superiors, so I suppose for you that tracks.

[Brett Bellmore]

If the issue is actually that you can't live in DC while having a home in your district on a Congressional salary, then a Congressional dormitory would solve the issue quite cleanly for the occasional non-wealthy asshole in Congress, because you'd only have to pay for the one back home.

[Sarcastr0]

Once again, I don't think you understand how humans work.

Voluntary group houses among Congresspeople are a thing.

'And you get to live in the dorm' would not expand the pool of people who want to run for office much.

This is dead simple - as with any job, up the remuneration, expand the talent pool, get more talented candidates with more diverse perspectives.

[Bwaaah]

Congressional dormitory...appealingly interesting idea at first blush. But then I started to think about the design, construction, and ongoing operating costs of *that* kind of *enterprise* and realized it would be much cheaper, even at D.C. area real estate costs, to leave each person to solve his own housing problem.

There are dormitories, as at colleges, and then there would be the Congressional Dormitory. I don't believe Congress is capable of doing "dormitory" in any conventional sense, or at any savings to taxpayers.

[Brett Bellmore]

They actually used to have a Congressional dormitory. Essentially, anyway: Some entrepeneurs had built a hotel in a very advantageous location, and members of Congress routinely used it.

https://history.house.gov/Blog/2019/July/7-30-hotel_congressional/

[Commenter_XY]

Bwaaah....Let Pres Trump design it. Every Congressional dorm suite will have a gas stove, a dishwasher that actually cleans dishes, golden toilets that use enough water to flush down the brown, and showers with no water regulators.

[Kazinski]

Not a bad idea, or unused military housing for married officers.

But the point remains they haven't had a raise since 2009.

Why should a newly elected congressman who is just getting their be punished for the sins of his predecessors.

How about if the index the salaries of incoming congressmen for inflation, but returning members are frozen at their original level?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd go for that, but most of the members ARE returning members, so it would be a hard sell.

[Frank Drackman]

95% of them aren’t worth a second hand roll of used toilet paper, they’re free to quit and get real jobs if they’re not making enough

Frank

[Krayt]

Plenty "figure out a way" to earn plenty of income.

[Kazinski]

There is a new continuing resolution out that may be able to pass the house without Democratic votes. It went from 1500+ pages to 116 pages:
Chants of "hell no" could be heard inside the room where Democrats were meeting after the bill's text was released.

The newest continuing resolution, or CR, would extend current government funding levels for three months and also suspend the debt limit for two years, something President-elect Trump has demanded.

It comes after the original 1,500-page CR drew opposition from the right, due to policy and funding riders.

House lawmakers could vote on the new bill as early as Thursday evening.

It's not immediately clear if the new deal would pass – Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who also led opposition to the initial bill, also blasted the new deal."

But Trump has endorsed the deal, and it could be voted on tonight.

I think once they vote on it, then it will be a take it or leave it for the Senate, and Biden. If they want to shutdown the government then over a clean continuing resolution that's their call.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hell-no-house-dems-erupt-over-gop-spending-deal/ar-AA1wbBZo?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=d95661b9653b438c8f96c7b4bdb6e08e&ei=13

[Sarcastr0]

Page count go down without figuring out what got cut seems pretty lazy.
The simple metric is rarely the useful one.

But I'm seeing a lot of declare victory and move on going on, so I guess that's the order of the hour.

[Brett Bellmore]

The bloody point of 1500+ pages and an urgent vote is so that nobody has TIME to figure out what's being spent.

Screw omnibus bills: Just bring up the various categories of spending in rank order of perceived importance, and vote on them as stand alone bills.

[Sarcastr0]

No, that's not the point.
This is not a cunning plan.

This is GOP being in a shambles.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, it's not cunning, but it certainly IS a plan.

[Sarcastr0]

Telepathy again.

It looks shambolic because it's a shambles. There is no plan, you're just a conspiracist.

It is what it looks like. We don't live in a political thriller.

Neither here nor there, but history of how omnibus bills started is basically all one of GOP performative intransigence. It's pretty easy to trace it.

[Zarniwoop]

Oh, it's not cunning, but it certainly IS a plan

But does it involve turnips?

[Sarcastr0]

Is it as cunning as a fox what used to be Professor of Cunning at Oxford University, but has moved on and is now working for the UN at the High Commission of International Cunning Planning.

[Zarniwoop]

Johnson’s Plan B did get a vote last night, and it didn’t even receive a majority.

Not surprised that blowing up a negotiated solution at the 11th hour, adding new last-minute demands that your own right wing won’t accept, and not actually having a Plan B other than “own the libs” … resulted in Plan B failing.

Also not surprised that Musk’s misinformation bomb-throwing tweet campaign is not an, ahem, efficient way to run a government.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5049450-musk-floods-x-with-spending-bill-misinformation/

[Michael P]

A bunch of people here assured us that nothing of this sort was happening, and all the reports otherwise were just due to an alleged slumlord making excuses:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/aurora-colorado-police-detain-14-connection-armed-home-invasion-kidnapping

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, I saw that. Was not surprised.

[apedad]

Go ahead and tell us who those 'bunch of people' are.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Governor of Colorado for one.

[apedad]

Oh, didn't know he was a VC commentor.

[Mr. Bumble]

Got me. Missed "here".

[Michael P]

A lot of commenters here said that if the governor, and the mayor of Aurora, and the police department (and various other local officials more interested in covering their asses in the face of sanctuary-city policies harming residents than in admitting the truth) said it wasn't gang activity, then it wasn't gang activity.

[Bwaaah]

That was before the election that they said illegal immigrants weren't causing crime. Now they're working on the next election.

Similarly, the New York Times now admits that the largest wave of immigration in history was more due to Biden administration policies than anything else. As Gaslight0 and others said last year and before, "Immigration is in the hands of congress and its laws, not the President. The President's hands are tied." Then, when Biden unilaterally tightened the rules back up only months before the election, Democrats here and elsewhere went silent about that, hoping nobody would see through their foolishness.

[Michael P]

Go ahead and tell me how to easily search within open comment threads.

[Kazinski]

There is a function in your account profile that shows your comment history. If you have commented on Aurora before, then you can find that comment then click on the link to that thread.

[Michael P]

Thanks. https://reason.com/volokh/2024/09/09/monday-open-thread-70/?comments=true#comment-10716987 is the major thread I was thinking of, featuring regulars including Sarcastr0, Nieporent, Zarniwoop and NOVA Lawyer.

Months later, it is still amusing that people with hair triggers on everything still didn't recognize that I extended a quote from one of the local officials to illustrate how transparent the lies were.

[Commenter_XY]

Tom Homan (The ICE-man) talks a good game. Very interested to see if he can deliver.

Pres Obama deported 400K in a year. That rate should be quintupled for 2025. Anything less than what Pres Obama did would be failure, in my eyes.

Illegal aliens need to go....home to their native countries.

[bernard11]

Illegal aliens need to go....home to their native countries.

Why?

[Frank Drackman]

Laken Riley

[bernard11]

Ridiculous, Frank.

You know, a lot of people in Georgia get murdered.

Should we deport all Georgians?

I mean, citing one incident to prove that illegal immigrants are all thugs and murderers is really stupid. Really stupid.

[Roger S]

No, most Georgian murderers are Blacks born in the USA, and no country will take them.

[Nelson]

“ Pres Obama deported 400K in a year.”

It always makes me laugh when conservatives talk about Democrats being weak on illegal immigration when Obama was the most aggressive in deportations and far outstripped every Republican President.

[Commenter_XY]

Pres Obama was the Deporter-in-Chief, according to progressives at the time. I remember that well.

[Sarcastr0]

A single home invasion is not the same as 'took over an apartment complex.'

Everyone from the mayor on down admitted there was crime. Crime going back well before the immigrants arrived for you lot to scapegoat, actually.

[ThePublius]

Except they did take over an entire apartment complex.

"The Brooklyn-based company claimed that the gang effectively stole entire apartment complexes out from under it by threatening employees and tried to extort it for a cut of the rent in exchange for being allowed to keep operating the properties."

https://nypost.com/2024/10/14/us-news/aurora-landlord-says-tren-de-aragua-took-over-apartment-tried-to-extort-them/

Why do you deny this? Who are you defending?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, the landlord is claiming that. And hired a PR firm to put that narrative out there.

That take is still contradicted by the mayor, the police, and most of the non-propaganda outlets who looked into it.

It did let the landlord excuse his failures to maintain his buildings and then to evict everyone.

The important thing, as you wanna relitigate this, is that Michael's crowing about the new story is going after a strawman. No one said there was no crime, that's a stupid idea.

[Absaroka]

"That take is still contradicted by the mayor, the police, and most of the non-propaganda outlets who looked into it"

I'm not sure that's an up-to-date take. One example..

[Sarcastr0]

You linked to a report of a gang-related crime getting prosecuted.

To review, this is the thesis TP and MP are putting forth: "the gang effectively stole entire apartment complexes out from under it by threatening employees and tried to extort it for a cut of the rent in exchange for being allowed to keep operating the properties."

Again, no one is claiming the apartments are gang or crime free. But there's a whole story the landlord is telling and which the right wing media picked up on that still seems to be bullshit.

Heck, even the connection to the recent influx of immigrants is tendentious as the timeline of crimes I linked above shows.

[ThePublius]

See the Post story I linked, and maybe ask the apartment complex manager who was beaten to a pulp what he thinks.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, no one disputes Baumgarten claims a takeover. People dispute whether it's true.

No one other than he and the company he owns agrees. Including other landlords. It's all these 3 buildings by his company.

It may turn out to be true, though at this point I doubt it. Point is, 'guy got assaulted' doesn't come near to answering your larger and more detailed thesis.

[ThePublius]

Aurora Police Chief Todd Chamberlain seems to think so:

"“As everybody here knows and as the nation knows this complex is an incredibly problematic complex. It’s an incredibly crime-riddled complex,” he added, citing multiple recent arrests at the apartments following TdA’s takeover of the complex."

As does Aurora City Council member Danielle Jurinsky:

"Thanks to the help of Aurora City Council member Danielle Jurinsky, the couple was able to pack up and leave for safety.

Jurinsky, who has been outspoken about TdA’s takeover of multiple apartment complexes in Aurora, told The Post that the latest crimes at The Edge showcase what she’s been warning of for months with TdA’s rise in the Denver suburb."

(emphasis mine)

(both from https://nypost.com/2024/12/17/us-news/dozen-gang-members-busted-in-kidnapping-torture-plot-at-aurora-colorado-apartment-complex-overrun-by-tren-de-aragua/)

What do you know what they don't know? And why do you persist in refuting this? Is it somehow Trump or Republican related? You are being quite irrational.

[Sarcastr0]

You fucked with the quote marks in your bolded bit. That's NY Post text, not the police chief.

And for Jurinsky, she's kinda of a lying crazy person:
https://sentinelcolorado.com/metro/whos-afraid-of-danielle-jurinsky/
"Jurinsky is the bar owner and at-large council member behind the false, election-season narrative that Venezuelan gang members have overrun parts of the city. She has a history of testy, sometimes profane rhetoric, and deemed by some as bullying.

At issue most recently is a string of text messages she sent to four of her conservative council allies...
“I will not be at the meeting on Monday, and every single one of you can go fu** yourselves!” her first message reads.

“I fu***** campaigned on that you fu***** pieces of shit! AND FU** YOU DUSTIN!!”

“And I hear you’re a co sponsor, Francoise. You can definitely go fu** yourself! You’ve never owned a business or a fu***** thing in your life you pretentious bitch!”

“My friendship will literally (sic) every single one of you is dead! DEAD! oh, and my loyalty… also dead! I hope you all have miserable fu***** lives! I might make that happen for a few of you. FU** YOU!”"

So your proof is
1) NY Post's unsourced take (which you posture as a quote even though it's not), and
2) a lunatic local councilwoman contradicted by her colleagues.

You also pushed the Haitians eating pets shit as well, didn't you?

[ThePublius]

Well, we''ll see; I just emailed the Aurora PD asking them to comment.

[ThePublius]

"Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman acknowledged on Thursday (in August) that Venezuelan gangs have taken control of several apartment complexes in the northern part of the city in what he called “a nightmare situation.”"

https://denvergazette.com/news/aurora-mayor-mike-coffman-gangs-apartment-complexes/article_11e68b82-6634-11ef-8931-d7ae1ac1994d.html

[Sarcastr0]

That would be a change of position, but I don't see a quote. In fact, I see a more generalized 'this is a gang crime issue' from the mayor in other sources from today:

https://www.heregeorgetown.com/aurora-colorado-immigration-debate-sparks/
"Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman supported these sentiments, asserting that the challenges of crime are common in major cities. “As I have said repeatedly, specific bad actors and problematic properties do not reflect on this city as a whole,” he stated. "“I think the mere fact that you’re here, the mere fact that we’re talking about a location that I don’t know how many months ago, seven months ago, eight months ago, or whatever was on national news, and we’re still talking about the same subject, it is 100% an issue,” he said. “Whether it’s TDA, whether it’s rolling 60s or any other gang that’s around here. That’s the problem.”

[Bwaaah]

Confimed by Aurora's police chief, per Absaroka's cite:

Having boarded up one apartment complex overrun by the TdA gang and seeking to shutter a second, Chamberlain confirmed Tuesday that the city’s tactic for combating the Venezuelan gang involves shutting down CBZ’s apartment complexes.

“It’s definitely a strategy because, again, the problem is complex in that particular complex that I think it has to be broken up,” Chamberlain said.

[David Nieporent]

Except they did take over an entire apartment complex.

The Brooklyn-based company claimed that

What does the boldfaced word mean to you?

[SimonP]

There is almost no point in debating the facts with scoundrels like you, because any evidence is probative evidence, in your view, and the claims you've made just shift to match what turns up eventually.

[Commenter_XY]

Don't believe our Lyin' Eyes, is that it? 🙂

[SimonP]

I don't believe the liars who will revise their prior claims to match present facts, no. "Oh, see this thing we can now point to! That's what we were actually complaining about way back when we had no facts!"

[CountmontyC]

They are using the Martha Raddatz "it's just a handful of apartment complexes" excuse.

[bernard11]

You mean you went to Aurora and observed for yourself? That's impressive. Tell us more.

OTOH, if you didn't, what is this "Lyin' Eyes" bullshit?

[Kazinski]

Well I guess the issue was debated enough that a co census was reached we should deport all the illegal aliens, so you are right there is almost no point in debating it.

In areas where undocumented immigrants are getting attention for committing crimes, I think those areas are going to get the most attention from the Feds in looking for deportable aliens.

[not guilty]

"Well I guess the issue was debated enough that a co census [sic] was reached we should deport all the illegal aliens, so you are right there is almost no point in debating it."

I wouldn't say there is any consensus. There are those who stridently advocate several million brown folks, never mind what that will do to the economy when fruits and vegetables don't get picked, hotels and restaurants don't get staffed, houses don't get cleaned and parents (shudder) have to tend to their own offspring.

[Life of Brian]

Super weird how all those things used to get done just fine before the huge influx over the past few decades, innit?

[not guilty]

I'm working from memory here, (which may be imperfect,) but I recall that Alabama and Georgia outlawed an employer hiring illegal aliens and made a serious enforcement effort. Crops rotted in the field.

When folks have to pay more for menial laborers, the increase is passed along to consumers. The ripple effect may not be pretty.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, so we're going to play motte/bailey with your original big laundry list vs. just crops, and that supported by some sort of foggy anecdote. Fun!

As to your supposed ripple effect, just looking at prices on the shelf of course gives a very false picture of the "total cost of ownership" if you will -- increased tax loads for benefit programs, increased crime, increased disruption to the communities unlucky enough to live near the jobs they read in the paper that they supposedly won't take themselves. That side of things used to be a lot less of an issue back when your precious food-harvesting jobs were truly seasonal work and folks went back south in between, instead of camping out permanently and slurping their supposed productivity and then some back out of welfare programs.

Bottom line, as I said: we used to do just fine without the massive glut of the past few decades, quite conveniently verified by the fact that there WAS a massive glut. All the rationalizations to the contrary are just ivory-tower intellectual fart sniffing.

[bernard11]

If we're citing anecdotes, I've got one.

A good friend in Alabama belongs to a country club there. At one point the AL legislature was considering a fairly harsh anti-immigrant bill, which was strongly supported by the country club slugs.

Funny thing. It passed, and the next day most of the groundskeepers and restaurant personnel had disappeared, while the slugs complained bitterly about the lack of service and maintenance.

"Tough shit" seems like the only appropriate response.

[Commenter_XY]

One change I would like to see: hold business owners personally liable for hiring illegal aliens. Meaning, you go to jail, with no bail until trial. You do time.

I promise you, when Mega-Corp CEOs see a MidCorp CEO do a perp walk and watch those jail door bars close, it will change behavior. No one will hire illegals.

Exploitation of illegal aliens is a form of modern day slavery.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody is "exploiting" them, and they are free to leave at any time, which makes it literally the opposite of slavery.

Your idea — setting aside the unconstitutionality of your bail proposal — is like saying that we can eliminate underage drinking if we just make the owners of bars and liquor stores personally criminally liable for serving/selling to minors.

[Commenter_XY]

Your analogy is inapt, David. Drinking =/= taking advantage of illegal aliens

[David Nieporent]

Employing people is the opposite of taking advantage of them, but in any case, I made no analogy between drinking and employing illegal aliens.

The analogy was between penalizing B for engaging in a mutually beneficial transaction with A that involves A showing B a document, and penalizing B for engaging in a mutually beneficial transaction with A that involves A showing B a document.

(Of course, sometimes A doesn't show B a document and B engages in the transaction anyway. In both cases.)

[Frank Drackman]

Next you’ll tell me Haitians really do eat Dogs and Cats(what’s so scandalous? Asians certainly do)

Frank

[Krayt]

Hey, I said at the time, it was presented as a yicky, cultural inferiority disdainment, when it should have been about simple theft (if it happened at all.)

How dare people choke on beef and chickens, but look down on eating cats and dogs. South Korea bans dog meat in street vendors because of Olympics. We westerners should be ashamed, not them.

[bernard11]

It didn't happen, Krayt. Get that through your skull. The story was manufactured from start to finish.

In any rational universe Vance, the manufacturer, would be widely shunned, and certainly be booted from the GOP ticket for bigotry and dishonesty.

Not with MAGA, though.

[David Nieporent]

A bunch of people here assured us that nothing of this sort was happening, and all the reports otherwise were just due to an alleged slumlord making excuses:

I am quite certain that nobody here suggested that zero immigrants were in gangs and zero immigrant gang members committed crimes. I am just as certain that the article above does not describe gangs taking over entire apartment complexes, which is what was actually alleged several months ago.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The Department of Energy's inspector general on Tuesday issued an unprecedented call to suspend the Biden administration's $400 billion energy loan program, warning that officials aren't complying with conflict-of-interest rules and that the program carries a "significant risk of fraud."

https://freebeacon.com/biden-harris-administration/significant-risk-of-fraud-federal-watchdog-calls-for-emergency-halt-to-bidens-400-billion-energy-loan-fund/

Should we be surprised?

[Michael P]

How many of these officials were also involved in the Solyndra debacle or other losing loans from the Obama era?

Emails showed that the Obama administration had concerns about the legality of the Department of Energy's loan restructuring plan and warned OMB director Jeffrey D. Zients that the plan should be cleared with the Department of Justice first, which the Department of Energy had not done. The emails also revealed that, as early as August 2009, an aide to then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had asked a Department of Energy official if he could discuss any concerns among the investment community about Solyndra but that the official dismissed the idea that Solyndra had financial problems.

Other multi-hundreds-of-million-dollar losers from that group invite A123 Systems, Crescent Dunes, Abound Solar and First Solar.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Govies rarely get held accountable. Sarcastr0, a govie himself, in the last Open Thread, when finally facing accountableility, claimed that govies should be given grace because they weren't foretold of any consequences and its just better policy to just tell them next time they break the law there will be consequences!

He was talking about the same govies that created the "Shock and Awe" campaign to throw the book at, stretch the law, and punish with procedure and process to anyone and everyone at J6, except Ray Epps and the other Fed instigators.

Grace for me but not for thee, argues Sarcastr0.

Fuck him. Fuck govies. Tit for Tat bitches.

[Michael P]

I don't agree that "tit for tat" is good policy. But we should probably fire those bureaucrats who don't understand that they're pushing illegal policies and replace them with the people who are able to correctly identify illegal policies. One could argue that the Take Care Clause requires the President to do so.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The govies who came up with and implemented "Shock and Awe" against the J6ers should get the exact treatment given to them.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t remember talking about grace. And I do science policy, not law enforcement, you weird ragey man.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Doesn't matter -- your side lose, you belong in prison.

[Sarcastr0]

What crime to you allege I did, Ed?

[Frank Drackman]

Mopery with intent to creep? Impersonating a Human? Flagrant Indilecto? like with “45/47” we’ll come up with something

[bernard11]

Awfully generous of you not to call for capital punishment for election losers.

Of course, one downside is that your god would be dead.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Ok, my bad, I reread your comment. You didn't say govies should get grace. You said punishing them wouldn't be "cool" and arguing for accountability for a govie is unserious.

lmao thanks for the correction, SoonToBeUnemployed0

[Krayt]

Interesting. "Let that be a warning to 'em!"

If'n this were a new problem, maybe. Mmmmmaybe.

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

I first got an inkling of it, beyond just well-known opportunistic corruption (some of it explained with a sordid, politician-helping lie that they were tempted into it by Richie Riches) almost 30 years ago.

I was living in Europe at the time, and the big news one week on the BBC was gigantic, million+ protests in India of college students. Seems the government had set aside something like 50% of new government jobs for the lower castes. The students were protesting against this.

Puzzled, I went to ask some Indian colleagues, also there on some contracts. Why weren't they protesting in favor of it?

"Well, you have to understand, in India, you go into government to make a nice life for yourself and your family by corruption." He even gave an example, "If you can be the guy who approves new buildings for a region, you've got it made. The standard 'fee' is 10% of the cost of the building."

Interestingly, this sordid display was repeated in Bangladesh (?) just this summer.

You go into government to get in the way somehow, to get paid to get back out of the way. It's been so ever since some guys picked up clubs and walked down to a dirt crossroads where some farmers were trading and selling.

Yes, we do need (I suppose) a functioning government to protect and secure rights, but it had to be dragged kicking and screaming there from a pure mafia-on-sterioids organization, and is still a body parasitic, where the parasites bitch when birds peck them off.

[Sarcastr0]

Cool story.

Even your anecdote wherein graft exists doesn't support your vastly broader thesis, wherein graft is the purpose of government and everyone in it only got into the biz so they could do graft.

[Mr. Bumble]

With regard to Crescent Dunes (that great air fryer in the Nevada desert) the day after the election DOJ pulled support for a suit alleging fraud:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/12/17/exclusive-merrick-garland-in-crosshairs-as-congressional-inquiry-into-crescent-dunes-solar-scandal-coverup-expands/

[Don Nico]

Solyndra was the pet project of then Sec. Energy, the Nobelist Steven Chu.

[Commenter_XY]

No, we should not be surprised.

[John F. Carr]

The trial of the century in France is coming to an end with a load of guilty verdicts. A man repeatedly drugged his wife so men could rape her without her knowledge. Dramatic headlines declare this trial has changed France forever. From across the ocean I don't see how it's a bigger deal than Weinstein, Epstein, or Combs.

The husband has been sentenced to 20 years. This is the statutory maximum for the crime he was charged with. I think the maximum sentence was inevitable given the severity of the crime. In America the same conduct would likely be charged as dozens or hundreds of counts and the judge could make the sentence ten years or ten thousand years.

All co-defendants were also convicted, some on lesser charges. There's some French legal jargon I don't understand.

Coverage in French: https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/live/2024/12/19/en-direct-proces-des-viols-de-mazan-suivez-les-peines-prononcees-a-l-encontre-des-51-accuses_6456809_3224.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's like the college date rapes -- why would you want to have sex with someone who is unconscious?

[John F. Carr]

It appears some men do want it. I can't say why.

In date rape cases there is often a dispute about how "out of it" she was. She could be moving and making noises without being all there. Unlike a shooting, liability might not be a clear "yes" or "no". Donald Trump did or did not shoot a man on Fifth Avenue. There is no in between. But was she on the "consenting" or "wasted" side of a blurry line? Even a neutral observer might not know for sure.

In the French case the facts are clearer.

The phrase that confused me, altération du discernement, looks like a form of mental impairment or insanity not amounting to a complete defense.

[Bwaaah]

Holy crap! When did "consenting" and "wasted" split to opposite sides of the line?

[John F. Carr]

I think it was when we had to stop calling chicks "co-eds".

[Frank Drackman]

quoting the great BTO, "any love is good love"

[Doug Huffman]

Who would want sex with someone not your intellectual peer at that moment?

[Michael P]

Riffing on Frank and quoting the great Aerosmith: "Never judge [...] who you gonna love by your lover." Or Jim Croce: "[She] Asked if it was right / That she'd give her body and I'd give my mind."

How broadly do you define "intellectual peer"? A lot of people seek intimacy, or a long term relationship, with someone who is not exactly intellectually equal because of looks or personality or money or whatever else. The usual legal and moral threshold is ability to consent. Of course, people disagree over exactly what that means, but it's less subjective than "intellectual peer".

[Frank Drackman]

On deployment to Italy one of the pilots married an Italian chick who spoke little Engrish(I think she knew more than she let on) he spoke hardly any Eye/talian, last I heard they’d had their 25th Anniversary, Amore, the universal language
Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

World's Smallest Violin Plays As "Depressed" Biden Bureaucrats Can't Find New Jobs

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/worlds-smallest-violin-plays-depressed-biden-bureaucrats-cant-find-new-jobs

LOL maybe someone can make them a cry closet like on those Lefty college campuses?

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe they should learn to code.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They should be swinging from trees.

[apedad]

This from Dr Ed, "I don't ferment Civil War."

[Dr. Ed 2]

ferment (noun)
a state of confusion, change, and lack of order or fighting:
The late 1960s and the early years of the 1970s were a period of ferment in western societies.

One CAN'T "ferment" a Civil War.

[apedad]

I stand corrected!

This from Dr Ed, "I don't foment Civil War."

[bernard11]

This is disgusting.

Dr. Ed's constant calls for the death of his political opponents are the mark of someone who is seriously mentally ill.

Maybe XY will be able to moderate his stance to calling for only a ten year sentence or something.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
The remedy is to put Mr. Ed on mute.

[SimonP]

No one's going to cry when you're out of work, either.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

People with my credentials often have work until they're in their 80s and then they get funny titles that have the word "Emeritus" in them.

[SimonP]

Not in Trump's economy, and evidently not you.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Bidenomics isn't strong enough to carry these good times into Trump's term? You can't be serious!

[SimonP]

I believe it will. I think that Trump's best move on the economy is to let existing programs play out, and keep his hands off of fundamental, disruptive changes. There could also be some merit in a careful, methodical consolidation of federal bureaucracy, with an eye towards better and more efficient execution of our laws. Meanwhile, I'd welcome a thoughtful approach to the budget, taking a look at our tax and spending priorities in the Congress.

None of that is on offer, of course. Shutting down the government before he even takes office is not a good sign.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Trump can shutdown the government BEFORE he's even president?

Wow, he's some kind of wizard! I thought it was Congress that passed laws and spent money, but WTF do I know?

It's the President! He passes laws and appropriates money, And Trump being a magical President is refusing to pass laws and appropriate money BEFORE he is even President!

[SimonP]

He killed the CR the same way he killed the bipartisan border legislation earlier this year.

Don't make me read the news to you, Jesus. It's tiresome, arguing with someone pretending (or not pretending) to be an idiot.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Sunlight killed that garbage bill not Trump.

I can't believe you would think that bill was a good thing. Is it just because the Right thinks it's bad?

[SimonP]

I think keeping the government open, and not shutting down every time a CR runs out, is a good thing.

I also tend to think that bipartisan deals are a good way of ensuring moderation in governance.

I don't think killing bills because a multibillionaire is threatening to fund primary challengers against anyone who doesn't do what he demands, while posting obvious lies about what elected politicians are doing, is a good thing.

People didn't vote for Trump because they wanted to go back to this kind of chaotic nonsense. It was the promise of precisely this kind of chaos, that was Trump's greatest political vulnerability. Pushing us to a shutdown before he is already inaugurated does not bode well for the next four years - or for the U.S.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How much of the government do you think gets shutdown during these things?

>I don't think killing bills because a multibillionaire is threatening to fund primary challengers against anyone who doesn't do what he demands, while posting obvious lies about what elected politicians are doing, is a good thing.

What did he demand they do in that bill that they refused?

>Pushing us to a shutdown before he is already inaugurated does not bode well for the next four years - or for the U.S.

Do you think the CR was a good bill just because it funded the government, and therefore there shouldn't be any resistance? The leadership dropped it on everyone at the last minute. Do you blame them for anything? Or just the people who resist this status quo procedure of unread bills getting passed by Congress in a last minute vote?

Is that what you're so upset about? The shitty, corrupt status quo isn't being maintained?

[Joe_dallas]

SimonP 5 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
He killed the CR the same way he killed the bipartisan border legislation earlier this year.

The CR should be killed.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Hey-Zeus, I thought you were eternal, you mean even Surpreme Beings have mandatory retirement? Who would replace you? Jesus Christ Jr?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What does the Talmud say about Jesus? Boiling in what for how long?

[David Nieporent]

Grand Wizard Emeritus?

[Nelson]

LOL! You win the day!

[Dr. Ed 2]

No one did, Simon -- and payback rhymes with "rich."

[Lennyk78]

They can always find jobs busting inside other men's rears. That's what the Democrats are best at.

[Commenter_XY]

VC Conspirators....do you like butter cookies? And have you seen the prices to buy a lb (or 3) of butter cookies?!? Wow, butter cookies expensive. Like to bake (cookies, that is)? Read on.

This butter cookie recipe is very simple, and makes upwards of 20 dozen cookies at a clip. Yes, demand for Commenter_XY's butter cookies is very strong, far and wide. I have made them for decades, and there are never any leftovers. Fair warning....it is manually intensive. Your hands, arms will get a workout.

3 lbs flour
2 lbs butter - softened to room temp
1 lb sugar
1 TBSP vanilla
1 tsp salt, but if you use salted butter, ignore.
wax paper
1 egg + 1 tsp water (for egg wash)

Combine sugar, butter and vanilla. Mix with mixer until completely combined. Add flour, 2c-3c at a time, incorporate completely before adding more flour. Warning, the last 2-3c is very tough. I have broken many wood stirring implements over the years. The dough is heavy. Very dense. Incorporate completely!

You will now roll dough into log shapes, and wrap with wax paper. It will look sort of like a Ritz cracker package. You'll have upwards of a dozen wrapped logs. *Refrigerate overnight (very important).

Next day, roll out the dough to ~0.25" (one-quarter inch) thickness (or cut directly from the logs if they are shaped well). Cut cookies into shapes (you'll laugh, I used the red top of pam spray to cut circles). Set the oven to 375. Put cookies onto greased (I used butter or Pam - butter is better) cookie sheet (or parchment paper, which I now use). Brush with egg wash.

Bake 8-11 minutes...and watch carefully. Times will vary. When you see a hint of brown at the edges, pull them out of the oven.

*If you skip refrigeration, you need to use a pastry bag to make 'spritz' butter cookies. I do not recommend this unless you are experienced with using a pastry bag (it can be tricky).

As I mentioned, your yield will easily be 20 dozen, and you can stretch to 30 dozen if you make them small.

Buon Appetit!!!

[Mr. Bumble]

Have you seen the price of butter?

[Commenter_XY]

I have, and I use organic, grass fed, grass finished butter.

Still MUCH cheaper to make rather than buying at Wegmans, or a bakery.

Mr. Bumble, there is nothing quite like starting the baking at 4am, and when you are done 12-14 hours later, contemplating the huge mounds of butter cookies you baked. I have some pretty good pictures from over the years. I ship them out to family (and select friends) along with other goodies every December. It is a two-fer....Xmas and Hanukkah.

[Mr. Bumble]

Good for you. Luckily my wife and daughter still bake holiday cookies. Not as many different types as in the past but always certain favorites. The ones I miss are Kolachi (Hungarian nut and poppy seed rolls which haven't been made since my Mom passed away).Store bought never cut it.
By the way, if you have extras I wouldn't mind it you sent some along.

[Commenter_XY]

My 'holiday care package' that I ship out.

1 lb coffee beans
1 stollen (my loaves are at least 3X the size of Wegmans stollen)
2 dozen butter cookies
2 dozen choc chip cookies
1 bag chocolate coins
1 new *mystery item I try out for the first time.

*This year, it was anise cookies. I get lots of requests to make different things, but choose only 1 to make.

Mr. Bumble....make a memory. Make the Kolachi with your daughter, and tell her stories of your Mother.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

We're making stollens for the first time this year. Can't wait.

[Commenter_XY]

Some tips. Learn from my mistakes. 🙂

Measure the temp of the milk you put the yeast into. The ideal temp for the milk is 105 degrees for a 10 minute soaking. Use a digital thermometer.

Mace has a very distinctive flavor. Use it very, very sparingly.

Time and experience have taught me to combine all wet ingredients together, along with spices and sugar. Dump the candied fruit into the flour, and mix around. Then, add the wet ingredients in and incorporate. When the dough comes off easy from your hands, you're done kneading.

The rise times cannot be shortened. Both rise periods will be 1.5 to 2 hours.

Turn the loaves and switch racks at the halfway point. I do not recommend convection baking for stollen (crust comes out too tough).

Good Luck. Tell us how you did. What would you do differently next time?

[santamonica811]

My secret ingredient (also my secret ingredient for apple pies) is grains of paradise.

[Bwaaah]

Put me on your list and I'll be your best friend. You can call me Mr. What have-you-sent-me-lately.

[Commenter_XY]

Bwaaah...You missed out on 5785. Hit me up 5786, before Yom Kippur, and make your request at that time.

[Michael P]

Nitpick: "Grass finished" doesn't apply to dairy cows or their butter, only beef cattle. Unfortunately, "grass-fed" is not very specific for dairy: https://www.organicvalley.coop/blog/8-things-you-should-know-about-grass-fed-dairy/

But thanks for the recipe!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Because of things like that, we use https://www.cornucopia.org/scorecard/dairy/

to screen our purchases for eggs, diary, or beef... when we can't produce enough or find local ourselves.

[Don Nico]

My Christmas cookies are Italian cantucci (almond biscotti) with the dough shaped into a wreath. My family like them chewy, so I don't slice and bake the the second time as a real biscotto would be.

[Brett Bellmore]

But the commercial ones usually come with a sewing kit box, can't ignore that perk.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, that is true. I am basically sending a 16X12X4 box of goodies this year.

In my younger years, I once constructed the boxes myself, cutting and reassembling pieces to look like a dreidel. That was the mystery item. All the goodies were inside the dreidel. 😉

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, at places like Hobby Lobby you can buy the box without the cookies.

This reminds me, it IS time to bake Christmas cookies. Every year we leave a box of them in the mail box for our mail man.

[Frank Drackman]

My Butter wouldn’t melt so I put it in the pie

[ThePublius]

I buy the Royal Dansk butter cookie selection on Amazon, 12 oz. for just under $5, minus 20% with a coupon. Comes in a nice tin.

Is that considered expensive?

[Commenter_XY]

No, not expensive. But definitely gauche. /sarc

Too many chemicals and preservatives.

[ThePublius]

Oh? What chemicals and preservatives? Here are the ingredients:

"Wheat flour, butter, sugar, dessicated coconut, invert sugar, salt, ammonium bicarbonate, natural flavor (vanilla)."

* Ammonium bicarbonate is an inorganic compound with many uses, including as a leavening agent in baking, a pesticide, and a mild base:
- Baking: A common leavening agent that releases carbon dioxide and ammonia gas when heated, improving the volume and color of steamed breads and other baked goods.

[Commenter_XY]

Great, cookies laced with pesticides....just what I wanted. /joking!

[Krayt]

Heh. There's a talking head who warns that heart disease med is used in rat poison! They're trying to kill you!

It's a blood thinner, which is great for heart disease. Too much, and it leaks out, killing the rat.

[Bored Lawyer]

BTW, for those that can't have dairy (or want a non-dairy substitute for religious reasons), about a year ago I discovered a product named Avocado Butter, put out by Country Crock. Very close to real butter, and much, much better than margarine. My wife, who is the baker in the family, is thrilled with it.

[Zarniwoop]

I'll make a similar plug for Earth Balance original as a drop-in dairy-free butter substitute. My gf is dairy-allergic (not just lactose intolerant) and it's a great product for spreading, baking, cooking. I bake a moderate amount, and can report it's great in cookies and cakes.

I haven't tried the Country Crock product but I'll give it a go sometime.

[Commenter_XY]

BL, I will look up both (Avocado butter, Earth Balance). I see a potential mystery item.

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

Steph is guilty and he and his company;s reaction screams it.

[not guilty]

Republicans in the House of Representatives are kvetching that former Rep. Elizabeth Cheney should face an F.B.I. investigation for work she did for the congressional committee that examined Donald Trump’s attempts to cling to power after he lost the 2020 election. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/18/us/politics/trump-liz-cheney-report.html

Never mind that prosecution of Ms. Cheney is barred by the Speech or Debate Clause of Article I, § 6, cl. 1 of the Constitution. As SCOTUS has opined in United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 491-492 (1979):

"There is little doubt that the instigation of criminal charges against critical or disfavored legislators by the executive in a judicial forum was the chief fear prompting the long struggle for parliamentary privilege in England and, in the context of the American system of separation of powers, is the predominate thrust of the Speech or Debate Clause." United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. [169,] at 180-181, 182 [(1966.]

[Dr. Ed 2]

If she gave just one press interview, she's bleeped.

[Brett Bellmore]

Her political career is dead; Her career as a Republican was DOA when she agreed to be part of the J6 committee, and Democrats don't particularly like turncoats, even the other side's turncoats.

In a former era she would have had an assured gig as a 'Republican' commenter on some talk show, but the media winds are shifting a bit, the networks are starting to think that maybe restricting their audience to only half the political spectrum was a bad move, so maybe not even that.

[Swede425]

Agreed.
She doesn't have any friends now that the election is over and her side lost.
Now she waits to see what an investigation turns up.
If a NY DA can make multiple felonies out of a misdemeanor, what can congress find? There will be no joy in Cheney land for the foreseeable future.

[tylertusta]

I've seen this skit too many times. We know how this goes.

Cheney's value is solely derived from how much damage she can do to Republicans on behalf of Democrats. Her perceived usefulness has evaporated, so she'll disappear into some NGO. After a few years she'll be considered somewhat rehabilitated by the media. We'll then see her feature in an article with a headline something like this: "Former Republican Says Current Republicans Are Wrong."

[Sarcastr0]

No one thought the testimony of Cheney would make her a Democrat.
I don't know what cynical play you're lamenting.

[tylertusta]

I didn't say that she would become a Democrat.

Cheney's value was to give Democrats the ability to argue "Don't you see Republicans? Even your own party hates Trump!"

[Sarcastr0]

You take this tone that this is a sad state of affairs, and I don't understand why.

[tylertusta]

It is a sad state of affairs.

For Democrats.

(And Cheney too, I guess.)

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, her excommunication says a lot about how the GOP has become a cult of personality.

Dunno what the Dems did that's at all sad or abnormal. Or that would have been abnormal 100 years ago.

[bernard11]

Right. It is interesting that none of these fools will consider for two seconds the possibility that she acted out of conscience.

[tylertusta]

Liz Cheney's only principle is herself. She thought she could jump in at the front of an anti-Trump Republican movement only to realize that no one was following her.

[Sarcastr0]

If her only principle was herself, she would have ducked down and gone along to get along like just about everyone else in the GOP.

You think she's just got extra bad political instincts? Maybe! But you've sure not supported that take with anything more than your own telepathy.

[tylertusta]

I have brought to the table exactly the same amount of support as what you've brought.

Show me yours and I'll show you mine.

[Sarcastr0]

But I did provide evidence - the conventional wisdom of how to deal with Trump, as evinced by the behavior of all of her colleagues.

She didn't do that, and she suffered the consequences.

You can posit that maybe she didn't realize that would be the outcome, because she has different and very bad political instincts from everyone else, but that would require some support.

And I hope you don't support abusing Congressional and executive power to persecute her for speaking out against Trump.

[tylertusta]

Which colleagues? Which behaviors? What proof do you offer besides your statements that the events transpired?

What proof do you have that events would have been abnormal 100 years ago?

Until you start showing evidence besides you saying so, that's just your telepathy.

[Sarcastr0]

No one else in the GOP did what she did.

I can't run the counterfactual because Dems aren't run like that, and you can go against the President without being politically immolated.

[David Nieporent]

No one else in the GOP did what she did.

There's Kinzinger.

[tylertusta]

I'm not asking for a counterfactual. I'm asking for any fact you assert to be cited. When offering proof of claims of people doing X or Y, you can show evidence that they did X and Y. For example, you said this:

"...the conventional wisdom of how to deal with Trump, as evinced by the behavior of all of her colleagues... [Liz Cheney] didn't do [what her colleagues did], and she suffered the consequences."

What specific behaviors, made by specific colleagues are you referring to? What consequences?

Please provide citations and links so I know you're not just making it up.

[Sarcastr0]

Here is the fact: No one else in the GOP did what she did.

That requires some explanation.

I hold that 'she was brave' is more likely than 'Liz Cheney's only principle is herself and also she is way dumber than everyone else.'

You seem to working to create some kind of burden to shift to me. But no - facts as understood we have a couple of choices, and yours is the unlikely one.

[Bob from Ohio]

"possibility that she acted out of conscience."

She's a politician, they never act "out of conscience"

[Commenter_XY]

What excommunication? You have the wrong term.

You meant transition. 😉

[bernard11]

JFTR Brett,

You should be aware, as it seems you are not, that except for showing integrity wrt Trump, she is a bog-standard conservative Republican.

Could you maybe allow for the possibility that her motivation for serving on the the J6 committee was honest, and that she considered the events of the day to be terrible, and worth investigating?

No. Of course you can't do that. Because you're Brett Bellmore and nobody can honestly disagree with you, no matter how wrong you are.

[David Nieporent]

While a press interview would almost certainly not be covered by the Speech & Debate Clause, I am unclear what crime Dr. Ed thinks a press interview could constitute.

[Michael P]

The witness tampering, to pick just one example, would not be protected as "any Speech or Debate in either House". Harry Reid was at least smart enough to defame people straight from the Senate floor.

[not guilty]

What do you claim constituted witness tampering?

[Brett Bellmore]

What I've heard of the 'witness tampering' case sounds kind of weak, but the J6 committee didn't encrypt and delete files on that hard drive for the fun of it, so I would not be shocked to find that they did some things that might involve legal liability, and I actually would be shocked if they did nothing that would stink to high heaven if exposed.

[Michael P]

Do you claim to have reading comprehension problems?

[not guilty]

No, I don't. What do you claim constituted witness tampering?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Go read the House Report. They lay it out pretty clearly.

She's guilty. Just like the others on that committee, that's why some are already begging Biden for pardons. If only they would get in touch with his Joe's brother for the price and buy one like everyone else is doing.

[Michael P]

You should. In a sentence like I wrote, "would" is in the subjunctive mood rather than indicative mood. I don't assert it as fact, but I am relating something that might be true.

The theory, as I understand it (but do not take a particular position on how true it is), is that Cheney's communications with a witness without the witness's counsel, were not proper -- minimally not proper in form, arguably not proper in purpose, and perhaps across the line of 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b).

[Sarcastr0]

Oh my, not proper?

Weasel harder.

[Michael P]

There's a whole (theoretically relevant) affirmative defense that turns on that principle, jackass.

[Sarcastr0]

minimally not proper in form, arguably not proper in purpose, and perhaps across the line of 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b).

This is weak. And caveated such that you know it's weak.

[bernard11]

You are wrong.

You did not write "witness tampering, to pick just one example, would not be protected..."

You wrote "The witness tampering, to pick just one example, would not be protected..."

That converted a general statement about witness tampering to one about a specific incident of it, one which it is doubtful occurred.

Since we're picking nits.

[David Nieporent]

The theory, as I understand it (but do not take a particular position on how true it is), is that Cheney's communications with a witness without the witness's counsel, were not proper -- minimally not proper in form, arguably not proper in purpose, and perhaps across the line of 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b).

Assuming for the sake of argument that it was improper for Cheney to communicate with Hutchinson without Hutchinson's (conflicted) counsel, that in no way constitutes "witness tampering," under 1512(b) or any other statute. (And it still would be protected by the Speech & Debate Clause!)

Now, if Hutchinson comes forward and says, "Yeah, Cheney told me to lie, and promised me cash if I did so," then Cheney better start worrying.

[Kazinski]

Well here is the house committee's press release on some of the allegations, that if fully developed could reveal witness tampering:

https://cha.house.gov/2024/10/new-texts-reveal-liz-cheney-communicated-with-cassidy-hutchinson-about-her-select-committee-testimony-without-hutchinson-s-attorney-s-knowledge-despite-cheney-knowing-it-was-unethical

[David Nieporent]

The witness tampering, to pick just one example, would not be protected as "any Speech or Debate in either House". Harry Reid was at least smart enough to defame people straight from the Senate floor.

There was no "witness tampering" even alleged, and any communications she had with congressional witnesses about their congressional testimony would indeed be protected by the Speech & Debate Clause.

(To be clear, I know that the words "witness tampering" were alleged. But no facts constituting witness tampering were alleged.)

[Kazinski]

I think that wall has been breached. Of course Cheney is immune for anything she said in a hearing or the floor, but not for destroying or fabricating evidence or suborning perjury to Congress.

For instance Lindsey Graham was forced to testify ('questioned in another place') about a phone call he made to Brad Raffensberger during the 2020 post election.scrum, that he made from his office.

There is already a call to obtain the record of Cassidy Hutchinsons FBI interview, which happened before she started talking to the 1/6 Committee, reconciling those accounts will likely put Hutchinson in jeopardy, lying to the FBI or the committee. We know that Cheney had contact with Hutchinson before her account changed.

[not guilty]

No, Kazinski, the scope of the Speech or Debate clause extends well beyond the legislative chambers. SCOTUS opined in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 501 (1975):

We conclude that the actions of the Senate Subcommittee, the individual Senators, and the Chief Counsel are protected by the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 6, cl. 1, and are therefore immune from judicial interference.

The purpose of the Clause is to insure that the legislative function the Constitution allocates to Congress may be performed independently. Id., at 502. A legislator's activities are protected if they are:

"an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House."

Id., at 504, quoting Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625 (1972).

Rep. Cheney's communications with Cassidy Hutchinson consisted of helping Ms. Hutchinson to obtain disinterested, conflict free counsel. That was integral to the proper functioning of the House January 6 investigating committee.

[Michael P]

The "actions" in that case were issuing subpoenas, not attempting to suborn the Congressional record. There's a legitimate, and broadly construed, legislative interest in fact evidence. There's no legitimate interest in false testimony.

I can't tell if you are just doing keyword searches and spamming quotes without checking the context, if you tried to read the context but failed, or read the context and are being intentionally dishonest about the precedent here.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

not guilty's role here is reactionary and to play the partisan.

He doesn't really care if crimes were committed. He only cares that the other side is accusing his elites of committing them and he'll go to the mat to defend them. He'll not see any facts or evidence, we won't read well reasoned arguments, he'll only deny, defend, and depose.

[Z Crazy]

Graham was questioned about his phone call because he was being investigation for any possible bribery that may have occurred.

The speech and debate clause would protect people in Congress from prosecution if they openly asked for bribes on the floor, though.

But the telephone is not the floor of the House or Senate, obviously.

[Kazinski]

No. Nobody alleged Graham tried to bribe anyone.

[Z Crazy]

Not after they investigated the phone call anyway.

[not guilty]

Investigative activities by lawmakers are protected by legislative immunity. In McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 1976), the court stated:

We have no doubt that information gathering, whether by issuance of subpoenas or field work by a Senator or his staff, is essential to informed deliberation over proposed legislation. The [Supreme Court's] recent decision [in Eastland] holds that "the power to investigate and to do so through compulsory process plainly falls within" the test for legislative activity announced in Gravel. We think this principle must also extend to field investigations by a Senator or his staff. "A Congressman cannot subpoena material unless he has enough threshold information to know where, to whom, or for what documents he should direct a subpoena. The acquisition of knowledge through informal sources is a necessary concomitant of legislative conduct and thus should be within the ambit of the privilege so that congressmen are able to discharge their constitutional duties properly."

Id., at 1286-87 (citations omitted; emphasis added).

Rep. Cheney had valid concerns that Cassidy Hutchinson was being influenced by conflicted legal counsel chosen and paid by MAGA world. Mr. Hutchinson has claimed that her initial attorney encouraged her to commit perjury and attempted to dissuade her from correcting inaccurate testimony. Rep. Cheney's communications with Ms. Hutchinson helped her to secure conflict free counsel and enhanced the committee's truth finding process.

[Commenter_XY]

NG...suppose this was not a Congress member. Where's the line between investigative activity/fieldwork vs witness tampering, for us plebes?

[not guilty]

Speech or Debate immunity doesn't apply at all to us plebes.

[Commenter_XY]

Just in general...forget the Speech/Debate clause for a moment.

What's the line btwn investigative/fieldwork, and witness tampering? How do we know the legal difference?

[bernard11]

A layman's explanation:

"Were you out fishing with my client the day the bank was robbed?"

"If I gave you $100 would you be willing to testify that you were out fishing with my client the day the bank was robbed?"

[not guilty]

That would require careful parsing of the federal statute prohibiting witness tampering, 18 U.S.C. § 1512. I will paraphrase a bit.

Subsection (a)(1) prohibits killing or attempting to kill a prospective witness.

Subsection (a)(2) prohibits use of or attempting to use physical force or the threat thereof with intent to cause a prospective witness or evidence to become unavailable or to cause someone to fail to report a federal crime.

Subsection (b) states in full:

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to—

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or

(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

The specification in subsection (b) of culpable mental states -- knowing use of threats/intimidation and corrupt persuasion -- is critical in distinguishing between lawful and unlawful conduct.

Subsection (c) prohibits corrupt destruction or impairment of items of physical evidence (including creation of false evidence) or attempting to do so.

Subsection (d) prohibits intentional harassment which actually interferes with another person's giving evidence or reporting a federal crime. This subsection does not encompass an unsuccessful attempt to do so.

Subsection (e) is highly important:

(e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.

Since that is an affirmative defense, the prosecution need not negate or rebut that defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Subsection (k) prohibits conspiring to commit any § 1512 offense.

I hope this is helpful.

[Commenter_XY]

It sure is, NG. Thank you! That subsection (b) looks pretty broad, and subsection (e) feels like a backdoor Napoleonic code (you're assumed guilty in intent, unless you show the jury otherwise).

[not guilty]

Subsection (b) is quite broad. That is why I quoted it verbatim -- I didn't think a paraphrase could do it justice.

I don't understand why Congress created the affirmative defense defined at subsection (e). If the accused's conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and his sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully, it seems to me that that would negate a culpable mental state defined by any other subsection.

Perhaps subsection (e) is intended to preclude attempt, accomplice or co-conspirator liability for a defendant based on the more culpable acts of another person.

[Commenter_XY]

You know NG, when I re-read subsection (b), how do police interrogations not violate that subsection? LEOs are permitted to lie, make intimidating statements, threats, speculate about a dark future in prison, etc. during their interrogation of a subject. SCOTUS said that was Ok.

I can see why every lawyer I ever interacted with always said to be polite, professional, and do not volunteer any information of any kind whatsoever to an LEO. Not even an observation that it is a nice sunny day. Remain silent. Call your lawyer. And stay silent.

[not guilty]

That is good advice regarding police interrogation. If the cops already had what they needed, they wouldn't need the accused to fill in the gaps. Any favorable or exculpatory information can be communicated by defense counsel if counsel deems that to be advantageous.

As to the scope of § 1512(b), I surmise that the rationale is that the police are seeking to discover and develop information about criminal activity rather than to prevent, suppress or inhibit the availability of that information.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You know NG, when I re-read subsection (b), how do police interrogations not violate that subsection? LEOs are permitted to lie, make intimidating statements, threats, speculate about a dark future in prison, etc. during their interrogation of a subject. SCOTUS said that was Ok.

Because the interviews where police use those tactics are designed to get the person to make a truthful statement to the police, not to affect their testimony at an official (federal) proceeding. They’d also be covered by the affirmative defense.

[not guilty]

"Because the interviews where police use those tactics are designed to get the person to make a truthful statement to the police, not to affect their testimony at an official (federal) proceeding."

With due respect, that is hopelessly naive. Those police tactics are designed to get a suspect to make an inculpatory statement, whether true or not.

Does the name Richard Jewell ring a bell? (FWIW, that case involved federal agents, who sought to elicit information to be submitted in a federal prosecution.)

[David Nieporent]

The "actions" in that case were issuing subpoenas, not attempting to suborn the Congressional record. There's a legitimate, and broadly construed, legislative interest in fact evidence. There's no legitimate interest in false testimony.

There's a legitimate interest in not forcing legislators to defend themselves against claims that testimony was false.

You can't circumvent Speech & Debate Clause immunity by saying, "But this behavior was bad!" The entire point of immunity is that it doesn't matter whether the behavior was bad.

[Nelson]

“ There's no legitimate interest in false testimony.”

That’s OK because there was no false testimony, nor did Cheney ask for any.

You are trying to bootstrap legal activity into something that it isn’t by applying false outrage. It isn’t convincing.

[Riva]

Frankly, it’s more important to expose the repulsively corrupt antics of the J6 committee. Even if there were no prosecutable case, the record needs to be corrected. Democrats and their allies have done considerable damage to this country and can’t hide from public accountability, even if they can hide from a criminal prosecution.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The precedent will be set when they release the Gaetz -- the Constitution neither precludes dragging a former Congressman through the mud, nor subpoenaing her for hearings.

AND any communications she had with her father or with the media are not protected.

[Kazinski]

So you say, but here is SCOTUSblogs summary of the 2022 case compelling Grahams testimony before Willis' grand jury:

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for a Georgia grand jury to question Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, about his phone calls after the 2020 election to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his staff. In an unsigned one-page order, the justices rejected Graham’s plea to block a subpoena from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, although they left open the possibility that Graham could return to court to challenge specific questions from the grand jury."

So I don't think they will get far in prosecuting Cheney about it, they can impanel a grand jury to investigate it, and compel her to testify, although she can challenge specific questions that may implicate the privilege.

I wouldn't be real confident that a textualist court might have a more narrow view of what speech and debate encompasses.

[Armchair]

NG,

Why was Lindsey Graham forced to testify? Why didn't the speech and debate clause cover him? What are the functional differences between that and what Cheney did?

[not guilty]

Linsdey Graham did not have a privilege not to appear before the grand jury. He was obliged to appear and testify, with the option of interposing a Speech or Debate objection on a question by question basis. See, Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 628-629 (1972).

Senator Graham was not being sued civilly or targeted for criminal prosecution. And FWIW, Senator Graham never claimed that he was trying to assist Secretary Raffensperger to obtain conflict free legal counsel.

As I wrote upthread, Investigative activities by lawmakers are protected by legislative immunity. In McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 1976), the court stated:

We have no doubt that information gathering, whether by issuance of subpoenas or field work by a Senator or his staff, is essential to informed deliberation over proposed legislation. The [Supreme Court's] recent decision [in Eastland] holds that "the power to investigate and to do so through compulsory process plainly falls within" the test for legislative activity announced in Gravel. We think this principle must also extend to field investigations by a Senator or his staff. "A Congressman cannot subpoena material unless he has enough threshold information to know where, to whom, or for what documents he should direct a subpoena. The acquisition of knowledge through informal sources is a necessary concomitant of legislative conduct and thus should be within the ambit of the privilege so that congressmen are able to discharge their constitutional duties properly."

Id., at 1286-87 (citations omitted).

[Commenter_XY]

I know, NG. It seems so vituperative. It is not complicated. The process is the punishment, and it is payback. The bill has come due.

Liz Cheney better find a good, expensive lawyer. And pay a nice fat retainer, upfront. She might need your services, NG. You were a defense atty for decades, correct?

The Courts can sort out whether all her acts were immune. On her dime.

[Mr. Bumble]

NG has had a bad year. Not only is Trump not in Jail, at 12:01 on January 20 he will become the 47th President of the US.

[Frank Drackman]

With year round Daylight Savings time he’d take Orifice an hour early, probably the only good thing about DST

[SimonP]

It's really disappointing to see you slide so quickly into tooth-bared fascist rhetoric. It wasn't that long ago that you were presenting yourself as a persuadable voter.

[Commenter_XY]

SimonP, I told you what would happen, repeatedly, for years before this election. Do you remember? I said, "Be careful, the shoe will be on the other foot". You, in particular, blew that off.

This persuadable voter got lost during the pandemic, when our rights were gleefully stripped away by fed bureaucrats and state bureaucrats. That was unforgiveable. Intervening time hasn't changed my assessment, one iota. Personal and legal accountability by those bureaucrats and state officials is a must. Liz put herself on that list.

Are you a defense attorney? If NG isn't available, maybe you can be a Friend of Liz.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If it makes you feel any better, I recognized you as an unprincipled and vindictive fascist bitch a long, long time ago.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason, if you're an attorney, feel free to offer your services to Liz, pro bono.

[SimonP]

Don't try to pull this shit with me. You are the one gleefully rubbing his hands over a "punitive prosecution" of Cheney. For what? For investigating an unprecedented-in-recent-history attack on the Capitol? For illuminating Trump's efforts to overturn his election loss in 2020? That's on you. Not some vague, "oh, the system is too far gone now, look at it careen out of control." This is something you're happy to own. Not as a sad forewarning of things to come. Something that you yourself are advocating should happen, now.

And all of it predicated on some hand-wavey revisionist history over how "the system" came for one man who is clearly guilty of the things he's been accused of doing. You MAGA heads all know it. That's why you're always vague about the historical precedents. You never say, "Well this is exactly like what happened when Biden's DOJ did this..." Because you know there are no parallels. There is no multi-billionaire making threats to primary Democratic members of Congress if they don't vote with Biden. There are no Orwellian-named advocacy organizations suing right-wing media organizations in courts without a valid claim to jurisdiction, in left-wing circuits.

It's no response at all to say, "Well, maybe we're just better at using the judicial system to shut down our political opponents." It's just an admission of guilt.

[Commenter_XY]

SimonP, what concerns you, as a spirited partisan, is the prospect of personal and legal accountability for their actions.

The shoe will shortly be on the other foot, and it will hurt. The level of caterwauling now is quite a spectacle, and Pres Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet (no guarantees he will be, either, b/c there are crazies out there itching to take their shot).

The Courts will sort out if Liz is immune or not. If she is immune, great. Have a great life. If not, well, if I were her, I would starting looking on the internet now for Club Fed locations close to home.

A credible threat of retaliation (and follow through) generally brings people to their collective senses. We're at the follow through stage now.

[SimonP]

I am not a "spirited partisan."

No, what concerns me is that I have seen how autocratic governments with degrading democracies in the rest of the world operate. Look at what's happening in India right now. After consolidating power, Modi is further trying to entrench himself at the local level by "investigating" and "prosecuting" leaders from the opposition party.

For all MAGA's complaining about the criminal investigations of Trump, we have seen nothing like that in the U.S. Until, potentially, now. To see all of you chimps laughing to yourselves over "the libz getting theirs" is deeply troubling. Both because it shows the depth of the ignorance in MAGA, and because it amounts to popular support for autocracy.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What's deeply troubling is how you can't see what happened to Trump, J6'ers, school parents, or Christian public prayers to be exactly what you're saying is so deeply troubling.

You people are finally going to get justice. Righteous justice. People who committed crimes are going to held accountable, God willing.

[SimonP]

School parents? Public prayers? What the hell are you talking about?

There is no disputing that Trump (i) paid hush money to a porn star in order to aid his own election, (ii) coordinated a multi-state effort to submit false electors to Congress, as part of a bid to overturn the 2020 election, and (iii) secreted classified documents out of Washington, without legal authority and to keep for personal use, and then obstructed multiple efforts to retrieve those documents. There is also no disputing that the J6 mob invaded the Capitol building, attacked police officers they encountered there, and came after elected representatives sitting to perform their constitutional responsibilities in selecting the next president of the United States.

That is what happened. You can complain that none of that should have been prosecuted, but let's be clear that what you're saying is that Trump should be exempt from prosecution for his criminality, while his opponents should be investigated for their non-criminality.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Wow, have you not had a single source of news outside of MSNBC or CNN over the past 4 years? wtf

[SimonP]

I do not follow right-wing outrage media, no.

I get my news in print, from established newspapers that abide by journalistic standards. Not algorithm-generated mash designed to drive me insane.

[Voize of Reazon]

secreted classified documents out of Washington, without legal authority

To be fair, the allegations concern him keeping the documents (and trying to hide them, and lying about it), not the original removal that probably happened when he was still President.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Simone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I gather his concern is the prospect of people being subjected to personal and legal consequences for actions that aren’t even arguably illegal (even if they hurt the future president’s feelings). Personally, I remain optimistic that Trump isn’t actually going to try to do that. But if you think he is, why would you act like it’s a good thing?

[SimonP]

Right. I similarly hope that a lot of this is empty posturing that will be forgotten once Trump is in position to do any of this. The Patel pick is not re-assuring, however.

As I've heard said elsewhere - the point of the Patel pick isn't to have an FBI director who does whatever Trump tells him to do. It's to have someone who knows what to do without being told.

I think it would be insane for the Senate to confirm Patel, because every Senator - Republicans included - is potentially within the sights of an "investigation" by the FBI, if they step out of line.

[Brett Bellmore]

The reasoning is pretty clear: Because it's been happening for several years now, and the only way it stops is if payback is a bitch.

You can argue that the Republicans should be too high minded to do as they've been done unto. But that's not a reasonable expectation.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t think asking that criminal prosecutions be pursued only if there’s probable cause requires a particularly unrealistic level of high mindedness. And if Trump and his time can’t meet that standard, that seems like a problem!

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that expecting the actual victim of such a prosecution to be that high minded once the shoe is on the other foot probably IS asking for too much.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It bears repeating, since dipshits like Bellmore keep trying to lie about it, that Trump was not a victim of anything other than his own criminality.

[SimonP]

Goober's a fascist, film at 11.

Why do you even bother, Goobs? You might as well be a bot, at this point. You never say anything thoughtful or surprising.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Noscitur, they're just going to create novel legal theories to pursue justice under. That way it's all by the book.

That's all. Totally above board and beyond reproach.

[Riva]

Whine all you want Simon. Scream helplessly to the sky when Donald Trump takes the oath of office. The democrat corruption will be exposed and there will be accountability, political and criminal. The democrat party has done enough damage to this country, frankly they should have been disbanded after they started the Civil War.

[Zarniwoop]

corruption will be exposed and there will be accountability, political and criminal

I'm sure it will be every bit as effective as "lock her up" was. Full of sound and fury, etc. etc.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"For investigating an unprecedented-in-recent-history attack on the Capitol?"

Simon you can't be serious.

1: How many Congressmen were shot -- as in bullets entering their bodies? Back in the 1950s, Puerto Rician Nationalists shot five from the Ladies Gallery, nearly killing one. They also killed a cop in an attempt to kill President Truman.

2: How many bombs went BANG inside the building? That happened in both the 1960s and 1970s -- no one hurt but the bombs did detonate and do property damage.

3: How many Congressmen were beaten unconscious? That happened to a Rep from Massachusetts in the 1850s.

4: You do know where Flight 11 was headed, don't you?
The Capitol is built out of sandstone, not granite -- that amount of kerosene would have taken the building down.

5: And while it was the White House and not the Capitol, are you familiar with the Inaugural Party of Andrew Jackson?

[apedad]

About 3.

Since you're a Mass. dude (and apparently someone who checks history), then you must recall this event.

The caning of Charles Sumner, or the Brooks–Sumner Affair, occurred on May 22, 1856, in the United States Senate chamber, when Representative Preston Brooks, a pro-slavery Democrat from South Carolina, used a walking cane to attack Senator Charles Sumner, an abolitionist Republican from Massachusetts.

[Kazinski]

I don't favor prosecuting Liz Cheney, but she definitely did not run a good faith investigation, they wanted to paint as bad a picture as possible.

But it failed, and may even have helped Trump, so its water under the bridge.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't favor prosecuting Liz Cheney, but

[Kazinski]

I don't favor prosecuting you either, but I don't think all your arguments are in good faith either.

[Josh R]

What does Cheney have to with COVID? What is she being held accountable for?

[bernard11]

SimonP, I told you what would happen, repeatedly, for years before this election. Do you remember? I said, "Be careful, the shoe will be on the other foot". You, in particular, blew that off.

The issue is not your prediction. It's the fact that you take such glee in vengeful, baseless, persecution.

Unprincipled and vindictive captures it well. Though why you personally need revenge is a mystery. How did the Biden Administration harm you specifically? All the more evidence you're nothing but a toadie, a Trump tuches-lecker.*

*Yiddish for ass-licker.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, take Fetterman's advice. Pace yourself. It will be a long 4 years.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Look at the precious cunt running away from his own lack of morality!

[Dan Schiavetta]

She had nothing to gain by exposing the truth we all saw with our eyes and ears. Brave lady. Flushed her career down the toilet. And now you’re gloating.

[Swede425]

LOL!
She did it because she thought she could get Trump.
She calculated wrongly and lost.
When you go after the king, you get one chance.
Now she'll find out what happens when you don't succeed.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but Donald Trump is not, never has been, and never will be a king.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a common metaphor, not applied only to royalty.

[SimonP]

True, it's also typically applied to mob bosses and (as here) corrupt politicians who have repeatedly promised to seek "retribution" against perceived enemies, no matter how slight the offense.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Cheney's "offense" wasn't slight.
She read the room wrong when she thought she'd lead the charge of the Never Trumpers and transform the Republican party back into a party comfortable with losing.
She played a stupid game and now she's getting the prizes that come with that.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"Tony described him as being irate. The president said something to the effect of, 'I'm the effing president, take me up to the Capitol now' -- to which Bobby responded, 'Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing.' The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, 'Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol,'" Hutchinson said.

"Mr. Trump used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel," she said.

------

Just the truth we all saw with our eyes and ears, says the senile old nursing home ambulance chaser.

[Michael P]

Yea, that was what Hurchison first ratified as a result of Cheney's insurance. As I recall, the people actually in the vehicle said that nothing like that happened, and the layout would not allow Trump to have reached the steering wheel from the back seat.

Between (a) the events happened substantially as related, (b) (Tony) Ornato told Hutchison a tall tale that she related faithfully and (c) Hutchison's new story was fiction due to Cheney's actions, I can tell which is the most credible -- and it's not (a).

[Commenter_XY]

Multimillionaire Liz the Martyr, like a modern day Joan of Arc? C'mon Dan. You can do better than that.

Like I said, the Courts can sort it all out, with her ultra high priced Washington DC attorney at her side. If her actions are immune, wonderful! Have a great life. A lobbyist career awaits.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dan, the Cheney Family does not like Trump.

There was no bravery involved -- once she saw that Daddy couldn't get her the Presidency (as Bush had done for his son), she saw no reason to do as much damage to Trump as she could.

The "Speech and Debate" clause does not protect parents, and I'd love to see Dick Chaney charged as he had to have been involved.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Dan Schiavetta — I do not think Cheney flushed her career down the toilet. I think assholes in her own party tried to do that to her. By the time she stood to assert principle, she already had nothing left to lose in her own party.

To my mind, that detracts not at all from her courage. She knows at least as well as anyone what she is up against. She knows the personal risks she undertakes. I doubt those who expect Cheney to back down and disappear will prove correct.

MAGAs who hate her will come to recognize with regret what they did—how they goaded a talented comrade into a gifted opponent, with energy to endure a long-haul campaign against them, and with talent, capacity, and opportunity to create one of the celebrated biographies in American political history.

I look forward to the final downfall of MAGA. It will be especially satisfying if I get to celebrate that event on the Mall, during the inauguration of President Lynne Cheney.

Look for a big old left-winger, with the carcass, scars, and temperament like those of a long-retired pro football linebacker, drinking champagne toasts to President Cheney.

Not too old, I hope. Get going Liz!

[Don Nico]

"flushed her career down the toilet"

Stephen, I claim that Cheney's work in the House was not what did that– campaigning for Harris did. And getting Daddy Darth Cheney to endorse Harris did even more so.

Cheney has too many views anathema to the progressive wing ever to get a D candidacy for any office higher than dog catcher. An traitorous endorsement preclude an R nomination even for dog-catcher.
But don't worry about her; Daddy Darth has many, many friends in the military industrial complex.

[Bored Lawyer]

"Never mind that prosecution of Ms. Cheney is barred by the Speech or Debate Clause of Article I, § 6, cl. 1 of the Constitution."

That clause does not give blanket absolute immunity for everything a member of Congress does. It immunizes "Speech or Debate."

The charge I have seen is witness tampering. Count me dubious. But I don't think that the Clause is a defense to that charge.

[not guilty]

What do you claim constituted witness tampering? Have you actually parsed 18 U.S.C. § 1512?

[Bored Lawyer]

Did you see where I wrote "count me dubious?"

I am not making that charge. And actually, all that has been called for is an investigation.

[SimonP]

Right, this is the classic complicity dodge. Take the preposterous claim, repackage it as something more reasonable. "I'm not saying you should say Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt dealings in Ukraine. I'm saying you should say that you're investigating whether he did."

Did Cheney engage in witness tampering? For BL, that's beside the point. Is an investigation into the question worth exploring? Should she have to lawyer up? Well, what's the problem with asking questions, hm?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hunter Biden getting paid $80k by Burisma is totally normal guys!
Just like his art selling to secret buyers for $500k when Biden became president!

How preposterous of you to even suggest that Hunter isn't a real finance expert turned artist!

HE IS A DEMOCRAT ELITE, THEY ARE PERFECT.

[David Nieporent]

Hunter Biden getting paid $80k by Burisma is totally normal guys!

Do you think that many members of corporate boards serve without compensation?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I think members of corporate boards become members of corporate boards because they bring something to table.

What does Hunter Biden bring to the table of Burisma?

[David Nieporent]

1) You know that he is an actual experienced corporate lawyer with a degree from Yale Law, right?

2) The minor cachet of having the name "Biden." This was a company with a bad reputation; they were trying to clean that up and appear more respectable. (And yes, I know you'll sneer at that, but most of Hunter Biden's foibles weren't public at the time.) At the same time they added Biden, they added the former president of Poland. It wasn't for any personal qualities of the guy; it was just so they could say that a guy like that was on their board.

Companies often have slots on their boards for 'names.' Nikki Haley on the board of Boeing. Al Gore on the board of Apple. (Now, you can say that Haley and Gore are bigger names than Hunter Biden, which is true — but Boeing and Apple are also bigger names than Burisma.)

[Mr. Bumble]

"1) You know that he is an actual experienced corporate lawyer with a degree from Yale Law, right?"
Really? Who were his clients?

[not guilty]

Hunter Biden was with Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, whose list of clients is pretty impressive.

[Mr. Bumble]

Was that before or after being on the board of Amtrack or Burisma.
Do you know what he did there except to collect a pay check?

[not guilty]

He was with Boies Schiller when he was appointed to the board of Burisma. I don't think he was when President Bush II appointed him to the Amtrack board.

[Riva]

NG, just read the damn press release from the Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee and you’re also welcome to read the report if you need more details on Cheney’s collusion and witness tampering, as well as the corrupt, unconstitutional antics of the J6 committee. Facts seem to bother you. Tough shit.

[not guilty]

I have read the House subcommittee's report. Have you?

And press releases are generally of no value.

[Riva]

Like I said facts, don’t seem to matter to you. Again, toughest shitest.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NG, as a purported attorney, you MUST know that the real dirt will come out when she is subpoenaed and questioned by a House committee -- and lying under oath as a former Congressman is not protected...

[Riva]

And you read the 128 page report? Sorry calling BS. You actually didn't read it. And, if you had you wouldn't be confused about Cheney's witness tampering.

[not guilty]

Yes, I did read the 128 page report. Did you? (You conspicuously declined to answer when I asked that earlier.)

Nothing in the report amounts to witness tampering by Rep. Cheney. Have you read the relevant federal statute? What specific provision(s) thereof do you claim that Rep. Cheney violated, and based on what facts?

Cassidy Hutchinson was initially represented by conflicted counsel, selected and paid by MAGA world. Ms. Hutchinson has since accused that attorney of encouraging her to commit perjury and thereafter fail to correct her false testimony. Rep. Cheney and Alyssa Farah Griffin assisted her in securing conflict free legal counsel.

[Ed Grinberg]

Indeed. Compare:
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18419487
I remember reading the opinion in that case. It said something like: "While defendant presumably said something to The New York Times when he gave them the (illegally-obtained) recording, and while this act certainly says something about defendant, it is preposterous to claim that holding him criminally liable under (the wiretapping statute) violates his First Amendment rights."

[Moderation4ever]

If Republicans go after Liz Cheney they will give her the forum to rehash all the evidence against Trump, and there was plenty. What is more is that all the people who refused to testify in Congress will not have the luxury of doing that in a court of law. Liz Cheney will be the next Margaret Chase Smith.

[ducksalad]

Yup. An actual criminal prosecution, if any, would get dropped before anybody important actually has to testify under oath.

The more likely tactic is simply to get the words "Liz Cheney" and "criminal charges" into as many headlines as possible so that the casual browser of the news has a vague, hazy idea that maybe she was convicted of something.

And yeah, Democrats did it too. Which would give a decent person pause before doing it themselves, but seems to have the opposite effect on some Republicans.

[Bob from Ohio]

"they will give her the forum to rehash all the evidence against Trump"

Oh noes. A forum.

You know he just got elected again.

[Moderation4ever]

He did and most likely his popularity will peak before he takes office. It is downhill from there.

[Zarniwoop]

Trump does seem well on his way to completely owning a Christmas gov't shutdown right before assuming office...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Owning it? How can Trump do that while he is busy morphing into Musk's Chief of Staff?

[Bob from Ohio]

"most likely his popularity will peak before he takes office"

Likely but it will have nothing to do with any "forum" given to Liz.

[Michael P]

Demand for racism in the US continues to far exceed the actual supply.

https://wreg.com/news/local/rhodes-college-says-racist-graffiti-found-on-campus-was-fabricated/

[Frank Drackman]

Like Brenda Spencer, the Madison murderer obviously didn’t like Mondays, we should ban them, go straight from Sunday to Tuesday

Frank

[CountmontyC]

I am for going to yesterday, today and tomorrow. That way if there is something I don't want to do I can just say I will do it tomorrow (and remember that tomorrow is always a day away)

[Moderation4ever]

What I would like to know is why a 15-year had two, not one, but two handguns.

[Z Crazy]

Why do mass shooters in America have more civil rights than their victims?

I mean, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction and DEATH SENTENCE of a mass shooter because the prosecutor violated his "civil rights".

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-9572_k536.pdf

That's outrageous!

[SRG2]

5 year old case, and while the consequence was the protection of Flowers' civil rights, the important principle was that a prosecutor should not engage in civil rights violations and shouldn't get away with it when he does. Reserve your ire for the prosecutor.

Further, when you exclude the undisclosed exculpatory evidence, and the testimony of witnesses who subsequently recanted, it's hard to be sure Flowers was guilty in the first place.

But I guess you're convinced he was nonetheless guilty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Flowers

[SRG2]

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/curtis-flowers-exonerated-in-mississippi-after-attorney-general-drops-all-charges

In a three-page motion filed September 4, Fitch asked that the charges against Flowers be dis­missed. ​“As the evi­dence stands today,” she wrote, ​“there is no key pros­e­cu­tion wit­ness that incrim­i­nates Mr. Flowers who is alive and avail­able and has not had mul­ti­ple, con­flict­ing state­ments in the record.” Fitch not­ed that ​“the only wit­ness who offered direct evi­dence of guilt recant­ed his pri­or tes­ti­mo­ny, admit­ting that he was lying when he said Mr. Flowers made a jail­house con­fes­sion to the mur­ders.” In addi­tion, the motion point­ed out that ​“anoth­er wit­ness who tes­ti­fied against Mr. Flowers … was lat­er con­vict­ed of mul­ti­ple counts of fed­er­al income tax fraud,” oth­er evi­dence point­ed to ​“alter­na­tive sus­pects with vio­lent crim­i­nal his­to­ries,” and still oth­er ​“pos­si­ble excul­pa­to­ry evi­dence” exist­ed that had not pre­vi­ous­ly been presented.

[apedad]

Mass shooters in America do not have more civil rights than their victims.

So why are you asking?

[Frank Drackman]

Just more than unborn Mass shooters

[not guilty]

Justice Juan Merchan has denied Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the New York indictment and vacate the jury verdict based on Trump's claim of presidential immunity. https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFs/press/PDFs/CPL330.30Dec.pdf

The judge's order is spot on. He methodically analyzed what objections to testimony were properly preserved by the defense, determined that none of the evidence at issue related to official acts for which Trump is immune (finding that most of the evidence related to unofficial acts that Trump undertook in his personal capacity and as to any acts that were official in nature, the prosecution had rebutted any presumption of immunity), and determined that, if and to the extent that any evidence was erroneously admitted, any such error was harmless.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

For the next 4 years, the President better behave!

Or Alvin Briggs and Judge Merchan will twist the screws in 4 years!

[Z Crazy]

How is paying off some 'ho a crime?

[David Nieporent]

Paying a 'ho' would in fact be the crime of solicitation of prostitution. But that is not what he was charged with, prosecuted for, or convicted of.

[Krayt]

Paying off (to shut up) is not paying for services rendered.

[not guilty]

As Charlie Sheen is reported to have said, you don't pay a sex worker for the sex; you pay her to go away afterward.

[Commenter_XY]

It will all go to the NY Court of Appeals, NG. That was pre-ordained when the judge basically laid out a chinese menu of NY statutes and basically said, "Pick any one of these three, and it is A-Ok by me". And so they (NYC Manhattan jury) did. I am not sure that one is gonna fly with the Court of Appeals. We'll see.

There have been reports of juror misconduct (and submitted to the Court). Personally, it feels 'kitchen sinky'. Meaning, throw everything in there hope it comes out clean. Then again, you just never know....it is NYC...and stranger things have happened.

[not guilty]

It will go first to the Supreme Court Appellate Division (New York's intermediate appellate court). Whether the New York Court of Appeals grants review is discretionary.

You have mischaracterized the jury instructions, which are here: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf The charged offense, on which the trial court instructed in full, was Penal Law § 175.10, falsifying business records in the first degree.

The actus reus under the statute is making or causing a false entry to be made in the business records of an enterprise. The mens rea is acting with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. The judge defined the operative terms of the statute and how to determine whether a defendant had the intent required for the commission of that crime.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, this case will go to the NY Court of Appeals. I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of that Court failing to take up the case, and having a say in the final result (in NY state court) in the matter of Pres Trump.

Doesn't a defendant have to exhaust a state courts appeals process before going to Federal court. And this case will absolutely get to a Federal district court. Why? Pres Trump has the financial resources to make that happen. Do you think he cares about the money? Nope.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You are probably right that Trump’s team will submit some filings in a U.S. district court (and indeed, I believe they’ve already done so). The prospect of a district judge taking any action, on the other hand, is pretty much zero: if Trump is going to obtain any relief, that will have happened long before the point where a federal district court would be empowered to take any action.

[Riva]

I would expect nothing from the DC district at any level, but if you really think the S.Ct. will ultimately allow the corrupt, conflicted creep Merchan and fat slob Bragg with his (ex?) DOJ clown Colangelo to hold this case over the sitting president's head like the sword of Damocles, you better stop at the gas station and let the air out of your head.

[Commenter_XY]

The NY Court of Appeals, correct Nas? = ...if Trump is going to obtain any relief, that will have happened long before the point where a federal district court would be empowered to take any action

[Noscitur a sociis]

Or the Supreme Court on direct appeal. If a conviction is affirmed, he would need to exhaust his state post conviction remedies before a federal court could consider his claims.

[not guilty]

"Or the Supreme Court on direct appeal. If a conviction is affirmed, he would need to exhaust his state post conviction remedies before a federal court could consider his claims."

Seeking federal habeas corpus relief would not first require a separate state post-conviction proceeding, but the available issues would be limited to the federal law claims that were exhausted during the direct appeal.

I have had two defendants whom I represented at trial in murder cases in state court, who went directly to federal court seeking habeas corpus relief. The issue most often litigated in state post-conviction proceedings is whether defense counsel at trial rendered ineffective assistance. These two defendants were fully satisfied with the representation that my co-counsel and I provided (except of course for the result), and each one decided that litigating a post-conviction proceeding in state court would be nothing but a waste of time.

[not guilty]

This case will absolutely not get to a federal district court, unless and until Donald Trump is taken into custody and petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (which would be a separate, civil suit). As Judge Alvin Hellerstein observed:

"The jurisdiction possessed by the [United States] District Courts is strictly original." Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). District courts may not reverse or modify state judgments, even those containing constitutional infirmities, because "[t]o do so would be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction." Id. at 415-16, see also Hoblock v. Albany County Board of EIections, 422 F.3d 77, 84 (2d Cir. 2005) (discussing how federal courts generally lack jurisdiction over suits that are, in essence, appeals from state court judgments). Instead, the proper recourse for parties seeking to remedy alleged errors made during a state trial is to pursue a state appeal or, at the highest level, to seek review from the Supreme Court of the United States. Id.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.c95c060a-7c1c-465e-ad55-c66a4c162941/gov.uscourts.ca2.c95c060a-7c1c-465e-ad55-c66a4c162941.2.0.pdf

[Josh R]

Again, Merchan laid out one statute, falsifying business records in the first degree which n turn relied on one predicate crime conspiracy to promote or prevent an election by unlawful means. Those findings required juror unanimty. The "unlawful means" could have been any one of three crimes and di not require unanimity.

In Schad v. Arizona, the plurality recognized a

rule that the jury need not agree as to mere means of satisfying the actus reus element of an offense.

[Commenter_XY]

That is the part I think the Court of Appeals will zero in upon, Josh R = The "unlawful means" could have been any one of three crimes and di not require unanimity. -- It was a chinese menu.

[Josh R]

If they follow Schad, they will conclude the menu is permissible.

[Commenter_XY]

Why would the NY Court of Appeals use an AZ Supreme Court ruling (which was a plurality, not a majority) as some kind of precedent to follow? The laws of AZ differ from NY.

No, I don't think the 'chinese menu' approach will pass muster with NY Ct of Appeals. Nor should it. It is an engraved invitation to legal abuse.

[Josh R]

Schad is a SCOTUS decision.

As detailed in this article written prior to jury instructions, the controversy was whether there had to be unanimity on the object crime attached to 175.10. That is, could the jury not be unaninmous in which crime Trump was attempting to conceal. Much of the article deals with the caselaw under those circumstances, including Schad, and concluded it's probably OK for the jury not be unanimous but the outcome is in doubt.

However as the article noted:

prosecutors may be seeking to avoid this problem by focusing on one particular object offense—Trump’s alleged intent to violate New York Election Law § 17-152, which criminalizes “promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. [...] that will leave a lot less room for ambiguity when it comes to the verdict”

Bragg did just that. And the article endorses the conclusion that a single object crime unanimously agreed upon, with non-unanaimity in how the crime object crime was committed (unlawful means) passes muster.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R...Mathew Colangelo did a great job for NYC prosecutor, after leaving the #3 position in the DOJ to join the DAs office. Like I said, I think the Ct of Appeals zeroes in on the chinese menu approach. We will see.

[not guilty]

"Why would the NY Court of Appeals use an AZ Supreme Court ruling (which was a plurality, not a majority) as some kind of precedent to follow? The laws of AZ differ from NY."

The jury instruction upheld by SCOTUS against a due process challenge in Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991), stated:

"'In Arizona, first degree murder is only one crime regardless whether it occurs as a premeditated murder or a felony murder. Although a defendant is entitled to a unanimous jury verdict on whether the criminal act charged has been committed, the defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the act was committed.'"

Id., at 629. Justice Scalia, concurring in judgment, wrote, "As the plurality observes, it has long been the general rule that, when a single crime can be committed in various ways, jurors need not agree upon the mode of commission." Id., at 649.

Justice Souter. writing for the four justice plurality, observed that, as to cases where an indictment charged that the accused committed a single offense by more than one means:

We have never suggested that, in returning general verdicts in such cases, the jurors should be required to agree upon a single means of commission, any more than the indictments were required to specify one alone. In these cases, as in litigation generally, different jurors may be persuaded by different pieces of evidence, even when they agree upon the bottom line. Plainly there is no general requirement that the jury reach agreement on the preliminary factual issues which underlie the verdict.

Id., at 631-632. He added, "We see no reason, however, why the rule that the jury need not agree as to mere means of satisfying the actus reus element of an offense should not apply equally to alternative means of satisfying the element of mens rea." Id., at 632.

The Court of Appeals of New York has approved the applicability of the Schad plurality to New York law in People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 408 (N.Y. 2004), cert. denied 542 U.S. 946 ("Plainly there is no general requirement that the jury reach agreement on the preliminary factual issues which underlie the verdict"; "[w]e have never suggested that in returning general verdicts . . . the jurors should be required to agree upon a single means of commission, any more than the indictments were required to specify one alone.") The Court in Mateo noted:

Schad itself cited People v. Sullivan (173 NY 122 [1903]) as the leading case for the proposition that the jury need not necessarily concur in a single view of the transaction, in order to reach a verdict (501 US at 641). There, a single crime was charged in the indictment, first degree murder, under then-existing Penal Code § 183. As the Court explained, "[i]f the conclusion may be justified upon either of two interpretations of the evidence, the verdict cannot be impeached by showing that a part of the jury proceeded upon one interpretation and part upon the other" (173 NY at 127, quoting Murray v. New York Life Ins. Co., 96 NY 614, 622 [1884]).

2 N.Y.3d at 408, n.13.

The kvetching of Trump supporters about the New York jury verdict calls to mind the words of a famous New Yorker, Governor Al Smith: no matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

[Commenter_XY]

NG...is a plurality precedential? And is Schad directly on point?

If the answers are 'No' and 'Yes'...then there is no precedent, is there?

Thx for the explainer. This stuff is fascinating.

[Josh R]

1) As NG noted, Scalia's concurrence endorses the view "As the plurality observes, it has long been the general rule that, when a single crime can be committed in various ways, jurors need not agree upon the mode of commission." Where Scalia departed from the plurality is how to determine in any specific case whether we have a single crime with multiple means (no unanimity needed on the means) or separate crimes (unanimity required on each crime). Scalia said historical practice for the specific case is determinant. The plurality applied a multi-factor test (one factor being historical practice) which by default defers to the state's claim that unanimity is not required. Under the Marks rule, Scalia's concurrence is precedential.

2) In Mateo, the lower NY court applied the multi-factor Schad test. In particular, the court accepted the Schad plurality's moral equivalence test: if two means for committing a crime could reasonably be viewed as morally equivalent, then unanimity is not required. So, it appears in NY, the Schad plurality is precedential.

3) Schad is not on all fours because that case involved first-degree murder. Nonetheless, it is most likely that conspiracy to promote or prevent an election by violating a) tax law, b) FECA or c) falsification of other business records by Michael Cohen can reasonably be viewed as morally equivalent.

[David Nieporent]

There have been reports of juror misconduct (and submitted to the Court).

Not really, no. Trump's lawyer submitted a letter claiming a juror had disclosed misconduct to him. But he attached the email chain with this person, in which the person said (paraphrased), "No, I'm not signing this affidavit you prepared for me because it isn't right," and did not attach anything sworn by the juror.

[Life of Brian]

Trump's lawyer submitted a letter claiming a juror had disclosed misconduct to him. But he attached the email chain with this person

Weird -- all I see is a heavily redacted letter with no apparent attachments. Have a link to whatever you're referring to?

[not guilty]

Justice Merchan order the filing of the December 3, 2024 letter from Trump's counsel with redactions proposed by the parties. plus some addition redactions by the Court. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/merchan-letter-counsel-hush-money-jury-misconduct.pdf He indicated that if Trump makes a properly supported motion, he may revisit the redactions:

Turning to the substance of Defendant's letter of December 3,2024, Defendant states that he "could file a motion to vacate the verdicts pursuant to CPL § 330.30(2)(a)," but will not.(emphasis added). Further, he argues that while this Court must take into consideration his allegations for purposes of his Clayton Motion, the Court must not, and is not authorized to, pursue any claims contained therein. Indeed, counsel opposes a hearing to explore his claims.

The CPL provides a mechanism whereby a defendant may move to set aside a verdict on the grounds of juror misconduct. Thus, Defendant has an avenue for this Court to consider his claim, should it be properly brought. CPL § 330.30(2)(a). Such a motion "must contain sworn allegations[.]" CPL § 330.40(2)(a). A court may then decide the motion on written submissions. If it does not, the court "must conduct a hearing and make findings of fact essential to the determination thereof." CPL § 330.40(2)(f). Allegations of jutor misconduct should be thoroughly investigated. However, this Court is prohibited from deciding such claims on the basis of mere hearsay and conjecture.

In addition to the redactions made by each party, this Court has made additional redactions to Defendant's December 3, 2024 Letter consistent with those proposed by Defendant. After reviewing the redacted documents for their accuracy, which are being provided to the parties under separate cover, the parties are directed to file the respective letters on the public docket. Unless and until a properly filed claim under CPL S 330.30(2)(a) is submitted, this Court cannot allow the public filing of unsworn, and admittedly contested statements. To do so would threaten the safety of the jurors and violate the agreed upon Order Regulating Disclosure of Juror Information. Should a properly filed claim be submitted, these redactions will be revisited.

It appears that the ball is now in Trump's court. I will be surprised if he files a properly supported motion.

[Life of Brian]

I saw all that, thanks, but don't see how that has the slightest bearing on my question to David about where he supposedly came across a copy of the letter less redacted than the one currently available to the public. I take it you have no insight on that.

[not guilty]

You are correct. I do not.

I would also point out to other commenters that I have just admitted to not knowing something, and Lawd Almighty! My keyboard didn't break!!

[David Nieporent]

I did not claim to have a copy of a letter less redacted than the one currently available to the public. I did say there were attachments, which would not be refuted by saying that the letter was redacted.

However, I was saying it from memory, and what I was actually remembering was the DA's response to Trump's lawyers' filing, which discusses those emails:

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFs/press/PDFs/Letter2.pdf

[not guilty]

Thank you for that link, David.

The litigation tactics of Todd Blanche (whom Donald Trump plans to nominate as Deputy Attorney General) are reprehensible. As the prosecution cogently observes, "Had defendant provided the sworn allegations required to make a proper motion pursuant to CPL § 330, a hearing at which [redacted] allegations could be fully explored in a public forum might indeed be warranted. What he seeks instead is to inject his unsworn, untested, and at least partially inaccurate allegations into the public domain while simultaneously opposing any endeavor to properly evaluate them."

[David Nieporent]

while simultaneously opposing any endeavor to properly evaluate them."

Yeah, that's the part that is so Trumpian. Blanche submits a letter with no supporting evidence saying that there was juror misconduct and then demands that the court not hold a hearing on that allegation.

[Life of Brian]

and then demands that the court not hold a hearing on that allegation.

Are you speaking from memory again, or did you misspell "explained in detail to the court why a CPL § 330 hearing would be procedurally improper and prejudicial given the posture of the case and various points on appeal, and suggested an alternative context in which the evidence could be considered"?

[David Nieporent]

Neither. I think "argued that a hearing would be improper" and "demanded that the court not hold a hearing" are pretty much the same thing.

[Life of Brian]

Maybe I'm just too hung up on traditional English where words actually mean things, but I'd never remotely consider saying someone "demanded that the court not hold a hearing" when they actually just opted not to file a motion.

[Life of Brian]

Reading not too terribly far between the lines, it sounds like the juror got cold feet when they got a better sense of what following through with their concerns would actually entail. Really unfortunate, but it happens.

Had you been in that sort of situation I highly doubt you would have just dropped the entire issue and said nothing, and it's not clear why you're faulting Blanche for trying to do as much as he could with it under the circumstances.

[David Nieporent]

Blanche could have called a press conference and discussed the situation. But instead he chose to file something with the court that was improper and prejudicial and without evidentiary support.

[Life of Brian]

Blanche could have called a press conference and discussed the situation.

Wow, Nathan Poe sure did nail it. I can only imagine the howling at the time if he had run off to the press instead of taking the matter to the court....

[Life of Brian]

Huh. Why am I not surprised that you uncritically regurgitated an adverse party's characterization of the letter as though it were its actual content?

In the blazing red flag department, it's exceptionally curious that the DA's characterization of the letter is largely unredacted, unlike the actual content it supposedly describes. Given that the DA was the one raising a yuuuuge stink about privacy concerns and pushing for even more redactions than Trump had proposed (or even just keeping the letters sealed altogether), this spears-from-the-fog technique reeks of gamesmanship and certainly raises skepticism about its accuracy.

[David Nieporent]

It's the substance of the (purported) allegations that are redacted in Blanche's letter. Since the DA's letter does not discuss that substance, there was no need to redact, other than things about the identity of the juror, which both sides agreed should be redacted.

[Life of Brian]

It's the substance of the (purported) allegations that are redacted in Blanche's letter.

This is simply incorrect. The DA's letter purports to characterize and in one case directly quote material from the redacted part of Blanche's letter. If that characterized material and quoted words could remain unredacted in the DA's letter, those parts also could have remained unredacted in Blanche's letter.

[Riva]

Democrats never know when to stop. Good. If they want to dig their lawfare hole deeper, they’re welcome to do so.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If I were Trump, I would hold the two new train tunnels under the Hudson River hostage -- New York desperately needs those. The existing 115(?) year old ones were damaged when flooded with salt water during Superstorm Sandy and are on borrowed time.

If just one fails, it will seriously screw up commuting from New Jersey and likely be the final straw for a lot of NYC businesses moving to Jersey, where taxes are less and space cheaper.

And if NY doesn't get the hint, he could always declare where the new tunnels were to come above ground to be a National Monument (Obama did) and prevent them from EVER being built....

[SRG2]

Very banana Republican...

[Riva]

No, that would be the lawfare. President Trump has the same discretion under the law as the One and his exercise of that discretion does not create a banana republic. If you're looking for budding police states and banana republics, look at your formerly precious stone set in the silver sea across the pond.

[SRG2]

his exercise of that discretion does not create a banana republic.

How he exercises that discretion is what would make for a banana (R)epublic.

[Riva]

A president acting within his constitutional discretion makes this a functioning constitutional republic. That you don't like the way he chooses to exercise his office doesn't make the country a banana republic, it just means you don't support his policies.

Be more concerned about your homeland, I think that song was lying, there won't always be an England, it's going or already gone. Maybe you should have thought of a written constitution too?

[SRG2]

More fuckwittery. A banana republic doesn't necessarily operate outside the law - often enough it's about how the law is used.

And now that Trump has immunity, we find that core executive actions are beyond the reach of the law anyway, which is so obviously banana Republican even you should be able to see it.

[Riva]

Banana republics make up their own law and process, as democrats tried with their lawfare. We live in a constitutional republic, where laws are duly enacted and enforced via legal constitutional processes. If you don't like it, then win an election and re-empower democrat turds to make policy.

And I think you mean presidential immunity is obviously constitutional. Separation of powers doctrine and the executive vesting clause, plus 200 plus years of precedent, history and tradition support it. Look some of it up, you might learn something.

[SRG2]

And that's not what makes a banana republic. Immunising a head of state or head of the executive, however, assuredly is one sign of a banana republic, even if the laws are in place that permit it.

There is no prior doctrine that gives immunity to presidents as you claim - and as noted, Ford wouldn't have needed to give Nixon a blanket pardon.

And the separation of powers doctrine has never been used to argue that therefore the head of the executive can't be prosecuted by the executive. FWIW if there truly were full separation of powers, impeachment wouldn't be a thing either. nor would the president need the Senate's advice and consent.

I note you're compelled to rely on judge-made doctrine, not the Constitution itself.

But by all means keep lying.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not that separation of powers means that the executive branch can't prosecute the Executive. Rather, it's that separation of powers means that the legislature can't make it a crime for the Executive to exercise the powers of his office. So there can't be a valid law providing the executive branch with a basis for prosecuting the Executive for said exercises.

This is hardly the same sort of immunity from normal law that Congress gets a limited measure of. If the President mugs somebody, or breaks into a house, or what have you, he's got no more immunity than anybody else.

But if he issues a pardon, for instance, that can't be construed to be a crime.

[Sarcastr0]

The rationale was not about exercising article II, but a parade of horribles regarding potential Congressional interference with Presidentin' via mere investigatory shenanigans.

The scope is therefore larger, and with more gradations, than your bright-line take. Which would have been fine, but probably not protected Trump in the case before the Court.

Your take on the legal lay of the land also doesn't comport with the aura of evidentiary exclusion.

The immunity is a lot larger, more convoluted, less obvious, than your take.

[David Nieporent]

It's not that separation of powers means that the executive branch can't prosecute the Executive. Rather, it's that separation of powers means that the legislature can't make it a crime for the Executive to exercise the powers of his office. So there can't be a valid law providing the executive branch with a basis for prosecuting the Executive for said exercises.

There are several problems with that.

First, that's not describing an immunity; that's just saying that the law, or that particular application of it, is unconstitutional.

And second, SCOTUS did not limit its holding to "exercising the powers of his office." If it had said that Congress can't criminalize issuing pardons, because the constitution expressly says that presidents can issue pardons, that would be one thing. But it said that Congress couldn't criminalize anything the president did, even though the vast majority of things the president does are things for which his authority derives from congressional acts in the first place. There's just no obvious reason why a neutral law of general applicability — as opposed to a law specifically targeting a constitutional presidential power — shouldn't be enforceable against a president. Congress can make homicide illegal (in places where it exercises jurisdiction). The president has neither constitutional nor statutory authority to tell the FBI to kill someone, so there's no reason why him doing so should be immune.

Let's face it, there's no constitutional basis for such a law; it's just a policy argument that they don't think presidents should be deterred from acting illegally.

[SRG2]

David: but you forget - Brett is required to defend Trump and so must deploy any argument that comes into his head for that end, regardless of its ineffectiveness.

[Riva]

"And second, SCOTUS did not limit its holding to 'exercising the powers of his office.' "? WHAT? WTF, did you even read the decision Davey? What do you think they meant by core constitutional powers and official duties?

[Brett Bellmore]

"What do you think they meant by core constitutional powers and official duties?"

He's pretty determined to follow the party line, even if it's objectively wrong. And tactically, that's not totally foolish.

If they lie about the Court's holding (Or really anything else.) consistently enough, they can manufacture around them an alternate universe where it's not a lie, and if they can make that alternate universe a big enough bubble in the real one, they win.

So they never stop lying, that might let the air out of the bubble, rather than inflating it.

And they've got a big long term advantage here, in that History faculty are about the most uniformly left wing academic discipline, baring perhaps the various 'studies'. So they know that history will record that they were right, regardless, and only people who go back to original sources will see that it's a lie.

And they can have some hope that search engine bias, and the replacement of actual search with AI summaries, will render those original sources practically inaccessible.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett just asserting that SRG2, me, and DMN all liars. Riva, though? That guy gets it.

With Brett, his last line when being blown out of the water is a telepathic finding of bad faith.

And he didn't stop there, he added some grand conspiracy of AI and History teachers because I guess this one really stung.

Dunno where he gets his facts, if he trusts no institutions.

[Riva]

And just so you know, you f’ing dunderheads, separation of powers concerns do not only Implicate the executive and congress, there is a judicial branch. The judiciary can’t examine executive actions when that would interfere with core executive functions. I’m tired of explaining this to you morons.

[David Nieporent]

And if NY doesn't get the hint, he could always declare where the new tunnels were to come above ground to be a National Monument (Obama did)

Editor's note: Obama did not, in fact, do any such thing. Maybe Dr. Ed is confused because Obama did designate a national monument for the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad?

[BrotherMovesOn]

LOL

[Riva]

His obvious point is that a president has tremendous discretion and that the exercise of that discretion could inure to the benefit or detriment of a state. The obvious inference to draw from your comment, crazy Dave, is that you are simply a piece of shit troll.

[Sarcastr0]

obvious point
obvious inference

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Riva]

And you just parrot something I've written here. You don't even have the wit to come up with an original response. Pathetic clownish adult children who throw tantrums because they have to deal with opposing viewpoints, probably for the first time in their lives.

[Bored Lawyer]

IMO, Trump should insist that Merchan should sentence him, so he can appeal the whole shebang. Merchan made many mistakes, not all of which relate to the Presidential Immunity. The Appellate Division has been skeptical of many of these anti-Trump efforts, the sooner it gets there, the better.

[Dr. Ed 2]

IMHO, Trump should simply have the US Army throw Merchan into prison. That *is* what Lincoln did in Maryland with some degree of frequency, Roger Taney wrote in his diary that he (Taney) expected Lincoln to have him thrown into jail as well.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Lincoln did not, of course, do “that” (direct the military to arrest a judge presiding over his criminal case) with any degree of frequency, in Maryland or elsewhere. In fact, what many people forget is that Lincoln was not charged with any crimes at all!

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, Lincoln DID have PEOPLE thrown in jail by the military with some frequency, such as Merryman himself. So Taney was not unreasonable in expecting to be jailed over his ruling.

You're right that they were generally not judges. Mostly opposition politicians and newspaper editors.

Executive Order—Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors

But, yeah, technically not judges.

[Ed Grinberg]

The following is a description of an incident in Maryland during the Civil War (source):
Worse than indignity was the treatment of Judge Richard Bennett Carmichael. Federal troops surrounded the Easton courthouse and beat him unconscious with a pistol in his own courtroom in May of 1862. They dragged him out and locked him up in Fort McHenry for six months on “suspicion of southern sympathies.” He had courageously supported the writ of habeas corpus against Lincoln’s orders.

[Sarcastr0]

Fucking VDARE.

From a link from those white supremecists to the Maryland archives:
https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc3500/sc3520/001900/001934/html/1934extbio.html
"In February 1861, he served as chair of the Resolutions Committee of the Southern Rights Convention held in Baltimore. Under his leadership, the delegates unanimously adopted resolutions recommending that "if a disruption could not be avoided, Maryland should cast her lot with Virginia and the South."

In late May 1862, Secretary of State William H. Seward ordered General John A. Dix, in Baltimore, to send federal troops to Easton to arrest Carmichael for his refusal to uphold the federal suspension of habeas corpus. When Dix's men arrived at the Talbot County Courthouse in Easton, Carmichael refused to recognize their authority. The agents pistol-whipped him and forcibly dragged him from the bench in the middle of court proceedings, stirring indignation throughout the Eastern Shore and the South"

Suspicion of southern sympathies indeed.

[Brett Bellmore]

The point isn't that the suspicions were ungrounded, the point is that he did have people thrown in jail.

Including, despite Noscitur a sociis' denials, judges.

[Sarcastr0]

Which is off topic from what Noscitur said.

But you can't resist hating on Lincoln.

For some reason.

[Brett Bellmore]

What he said was,

"Lincoln did not, of course, do “that” (direct the military to arrest a judge presiding over his criminal case) with any degree of frequency, in Maryland or elsewhere. In fact, what many people forget is that Lincoln was not charged with any crimes at all!"

His denial was rather revealingly specific: "over his"; Of course, Lincoln had directed the military to arrest an awful lot of people, generally his political enemies, or judges who ruled against him. Without trial, though the courts were usually operating in the places where he did it. (Trivially so, in the case of judges he had jailed!) But, yes, nobody having charged Lincoln with a crime, he never had the opportunity to direct the military to arrest a judge presiding over HIS criminal case.

Given the opportunity, the evidence is that he'd have done so in a heartbeat, because he certainly didn't hesitate to jail people for lesser reasons, such as newspaper editorials he didn't like.

Note, I'm not approving of Dr. Ed's suggestion. Just because Lincoln was a tyrant who jailed his political enemies and judges who ruled against him, doesn't mean Trump should be equally tyrannical.

"For some reason."

Are you suggesting, "He had newspaper editors jailed for writing editorials he disliked, and judges jailed for ruling against him." is NOT a reason to hate on a President?

[Absaroka]

"Of course, Lincoln had directed the military to arrest an awful lot of people, generally his political enemies, or judges who ruled against him."

Which judges did he arrest? My googling only found reference to Taney, and that seems iffy:

"McGinty, like all of Lincoln's major biographers, concludes there never was any arrest warrant."

FWIW, I also found this fascinating discussion which says there were a lot more arrests than I imagined, and discusses why they weren't viewed as controversial at the time.

[Brett Bellmore]

As mentioned above, Richard Bennett Carmichael.

I expect part of why they weren't treated as controversial at the time because doing so risked arrest...

[Absaroka]

"As mentioned above, Richard Bennett Carmichael"

Whoops, missed that, thanks! Interesting that Mr. C was both a judge and member of the legislature at the same time, according to the bio there.

"I expect part of why they weren't treated as controversial at the time because doing so risked arrest..."

Perhaps, but that seems less likely than the reasons discussed in the discussion I linked. People tend to be more pragmatic than principled when there is a war going on. I don't recall many protests against the Japanese internment (other than by the people interred), and I don't think people disagreeing with that would have been arrested.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I don't recall many protests against the Japanese internment"

Same reasoning; Unless you're directly involved, it's pretty darned risky to protest your own government throwing people in prison without a trial; You risk joining them.

[Absaroka]

"Same reasoning; Unless you're directly involved, it's pretty darned risky to protest your own government throwing people in prison without a trial; You risk joining them."

Some people did protest the internment. How many of them were arrested? What does that number say about "pretty darned risky"?

[Brett Bellmore]

What drives people's actions are their perception of risks, not the risks as demonstrated after the fact, which is information they do not, after all, have access to.

So, your government is jailing dissenters without benefit of trial, (As Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR all did.) are you going to perceive publicly dissenting from this action as risky? Probably.

[Absaroka]

ISTM you are arguing theory, as opposed to offering evidence that people in WWII thought there was any risk of being imprisoned for disagreeing about internment. My sense is that people had no such fear, and generally agreed with (or didn't think much about) internment. We'll have to disagree unless you have historical evidence to support your position.

[Noscitur a sociis]

As mentioned above, Richard Bennett Carmichael.

1. I don’t see any indication that Lincoln even knew about this arrest before it happened, much less that he ordered it. Rather, it appears that William Seward, representing it as his decision, asked the governor of Maryland to arrest him, and that it didn’t actually happen until more than six months later, after the local military commanders made the decision.

I expect part of why they weren't treated as controversial at the time because doing so risked arrest...

2. Indeed, the first indication I can see that Lincoln found out about it was when the governor notified him that people would be approaching him to ask for the judge’s release. And while the governor voiced his strenuous opposition, I see no indication that anyone even contemplated arresting the petitioners for that support.

3. And of course, the arrest was precipitated by the judge directing the prosecution of military officers trying to fight a civil war that posed a very real threat of destroying the country. Whether you think that justifies it or not, it’s not remotely comparable to arresting a judge in peacetime for not dismissing criminal charges brought against the president for conduct taken on his personal capacity. And suggestion that they’re even similar is pretty dumb.

4. With respect to your observations: Lincoln authorized the arrest of people who were actively obstructing the efforts to fight the war—a war which, again, posed an existential threat to the country. Some of them were clearly justified (e.g. people who were actively plotting to destroy telegraphs, bridges, and railways); some were more questionable (e.g. people spreading misinformation and more passively advocating resistance). But there’s widespread exaggeration both of the extent and arbitrariness, as well as the degree of Lincoln’s personal involvement. And when people choose to focus on those exaggerations as one of the main historical takeaways from the conflict, it’s hard to suspect a measure of ideological motivation.

[Sarcastr0]

You admit multiple times this was off topic.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Lincoln allowed U.S. military commanders to summarily imprison people. By issuing an order to them explaining the legal authority for it During a civil war. In areas where there was active armed resistance to the military efforts.

So again, not what Dr. Ed appears to to be contemplating.

[Brett Bellmore]

Lincoln both 'allowed' and ordered US military commanders to summarily imprison people, by issuing an order purporting to have legal authority for it. (Which in another occasion he admitted he didn't really have.) And, no, it was NOT just in areas where there was active armed resistance, he did it in the North, too.

For exercising 1st amendment rights in ways he didn't like. For judges who ruled against him in court.

Stop downplaying just how much of a tyrant Lincoln was. He was acting as a total dictator, and didn't even pretend to always being acting lawfully.

[Sarcastr0]

Stop downplaying just how much of a tyrant Lincoln was

No one sees it like this except weirdos.
Most get that it was a Civil War.

Stop playing the part of a Confederate mouthpiece, you lot lost.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I get it: You don't like the people he did it to, so you think people shouldn't talk about how much of a tyrant he was.

"It was a civil war! That make jailing your political opponents and judges who don't rule the way you want GOOD!"

Well, you know, if people were absolutely resolute about not following Civil war precedents outside the context of a civil war, that might be, if not justified, at least tolerable. But as we saw in the debate over trying to disqualify Trump without bothering to convict him of insurrection, people are NOT such sticklers for cabining civil war precedents.

So it remains important to point out that our government was behaving lawlessly during the Civil war, and such precedents should not be followed.

[Sarcastr0]

It makes it not tyrannical.

No new goalposts.

No, there is no bright line about Civil War precedents. Nor should there be. The law is complicated.
You attempt to make everything simple, which is why you're bad at dealing with systems and institutions.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I get it: Your position is that it's not tyrannical to jail your political opponents, and judges who rule against you, without trial.

And yet, if Trump ever did such a thing, you'd be yelling "Tyrant!" as loudly as I would.

The difference is that I'd be doing so as a matter of principle, and you'd be doing so following a double standard.

[Kazinski]

Trump doesn't have to wait to appeal Merchan's immunity ruling, as Judge Hellerstein acknowledged in his ruling on Trump's removal request. Trump had two grounds for removal 1) the judge was conflicted and 2) the judge ignored the Supreme Courts immunity ruling.

NG helpfully quoted the judges decision denying removal, but only quoted the judge's reasons for dismissing the first cause of action, but omitted the Judges take on the second:

"It would be highly improper for this Court to evaluate the issues of bias, unfairness or error in the state trial. Those are issues for the state appellate courts. Accordingly, only the second ground argued by Mr. Trump deserves attention.

Hellerstein reached the merits of the second cause, and while he denied it, that is appealable.

[not guilty]

"Trump doesn't have to wait to appeal Merchan's immunity ruling, as Judge Hellerstein acknowledged in his ruling on Trump's removal request."

We had this conversation on the Monday open thread, but you still appear to be confused. Judge Hellerstein's September 3, 2024 order denying leave to remove the case to federal court, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.c95c060a-7c1c-465e-ad55-c66a4c162941/gov.uscourts.ca2.c95c060a-7c1c-465e-ad55-c66a4c162941.2.0.pdf , is appealable to the U. S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Indeed, it is currently on appeal by Trump.

The appealability of Justice Merchan's state court orders, or any part thereof, is governed by New York law.

Don't conflate the two. Justice Merchan's state court orders are not appealable to any federal court other than SCOTUS, wherein Trump can petition for a writ of certiorari under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a), but only as to issues of federal law that have been presented to every level of the state court system.

Lower federal courts do not exercise appellate jurisdiction to review state proceedings. I can explain it to you; I can't understand it for you. But if I could tattoo Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923), on your wife's ass I would do so.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

IG Report Reveals FBI Could Still Be Spying On Congress And Leaking To Help Democrats

https://thefederalist.com/2024/12/19/ig-report-reveals-fbi-could-still-be-spying-on-congress-and-leaking-to-help-democrats/

Now I see why in the olden days people used things like public hangings and guillotines for justice. It starts to make sense.

[tylertusta]

The irony of the FBI chasing after Russiagate leakers in Congress when their own leaders were some of the worst leakers does not escape me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or the irony of Jan 6th likely having been a FBI Clusterf*ck gone bad.

*I* don't know which windows in the Capitol aren't blastproof and still have real (breakable) glass in them. Do you???

Hit Lexan with a fire axe (the training video said) and your axe will bounce back and hit you in your face. I didn't see that happening, so the perps who were breaking windows knew which ones *would* break and how the heck did they know that???

[SRG2]

Or the irony of Jan 6th likely having been a FBI Clusterf*ck gone bad.

It wasn't. Best evidence is that Congressional GOP were so opposed to investigating it. If they thought it was an FBI op gone pear-shaped, they'd be screaming for investigations.

[apedad]

Trump’s transition is happening over private emails. Federal officials are nervous.

Federal officials say they’re worried about sharing documents via email with Donald Trump’s transition team because the incoming officials are eschewing government devices, email addresses and cybersecurity support, raising fears that they could potentially expose sensitive government data.

Trump — who attacked his then-opponent Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server for official business during his first presidential run — is overseeing a fully privatized transition that communicates from an array of @transition47.com, @trumpvancetransition.com and @djtfp24.com accounts rather than anything ending in .gov, and uses private servers, laptops and cell phones instead of government-issued devices.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/18/federal-officials-nervous-about-sending-data-to-trump-transition-private-emails-00195217

Incoming govt officials refusing to use govt resources and processes - and ignoring the law.

Nice.

[tylertusta]

Trump isn't receiving classified documents from the government to a a private email address. I can guarantee that isn't happening.

Politico's attempts to equivocate and scaremonger are as transparent as they are stupid.

Incoming govt officials refusing to use govt resources and processes - and ignoring the law.

Trump isn't quite in government yet. He's not obligated to use government systems to conduct transition work.

[Commenter_XY]

I am trying to find the A and B and C in Politico, and have looked 15 million different ways. (ok, bad joke)

[Sarcastr0]

Trump isn't quite in government yet. He's not obligated to use government systems to conduct transition work.

These systems exist for a reason.

Some randos are coming in without credentials, saying they're part of the transition team, and asking for information?

[tylertusta]

Does the law mandate it? No. Therefore, he's not breaking the law.

Whether it's wise is a value judgement I'll leave up to others.

Given Trump's lack of trust for the current government I can't say that I'm surprised.

[Sarcastr0]

No one talked about breaking the law. I guess you jumped there because of the mention of Hillary?

[tylertusta]

apedad brought it up in the first comment of this chain:

"Incoming govt officials refusing to use govt resources and processes - and ignoring the law."

[Sarcastr0]

Ignoring properly made regulations is ignoring the law.

Not all examples of ignoring the law is doing a crime.

Semantic faffing about aside, they're acting like they think they're above the law.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Ignoring properly made regulations is ignoring the law. "

What "regulations" are the transition team ignoring?

[tylertusta]

What law(s)? What regulation(s)?

Please be specific.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/M-24-17_2024-Memo-Guidance-on-Presidential-Transition-Planning.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not seeing where that imposes any actual obligations on Trump's part. Sure, it does say,

"Agency review teams will be deployed by apparent successful candidate(s) for the office of the President or his or her transition team(s) to a subset of Federal agencies immediately following the determination of apparent successful candidate(s)."

But this appears to be more in the nature of a prediction or expectation, than a legal command. Or else they'd have used the usual "shall".

So, I don't think Trump is actually in a position to violate any part of that document.

[tylertusta]

I don't see what law or regulation you're saying he broke in that document. Did be violate a memo?

Please be more specific.

[Sarcastr0]

The law says this is how the agencies will do transition.

The Trump folks aren't doing that.

You have a theory because it's calculated to avoid lies and leaks. I have on that it's because they think they are above the law.

Who knows, but the point is they are indeed ignoring the law.

This is not hard, and semantics won't get you away from it.

[tylertusta]

What specific law? Please quote the part of the statute that you say that Trump broke.

This is not hard, and semantics won't get you away from it.

[Sarcastr0]

I linked the law.
OMB memos have the force of law as applied to agencies.

The transition team, in working with the agencies, ignored how the agencies are allowed to work with them.

If you're looking for the OMB's authorization of authority, I'm not going to look that up for you.

[tylertusta]

You linked a documented titled:

"MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES"

Your argument is that Trump violated a memo?

That's not a law. That's not a regulation.

[Sarcastr0]

The original thesis: "Incoming govt officials refusing to use govt resources and processes - and ignoring the law."

That's the transition team. I pointed out the law they are ignoring.

It may say memo, but memos from OMB have force of law to federal officials, who are charged with implementing them.

The rest is you hiding behind formalism. This isn't debate club.

[Commenter_XY]

So IOW Sarcastr0, there is no law.

[tylertusta]

Sarcastr0, you say I'm hiding behind formalities, but I'm just trying to understand what the hell you're talking about.

I can't seem to find an actual law or regulation that says what you are arguing which is why it's important for you to provide that. The memo you provided only orders the current government agencies. Trump is not a member of government so he is not bound by those orders.

You claim I'm arguing in bad faith and not providing support, yet when I ask you to do the same you're evasive and condescending.

All I'm left to conclude is that you pulled something out of your ass without reading it.

[Sarcastr0]

If there's a law that someone can't share, say, competition sensitive information with me, and I ask them for that kind of information, I'm ignoring that law even if that law isn't strictly binding me.

Ignoring doesn't mean breaking, as we worked out above.

[tylertusta]

For one who says I'm hiding by semantics, saying that Trump is ignoring a law he isn't bound to follow isn't even the thinnest of reeds to hide behind. It's no reed at all.

What Trump is doing is ignoring the current administration's request that he use government systems as the current administration lacks any authority- by law or regulation- to force Trump to use those systems during the transition.

The most that Trump is doing is breaking a norm.

[Sarcastr0]

We already went over the ignoring vs. breaking issue like 20 hour ago.

If you're arguing that ignoring the law is cool so long as you're not breaking it, and the rest is semantics, you're flat wrong about how this works.

There's a system. They're ignoring it. That's bad. I've been pretty open and consistent on that thesis.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's like I'm ignoring the laws setting up my local library every time I don't go there to check out a book; The law directs the government to extend to him certain assistance, but in no way, shape, or form requires him to accept that assistance.

[tylertusta]

That's a good analogy, Brett. Sarcastr0 is on a sinking ship yet he continues to defend the indefensible.

[Sarcastr0]

You're both wrong. The memo forbids a lot of actions from agencies. Going in and asking for that stuff from the agencies is
1) ignoring the law
2) which setup exists for a reason
3) is not going to get you what you want
4) bespeaks ignorance and entitlement

'I don't care what you're required to do - give me what I want' is shitty, no matter how you slice it.

But you two don't seem to care. Seems more a game to you than anything actually going on.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can say it bespeaks of anything you want, but what it doesn't do is violate any law. You can ask for the Moon, even if it's illegal to give it to you.

[Sarcastr0]

It's OK to ask for something when it's illegal for it to be given to you. Just fun and games. No ignorance of the law. No pressure.

It's shitty to come in making demands and getting mad when you can't get them because you ignored the law.

You don't have to deal with these calls. You treat this like a game.

[Brett Bellmore]

These systems exist for a reason, and Trump's distrust of the people running them exists for a reason, too.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett. This is some entitled assholes throwing their weight around by ignoring the rules.
It is not some careful plan to work outside the system because of some inchoate paranoia that they will be lied to.

As to YOUR paranoia, did you stop to think? No, you did not. What would an agency's transition team would have to gain by lying? They would be found out in a matter of weeks.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...ignoring the rules."
Hahahahahahahahaha

[Brett Bellmore]

You know what? Your conviction that people who disagree with you have no reason for what they do means precisely nothing, because you're not calling the shots.

People act on their own motives even if you deny that they have them.

[tylertusta]

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, people disagree with me all the time and it's fine.
But I like support for what people argue.

You regularly fail to provide that support, substituting a sometimes elaborate fiction you've made up.

I'm hardly the only person to point this out.

Here, you made up Trump's motives for him. Based on nothing other than your personal paranoid worldview. And a motive that doesn't quite align with the above-the-law swinging dick approach the transition teams are taking.

[SimonP]

Do you want China to be privy to the internal discussions of the Trump transition team?

[tylertusta]

Depends on what they're discussing. If they're discussing catering plans for inauguration day celebrations, I don't see the harm.

On the other hand, if Trump expects that his internal discussions would get leaked to the press by the current government if they had access to it, then his communications are going to be safer in a private system anyways.

[Sarcastr0]

You sure are writing some stories about why it only looks like Trump is a blundering fool who doesn't care about rules.

[SimonP]

Biden has been in office for four years, with ample opportunity and incentive to "leak" any correspondence from Trump's first term. But they haven't done so, have they?

When will MAGA tire of this conspiracy-mongering? Our fate for the next four years has already been sealed, thanks to you and your ilk. And yet you all are tireless in promoting this narrative like this "victory" is the Second Coming. When will you return to reality?

[tylertusta]

I highly doubt that Biden personally would do it. His senility probably prevents him from remembering that we even had an election, much less that Trump won.

I imagine all of the juicy bits of Trump's first term were already leaked during that term.

[Sarcastr0]

You imagine, sure.

[tylertusta]

A little while back you said you didn't intend to troll, and I said I'd be willing to point out the instances where you did.

Here we go:

Look, I found one!

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's a pithy criticism of your post.

You, right there, imagined stuff and decided it's true. It's easy to do that instead of establishing the stuff you're insisting on, but it's not very good at keeping your thinking tethered to reality.

Even if you disagree, it's a sincerely offered point.

[tylertusta]

When someone says "I imagine that..." it's an educated guess. I'm being pithy.

Even if you disagree, it's a sincerely offered point.

Trolling is the act of posting intentionally disruptive messages to cause chaos. No, I don't believe that you're being sincere.

[Sarcastr0]

I think it was a pretty good point about your lack of support. You can think I'm lying about my sincerity, but I know I'm not.

One thing the VC has taught me is humility about human intuition. Educated guesses are often just your priors dressed up.

[tylertusta]

The one thing that VC has taught me is that most of the lawyers in the comments are shitheads, substituting sound legal judgement with the aspirational.

I see the words "dressed up priors" and I can't help but laugh. You need to look into the mirror.

[Sarcastr0]

I pointed out your lack of support.

You're getting real huffy about it.

Empty "I know you are but what am I" is how people take L's around here.

[tylertusta]

As I said, I'll show you mine when you actually provide some of your own.

Still waiting.

(And this isn't the first time I've said this to you)

[SimonP]

MAGA's penchant to follow the logic of their conspiracy theories to a point, but no further, is... I'd call it "fascinating," but it's not that. It's noticeable, hypocritical, hyper-partisan.

Ergo: During Trump's first term, the "deep state" leaked absolutely everything that would be incriminating, which we dismiss as nothingburgers; and since they didn't disclose anything we find to be compelling, we assume that the Trump administration was spic-and-span clean; because if they had done something truly bad, we would have learned about it!

[tylertusta]

I commend you for the logical leap that you took to achieve the desired strawman. It was truly a feat of mental gymnastics worthy of a gold medal.

[Mr. Bumble]

Simon P is on quite the roll today.

[SimonP]

Look, buddy, If you'd like to clarify what you meant to imply, you're welcome to do so.

I am doing nothing but following your implications where they lead.

[David Nieporent]

Biden has been in office for four years, with ample opportunity and incentive to "leak" any correspondence from Trump's first term. But they haven't done so, have they?

Transition officials cooperated with the Mueller investigation (during Trump's term, obviously, not Biden's), and Trump still hasn't forgiven or forgotten.

[hobie]

Well, Trump's bros Elon and Vald are both critically beholden to China. He should probably refrain from mentioning national secrets around them. As for Trump's personal stuff that could lead to compromat, it no longer matters if he shot someone on 5th Avenue. Blab away

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

They're nervous because they can't spy on him and have to let the thugs in FBI do all the illegal spying and leaking.

[SimonP]

Setting aside whether any of this is in violation of law, it's bizarre to me how much the Trump-heads are just indifferent to whether Trump's approach to security poses a national security risk to the United States.

This isn't just about "FBI spying" or whatnot. If the Trump administration cannot be counted on to keep national secrets confidential, our partners in the security services of allied nations will not share their intelligence with us. (Israel has already signaled some concerns about information sharing with Musk, for instance.) How will we achieve "peace through strength" when our intelligence partners feel obliged to share only high-level summaries of what they know about terrorist cells, organized international crime syndicates, and our foreign adversaries?

This "own the libz" shit is so puerile and myopic. We need a president who takes this job seriously. Our economy, our freedom, our lives are at stake. But by all appearances the MAGA Republican party is starting to make Trump look like the adult in the room.

[Brett Bellmore]

First establish that they're communicating national security secrets with Trump over these channels.

Per the linked article:

"The private emails have agency employees considering insisting on in-person meetings and document exchanges that they otherwise would have conducted electronically,"

They can do that if they want.

But, seriously, don't pretend that Trump has no reason to distrust the agencies handling this security.

[SimonP]

I don't need you to tell me that everything Trump does is justified, Goober, for reasons TBD.

[Commenter_XY]

It actually IS partly about FBI spying, and leaking, SimonP. The actions of some in the FBI have destroyed any level of trust Pres Trump might have. And it isn't like the CIA and NSA are any great shakes, either....they missed Syria, 10/7, and screwed the pooch on UKR, Iran and Afghanistan completely.

[SimonP]

I am not going to rehearse these stupid claims about the FBI. You MAGA cultists continually mischaracterize what the record shows, forcing every one of these comments into yet another fight over the facts, distracting from the underlying point.

Again. Trump has proven that he is cavalier with state secrets. We know this from how he conducted himself in office, during his first term. It was reported at the time about how Israel was irritated by the way that Trump's penchant for braggadocio was exposing their sources and methods. They're saying the same things now about Musk and SpaceX. We know this from the way he mishandled documents after he left the White House. We know this from the way his team is handling the transition. We know this from the way he has chosen Tulsi Gabbard to head our intelligence agencies. He has picked someone more conventional to lead the CIA, but even Ratcliffe has a history of being cavalier with classified information. Never mind the number of spies we mysteriously lost after Trump was in office, something that still hasn't been fully explained.

But for you, the priority is about punishing a few people within the FBI for saying mean things about Trump. You think Trump should focus serious effort on ensuring that only Trump loyalists remain in the FBI. You have no idea how to address any of the intelligence "misses" you cite, mostly because you don't actually care about them beyond being a convenient cudgel for bashing Biden.

It makes no sense. Setting aside your bullshit story on the FBI, Trump is a threat to our national security. Both directly, in terms of allowing our adversaries to access information that compromises officials and intelligence efforts, and indirectly, by showing our security partners that the federal government cannot be trusted.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I'd say to Sarcastr0: Doesn't really matter that you don't take the FBI's spying on Trump, or intelligence agency abuses, seriously. Trump's not going to act on your (mis)understanding of the situation, but instead his own.

[SimonP]

I'm sorry Goobs, this isn't coherent. When you lie about lies, it becomes hard to keep track of what you're trying to say, and I'm not interested in filling in the blanks.

[Sarcastr0]

Truth matters, Brett.

The clever and well-informed version of Trump in your head does not.

[Commenter_XY]

Precisely, Brett.

[SRG2]

The cultists don't care. They didn't care when Trump gave the Russians highly confidential info. They didn't care that Trump had a private convo with the Russians in the Oval Office with no American translators. They didn't care when Trump kept all those confidential files in Maga Lago and showed them off

Or rather they did care. They cared about the importance of Trump not being held accountable.

The security of the US requires that the intelligence services not nor ever supply Trump with highly confidential information. He has proven he cannot be trusted with it. And further, as this was not a major policy issue during the election you cannot argue that the American people voted to permit him access.

[Bob from Ohio]

"requires that the intelligence services not nor ever supply Trump with highly confidential information"

Advocating sedition I see.

[SimonP]

Did you bother to look up the term before you used it, or does it just mean whatever you want?

During the first Trump term, the intelligence agencies were similarly circumspect about what they provided the president for consumption. You can tell Trump what he "needs to know" (not like he makes any real decisions on an informed basis) without revealing sensitive information like how intelligence was gathered, from whom, etc.

I'm honestly not sure what you're driving at, here. If the president is a bona fide security liability, does his being president just nullify all concerns about it? Do we have no choice but to give him information that he'll turn around and give to people who want to do us harm? Is that what anyone has voted for?

Think for yourself, for a god-damned second.

[Brett Bellmore]

If the [intelligence agencies claim to think that the] president is a bona fide security liability, does his being president just nullify all concerns about it?"

Yes, actually, it does. They work for him, not the other way around.

Thinks about this for a moment yourself: If the electorate can't override the intelligence agencies' decisions by electing somebody they disapprove of, are we even a democracy anymore?

[Mr. Bumble]

Simon P and others seem to forget that the President is the sole person with executive power.

[SimonP]

No, I just realize that something can be a "security threat" regardless of whether it's something that the President has authority to do.

You people are positively mental. You are choosing not to care about the welfare of the country, if Trump should choose to act contrary to it.

[SRG2]

You people are positively mental. You are choosing not to care about the welfare of the country, if Trump should choose to act contrary to it.

That is precisely their position, sufficiently obviously so that if they deny it, they're lying.

[SimonP]

Fucking retarded, as always, Goober.

[SRG2]

If the electorate can't override the intelligence agencies' decisions by electing somebody they disapprove of, are we even a democracy anymore?

Trump's being a security risk was not on the ballot.

Let's take a hypothetical case you should be more comfortable answering.

The intelligence services have reason to believe that Biden has become a Chinese asset, owing to a combination of money and senility. He asks to see details about the Taiwanese navy and their strategic plans. including how they will co-operate with US forces The services think there's a risk that Biden will hand them over to China.

Do they give Biden the info he requests?

I presume that you would answer "no" to the question - provided that Biden was the hypothetical president not Trump.

I also note that the intelligence services, like all Federal employees owe their primary loyalties to the Constitution and the People, not to the president.

[Davy C]

Tell the House. If they don't promptly seek impeachment, give Biden the info or resign.

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2, I would immediately tell Pres Biden yes. He is a (soon to be) former president.

I would provide Pres Biden with a verbal, in-person briefing, at Camp David, where Pres Biden himself can make handwritten notes and ask direct questions of Pacific command. The briefing would last a maximum of 8 hours. There are no handouts. No files to transfer. Only handwritten notes, by Pres Biden's own hand.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to me, given the conditions you laid out.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, actually, it does. They work for him, not the other way around.

No, they don't. They report to him. But they work for the American people.

[Mr. Bumble]

"But they work for the American people."
At the President's direction and orders. If they can't do that they should resign or be fired.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Do they give Biden the info he requests?"

In the case of military intelligence services, he can have them court-martialed and imprisoned if they refuse. I'm not sure what power he as to enforce his authority against civilian intelligence officers.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Did you bother to look up the term before you used it"

Yes, in fact I did.

"Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech or organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority." wikipedia

Urging executive employees to withhold info from the President is "incitement of... insurrection against, established authority"

[SRG2]

I advocate for defending the Constitution and the US against its enemies. Why don't you?

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump isn't an enemy, but you might be.

You want to have un-elected, unknown people in our 17 intelligence services deny the ultimate decision maker info to make informed decisions despite the people choosing him. You would get people killed because of your Stage 5 TDS.

[SimonP]

But we're not talking about a situation where Trump would heroically make the decision that saves lives, if fully informed.

We're talking about a potential situation where Trump is known by members of the intelligence agencies to be a security threat to the United States. It is providing information to him that puts lives at risk.

Your argument is just to say that such a scenario is impossible or self-contradictory.

[Commenter_XY]

Your naivete in trusting this amorphous 'members of the intelligence agencies' is touching, SimonP (see my other comments on what they missed in the last 4 years). 🙂

[SimonP]

Is it any less naive to assert that you know the full truth about the putative "intelligence failures" you've listed?

Anyway, you're avoiding the question. I trust intelligence professionals over Trump, when it comes to, "revealing this information to the president will get some of our agents exposed and killed and may endanger citizens." So should you.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I trust intelligence professionals over Trump, "

And we, instead, want to live in a functioning democracy.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not a huge fan of the IC, but accusing them of being anti-democratic is just 'everyone Trump doesn't like hates America' wanking.

[Brett Bellmore]

SimonP is literally proposing that the intelligence services keep the elected President in the dark, and presumably lie to him if he asked direct questions about such matters, because they think he'd do the wrong thing with the information he would be legally entitled to.

In what world isn't that them behaving anti-democratically?

[SimonP]

Goober, I do not feel the need to repeat myself for your benefit. Like Bob, you refuse to countenance the possibility that anything Trump could want would be bad for the country.

It's all just empty-headed pearl-clutching over "democracy," from the same bitchface who doesn't believe in the separation of powers. Sure, whatever, Goobs.

[SimonP]

Sometimes, Bob, your sycophantic stupidity is so profound as to be painful.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two words: Bradley Manning.

Corporate security is often better than government security, and after what he has been through, my guess is that Trump (who can afford it) has state of the art corporate security on his system.

[SRG2]

my guess is that Trump (who can afford it) has state of the art corporate security on his system.

Hahahahahaha. A man who kept highly classified materials in an unsecured bathroom in Maga Lago....

[Kazinski]

Well maybe the National Archives and GSA shouldn't have burnt their bridges with Trump when he left office in 2021. (or the FBI, DOJ, NSA, etc.)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Maybe he shouldn't have decided to become a felon. He doesn't get to decide that the law doesn't apply to him because he doesn't like it.

Fuck all of you fascist apologists and your bullshit excuses.

[tylertusta]

Fani Willis disqualified from the Trump & Co. RICO case.

https://efast.gaappeals.us/download?filingId=cdec1774-027f-4de6-aaf5-fb6c9bb99270

[tylertusta]

The Court of Appeals found an appearance of impropiety for a conflict of interest. The Court previously cancelled its oral arguments which were to be held earlier this month, which indicated to many that the Court planned to dismiss the appeal as improvidently granted.

That turned out to not be the case. The indictment is not dismissed, but the case will be transferred to another DA.

[tylertusta]

It appears that the CoA did not agree with McAfee's 'split the baby' approach to a remedy.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...The indictment is not dismissed,..." yet.
Who would be dumb enough to continue this case?

[tylertusta]

That would be a very good question, Mr. Bumble!

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's less controversial if a different DA reaches that decision.
Sending it to another DA knowing that the DA will dismiss is what I would have done.

[Riva]

Democrats. They always go too far. Look at the lawfare. They couldn't be satisfied with abusing the rule of law with just one case. They needed four.

[SRG2]

Because we know that by definition Trump can never be guilty of anything...

[Mr. Bumble]

As opposed to your position that Trump is guilty of everything?

[SRG2]

Not my position, of course.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and what is your position vis-a-vis Trump?

[SRG2]

Trump is guilty of most of what he'd been charged with. Not guilty of anything charged under RICO because that's not what RICO is for.

Also guilty of fraud wrt Trump U, and the civil charges wrt the Trump "charity". Sundry sexual assaults.

Do you think he is guilty of anything he's been charged with or found guilty of civilly or criminally?

[Riva]

Show me the man and I'll show you the crime, right?

[SRG2]

The average man doesn't try to cverturn legitimate elections, nor keep classified material in his bathroom and lie about having returned it.

[Mr. Bumble]

How about keeping classified material in his garage?

[Riva]

The average man isn't the former president covered under the presidential records act. And any allegations of the unconstitutionally appointed special thug Smith, the guy who stages fake "evidence" photos to support his meritless and unconstitutional BS, should be taken decidedly with the grain of the salt.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The indictment is not dismissed, but the case will be transferred to another DA."

IIUC it goes to the Georgia Prosecuting Attorney's Council, who is unlikely to prosecute.

[David Nieporent]

IIUC it goes to the Georgia Prosecuting Attorney's Council to assign it to another DA's office.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sounds like your girl got her client's case, and all her co-defendant's cases, blown out of the water.

[not guilty]

No, the Court of Appeals expressly declined to dismiss the indictment. If the Georgia Supreme Court denies review, the case will go to the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia for assignment of a new prosecutor.

When Ms. Willis was previously disqualified from prosecuting Burt Jones, assignment of a successor took quite a long time, and the new prosecutor elected to dismiss the charge.

[Bob from Ohio]

"new prosecutor elected to dismiss the charge."

Don't you think that is happening again?

[SimonP]

It seems to me that NG's willing to extend Georgia's officials the benefit of the doubt, until they prove otherwise.

It's interesting to me that you chucklefucks treat the demise of the rule of law as some kind of victory. But rest assured that the leopard is coming to eat your face.

[Kazinski]

I'm not sure why you think this subverts the rule of law, since the Georgia court of appeals is following exactly the procedures specified in the law when the prosecutor has a perceived conflict of interest.

There was no dispute about what the law requires, it was a dispute of whether the facts fit the laws requirements.

The trial court judge said 'they kinda fit, but not completely' then allowed Trump to appeal because he acknowledged it was a close question.

And Trump prevailed.

Just where do you think the rule of law was subverted in the process?

[SimonP]

NG outlines the case well in other comments.

The underlying claim to disqualify Willis were preposterously incoherent. The appellate court didn't apply the correct standard to the lower court's ruling, with the intent to kick the matter to another office. If and when another prosecutor is named to take over the case, they will be able to drop the charges entirely, for any reason, without any kind of public explanation or accountability - that appearing to be the intended result.

Kaz, you're a moron, so I don't really expect you to understand that a whole lot of corruption happens "by the book," in degrading democracies. When Putin put Navalny in prison, there were criminal charges, judicial proceedings, a parody of "due process." The political maneuvers that Netanyahu is going through to avoid answering for his own corruption charges are well-known. Paxton was engaged in similar dilatory tactics, in Texas, and the friendly courts of Texas and the Fifth Circuit are a key reason why Elon wants to move his companies there. (Or, if you'd like, compare the treatment of Bolsonaro right now in Brazil by their own judiciary.)

The "rule of law" does not mean, "spend tons of donors' money on lawyers and appeal every adverse holding, delaying resolution until you can be re-elected and foreclose ever being held accountable." You're demeaning yourself by pretending not to see that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That's a lot of words to say blown out of the water.

[tylertusta]

Let's not forget that Fulton County asked for sanctions for the attorney who brought this motion to disqualify.

Between the Trump RICO case and the YSL RICO case, Fani Willis should close up shop and start a new career, preferably where she has zero responsibility and cannot harm anyone else.

[Commenter_XY]

tyler...The Smasher is an elected official. The only way she leaves is via handcuffs. Personally, I think there is plenty there to look at in the financial management of The Smasher's office, and the expense records.

Sex and money do it every time.

[tylertusta]

I recall one elected DA effectively quit her failed career at running prosecutions to take up nursing. She didn't even bother resigning before just not showing up to the office anymore, so she was still on the payroll.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm, if she's disbarred?

This came up in Maine a while back with a DA candidate who'd been disbarred and the decision was that he could not be sworn in if he won.

[Bob from Ohio]

" I think there is plenty there to look at in the financial management of The Smasher's office, and the expense records. "

Oh yeah. the new and improved US DOJ is going to turn her inside out.

[not guilty]

I hope that the dissenting judge's opinion attracts the attention of the Georgia Supreme Court so as to trigger discretionary review. The majority paid fleeting lip service to the principle that the trial court’s ruling on a motion to disqualify is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, but the majority nowhere expressly found an abuse of discretion by Judge McAfee.

[Mr. Bumble]

Excuse the profanity, but you are fucking pathetic.
As C-XY mentioned above Miss Fani is the one that should be being looked into.

[Riva]

NG, they found that the judge erred as a matter of law by not disqualifying Fani given the undisputed finding of a “significant” appearance of impropriety. The appellate court definitely did not agree that the judge acted correctly within his discretion. Disqualification was mandated under the law. All you're saying is that the dissent disagrees. That's why the call it a dissent, of course there is disagreement.

[John F. Carr]

The issue isn't important enough to deserve discretionary review, either for error correction or to clarify the law. The case is not dismissed. The fact pattern is unusual.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I hope"

Keep hope alive!

[Kazinski]

I was assured on these very pages that the chances of that were slim and none:

"There is not any realistic possibility that the appellate court will find that Judge McAfee abused his discretion. To reiterate the authorities I cited above, the Court of Appeals applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to disqualify a prosecuting attorney."

"It is well nigh impossible to get an appellate court to reverse a trial court’s fact-bound ruling where abuse of discretion is the applicable standard of review. Where, as here, the order relies upon credibility determinations, an appellant’s burden is insurmountable."

[Commenter_XY]

So tyler....or any other VC Conspirator who might know

How is the new DA assigned to the case?
Do the DAs draw straws and the poor non-binary bastard who draws the short one gets the case?
Does it go back to McAfee to decide assignment?

Which brings to mind...

Where is this likely to be assigned, and what's the likelihood any charges will be brought at all by the new DA?

[not guilty]

Judge McAfee does not make the assignment. It goes to the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia to designate a replacement prosecutor.

Prior to the indictment being found, Fani Willis was disqualified from investigating then Senator Burt Jones and his involvement in matters surrounding the Presidential Election of 2020 in Georgia. After a lengthy delay, Peter J. Skandalakis was designated. His report declining to pursue charges is here: https://pacga.org/2024/09/13/statement-and-findings-of-executive-director-peter-j-skandalakis-regarding-senator-burt-joness-involvement-in-matters-surrounding-the-presidential-election-of-2020-in-georgia/

There is a huge volume of material in this case for a new prosecutor to absorb. The special purpose grand jury sat for many months and reportedly developed information far beyond what the regular grand jury eventually charged. It will likely take quite some time for a new team to get up to speed to make informed decisions as to whether and how to continue here.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, when you say 'quite some time', I interpret as 2+ years, minimum. Could be less if the prosecutor is motivated to move forward. Does that sound about right?

[not guilty]

I wouldn't hazard a guess as to how long. Whether the Supreme Court of Georgia grants discretionary review here is part of the mix as to when designation of any substitute prosecutor will occur. Since the entire DA's office is disqualified, the successor may need to hire additional staff.

The grand jury indicted fewer people than the special purpose grand jury reportedly recommended to be charged, four of the indicted defendants pled out, and Donald Trump will need to be severed for a separate trial. That may narrow the successor's focus to some extent.

Seeking a superseding indictment with a less comprehensive scope that Ms. Willis's scattershot approach would not surprise me.

[Commenter_XY]

This case is like the foundering of a ship and breaking the keel.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Electoral College met and sounds like things went smoothly.

We should do away with the Electoral College, a makeweight compromise in place for reasons arising from the events of 1787. It was somewhat reasonable given that context.

It does have the value of flexibility as shown by it immediately being clear that electors would not be independent actors & that was allowed by the procedure set forth.

The 12th Amendment tweaked it some. Even then, people realized the original system had issues. Time to amend it again.

Anyway, here is a calendar with the next deadline falling on Christmas this year.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/31/nx-s1-5161596/electoral-college-count-reform-deadlines

[Frank Drackman]

You say you’ll change the Constitution? Because that’s what you’ll have to do, but let me blow you, I mean blow your mind.
With the Electrical College DC gets 3 out of 538 votes, 1/90 of the required 270 to win, or way more than whatever their share of the “Popular Vote” is,
So I have to ask
“Why do you hate Black Peoples? (HT K West)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Time to repeal the 23rd Amendment and do away with home rule for DC.

[Gasman]

I'm puzzled as to why the electoral college was not made a deliberative body, meeting in person. It was intended to be a means of selecting a president free from populism by having the state appoint, by unstated mechanism, a few good men who were not themselves in government. But in the 18th century, how were they to arrive at a selection of a president if they were cut off from the electors of the other states.

Instead they functioned then just as now, as a clunky pass through mechanism to cast the votes allotted for each state for president and vice, writing the number of votes on a slip of paper and passing it on to the congress via whatever was the best means of sending letters in the 18th century.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'm puzzled as to why the electoral college was not made a deliberative body, meeting in person.

They do meet in person. You can find pictures and videos online.

Once they meet in person, if they want, they can deliberate.

The Electoral College was passed with multiple things in mind, including as a way to use the same small state/slave benefiting ratios found in apportioning congressional votes. Likewise, it gave states broad discretion on how to select electoral votes.

Once it basically immediately became clear one aspect (independent deliberation) would not be involved, the other reasons held.

[David Nieporent]

They do meet in person.

Not really. The individual electors in a given state meet with the other electors from that state. The electoral college does not, however, all meet collectively.

[Brett Bellmore]

True; It was originally planned that they'd all get together, deliberate, and pick somebody, but that just didn't happen, and once they were just voting as directed, there wasn't any point in their all getting together in the same place.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

We hear reference to the "Electoral College meeting" even though they meet in their individual states (and D.C.).

If the person means why doesn't the whole body meet in one location, my understanding is that the Framers felt it would advance the possibility of intrigue. Splitting it up was seen as safer.

I also suppose given limitations in transportation that it was easier to not have everyone from all over the country have to travel to one central location for a single act. It also generally advanced federalism to have one more state-focused procedure.

The first thing was a primary concern but constitutional provisions tended to have various ends.

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps, or maybe it was just that travel was slow and expensive back then.

[David Nieporent]

It's almost like he addressed that in his penultimate paragraph!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, are you trying to encourage widespread violence? If not, maybe don't work so hard to put the most vicious face possible on the MAGA movement.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's not encouraging "widespread violence" to assert that people who commit crimes are going to face justice. Even if they are Democrats, Establishment Elites, or govies.

[Commenter_XY]

I know, lathrop....it was (D)ifferent, before. Guess the shoe doesn't fit all that well, does it. Maybe you, and people like you will learn something. But I tend to doubt it. You're too arrogant and pretentious.

[Super Scary]

Stephen must have forgotten which side is literally shooting at the opposition's leader.

[Sarcastr0]

Neither of those who took a shot at Trump were associated with the Democratic Party.

[Nelson]

Since both shooters were ideologically conservative, he isn’t the one who’s forgotten. You are.

[Kazinski]

We've already been told we are Nazis, the candidate we voted for is Hitler.

Now you are telling us there is still hope for redemption?

[Sarcastr0]

You should perhaps stop saying stuff like: "I don't favor prosecuting Liz Cheney, but..." if you want people to stop calling you out as carrying water for an authoritarian.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nobody believes you are capable of or worth redemption.

[F.D. Wolf]

A Georgia appeals court has ruled that Fulton County DA Fani Willis and her entire office must be disqualified from the state's RICO prosecution of Donald Trump and his co-defendants.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25464412-trumpgaappealsopn121924/?q=dissent&mode=document#document/p20

[Bob from Ohio]

not guilty hardest hit

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I do not think the conflict of interest stuff warrants the result of the intermediate Georgia court as to Fani Willis.

The bottom line still holds regarding the bigger picture including the overall conspiracy to interfere with the 2020 elections. It included threats to lowly electoral officials.

The leader of the conspiracy winning the 2024 elections because of national insanity doesn't change that. It wouldn't be the first time criminals won power and it won't be the last.

[John F. Carr]

Fani Willis swung for the fences and struck out. A conservative prosecution might have had guilty verdicts against most of the players by now. Not Trump and not RICO. The people who were at the heart of the fake electors conspiracy could be facing state prison time. There is value in teaching a lesson: the boss may be too big to fail but you aren't. I still remember that lesson from FCPA training 15 years ago.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A single prosecution of a major crime sometimes takes longer. This was a major conspiracy involving a presidential election.

There were multiple delays including the Graham litigation. This litigation was raised by one of the lesser players. Would have been delayed anyway. Who else would have pled sooner?

Trump was at the "heart" of it all too. Granting the rule Trump is above the law, this could have dragged out a long time anyhow.

[John F. Carr]

Trump was at the heart of the overall plan. He was not at the heart of the fake electors conspiracy. Trying to pin that on him is overcharging and cost her the case.

It should not have taken years to charge the fake electors and their direct advisors. That could be an independent case. It doesn't help the prosecutor's political aspirations. It does send a message that not only is such a scheme doomed, it will land you in prison.

The phone call to Raffensperger could have been charged as a standalone crime. As a separate case it would not delay the other prosecutions. (I think the call is not a crime. If it is, it's an easy crime to prove.)

There are more severable parts of the investigation if she doesn't insist it has to be full blown RICO to make herself a star. These cases would be much simpler and would not require her boyfriend to create an appearance of a conflict of interest.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Trump was at the heart of the overall plan. He was not at the heart of the fake electors conspiracy.

I think this is a somewhat artificial division. Nonetheless, it remained a large case. I don't know how long it "should have" taken. It was going to take a long time. The delays repeatedly would have been delays with or without Trump.

When the U.S. Justice Department had trouble bringing a case just against Trump, I don't know how overly delayed this effort was with multiple moving parts, including because it would have involved Trump somehow which complicated the whole thing.

I don't know how much this is about her being 'a star,' which she could have been with a smaller case. The novelness of this case made it hard overall. There was pressure to include Trump and others & it wasn't just on her that he came in. The buck just stopped with her.

[John F. Carr]

The federal case against Trump suffered from a similar problem. The indictment and later factual allegations make a good case against unindicted co-conspirators. But Trump himself wasn't telling the fake electors what to do. He wasn't aware of the distinction between sleazy but legal contingent votes and criminal false votes. So Smith wanted to charge a grand conspiracy and try to get Trump for the crimes of his uncharged coconspirators. (Putting on a Gene Wilder voice here.) You get nothing! The Department of Justice could have rounded up the Eastman gang instead.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, I think you are going too far here.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the call is not a crime. If it is, it's an easy crime to prove."

I think you're right there, at least on the first part. The hard part of proving it as a crime is not proving he made the call, but persuading a jury that asking for a look at election records is a crime.

[John F. Carr]

I meant the court case would not be a long or difficult one. The facts are simple and easy to present. All the prosecutor needs to do is present the background of the election and then roll tape. I like to imagine there could be one witness and one day of trial.

[tylertusta]

For those keeping score, Trump has won significant legal victories in three of the four lawfare-driven criminal cases against him. The fourth (Alvin Bragg's prosecution in NY that resulted in 34 felonies) is headed down that same path.

Trump convincingly won the election in November, and we can thank the incessant lawfare for at least part of that. Exit polls show that a majority of people who felt that US democracy was under threat actually voted for Trump!

Perhaps this will cause Democrats to reflect on what their lawfare has wrought. The Norm Eisens, Lawrence Tribes, and not_guiltys of the left have done more damage their their political cause than if they had sat on their hands and let Ron DeSantis trounce Trump during the primaries.

[SRG2]

for those keeping score, Trump has won significant legal victories in three of the four lawfare-driven criminal cases against him

And for those who read, Republican judges have protected Trump from the consequences of his criminality.

[tylertusta]

Indeed. The fact that Democratic judges and Justices can't see the precedential consequences of what they're doing is probably the worst part of this.

They're being saved from themselves, but I doubt they'll thank their Republican counterparts anytime soon.

[SRG2]

Oh, so you think that Cannon slow-walking the prosecution and throwing up unwarranted obstacles, and the SC handing Trump and future presidents immunity is somehow protecting Democrats. Whta a maroon.

[tylertusta]

Cannon slow-walking the prosecution and throwing up unwarranted obstacles

Democrats also have due process rights.

SC handing Trump and future presidents immunity is somehow protecting Democrats

Presumably Democrats will win the Presidency again in the future.

Whta a maroon.

My favorite color is green.

[SRG2]

We were talking about current Democrats. You're still a maroon.

[tylertusta]

In that case, Biden is currently President. He currently has the benefit of Trump v United States, as do the currently living Democratic former Presidents: Obama, Clinton, Carter.

My favorite color is still green.

[SRG2]

Has Biden done anything up until now where presidential immunity is needed? Nope.

My favorite color is still green.

That is independent of the colour you are, of course.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Has Biden done anything up until now where presidential immunity is needed? Nope."
Reply Hazy. Try Again Later.

[SRG2]

The GOP haven't managed to find anything approaching a crime -and it's not as though they haven't looked. Of course, there will always be the soft-headed loons who believe that if someone repeates "Biden crime family" enough, it must be true.

[Bob from Ohio]

"and future presidents immunity"

No Democrats will be "future presidents"

[apedad]

For those keeping all the scores, there's a trail of destruction left in Trump's wake.

#ETTD

[tylertusta]

And due to this, Trump's 'trail of destruction' will continue.

Is that what you want?

[Frank Drackman]

Laken Riley was unavailable for comment,
and wasn't Demented Joe's calling her "Lincoln Riley" in his State of the Onion pretty clear evidence of his Dementia? (OK, USC paying the actual Lincoln Riley $20 million a year could qualify also, and of course Lincoln's against players getting paid

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Who will pass first; Jimmy Carter or Slo Joe?

[Brett Bellmore]

Jimmy Carter, barring a bad fall or an assassination. Have you seen how fragile he's gotten? The dude is 100! And he's receiving hospice care, that's what you do when you know you're dying, and just want to do it reasonably comfortably.

Biden may be losing his mind, but he's still in excellent health otherwise, for a guy his age.

[Mr. Bumble]

Joe Biden is hardly in excellent health and hasn't been for some time.

[Brett Bellmore]

I said, "in excellent health otherwise, for a guy of his age.", and I stand by that. Obviously he's senile, and that has bad long term implications for his longevity, but most guys his age are pushing up daisies, and he's clearly ambulatory, not even using a walker, which is pretty darned good for his age. He trips on stairs, but I'm 65 and *I* have to be careful on stairs, so that's not a big deal at his age.

By contrast, Carter could die any day now, seriously, and it would not come as a surprise.

[Mr. Bumble]

Anyone could die any day now. I'll stand by my comment. We know nothing about his health other than what we can see from his limited public appearances. To call it excellent is quite a stretch.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't call it excellent. If he were 22 years old, instead of 82, he'd be in absolutely abysmal health.

But he isn't 22 years old, he's a senile 82 years old, and for a senile 82 year old guy he is, aside from the senility, in darned good shape.

I'd gladly bet $100 to the favorite charity of the winner, that, barring assassination, Biden outlives Carter. Are you game?

[Mr. Bumble]

"I didn't call it excellent." You did but with a qualifier.
"I said, "in excellent health otherwise, for a guy of his age."
Define "excellent".
I thought you would realize that my comment about who is going first was hyperbole, so I will decline your bet. However, I don't think Biden is long for this world.

[Brett Bellmore]

""I didn't call it excellent." You did but with a qualifier."

Yeah, that's because I didn't mean excellent without a qualifier.

"However, I don't think Biden is long for this world."

Well, we'll agree on that much: While I very much expect Carter to predecease him, I'll be moderately (But only moderately.) surprised if Biden is still around in 2028.

[Stella Link the dog]

"I'll be moderately (But only moderately.) surprised if Biden is still around in 2028."

Life expectancy for a male aged 82 is more than seven years. If Biden is in excellent health for a male his age, we should expect him to last more than seven years. So if any moderate surprise is in the offing it should be for Biden dying earlier than expected. In truth, many (about half) men that age die earlier than expected and many die later than expected regardless of Dr Brettmore's assessment of their health. In my opinion, it would not be surprising at all if Biden were to die tomorrow or if he were to live somewhat longer than expected.

[tylertusta]

I don't agree that Biden is in great health. Falls are deadly for the elderly, and he trips all of the time. He's one slip away from dying or being in a wheelchair and then dying much sooner than if he hadn't have fallen at all.

[Mr. Bumble]

See Cocaine Mitch.
Wonder how Wine Box Nancy is doing?

[tylertusta]

Yup. The danger of keeping geriatric politicians around is that they are a pretty frail lot.

I recall hearing that the pharmacist for Congress is extremely busy.

[Sarcastr0]

Not a lot of these victories you crow about stem from Trump being not guilty, but just that he's got power again.

The right's been pretty successful pushing the lawfare was all in bad faith story.
But in the end the truth matters, and pointing out the danger of Trump's authoritarianism matters.

I have no idea what the political landscape in 2026 and 2028 will be. But I know the Dems won't be in a good spot in it if they take your advice and stop trying to hold Trump accountable.

[tylertusta]

Not a lot of these victories you crow about stem from Trump being not guilty...

As a lawyer I would expect you to appreciate the words "due process."

... but just that he's got power again.

Today's DQ of Fani Willis, the dismissal of the FL document case due to Smith being improperly appointed, and the immunity decision from SCOTUS have nothing to do with Trump winning the election.

All three victories are due to how Democrats pursued the cases as they practically fell all over each other dogpile Trump right before the election in conjunction with Bragg's case in New York.

The right's been pretty successful pushing the lawfare was all in bad faith story.

It helps that it actually was in bad faith.

But I know the Dems won't be in a good spot in it if they take your advice and stop trying to hold Trump accountable.

True, it's impossible for us to know what things will look like over the next couple of years. Trump will certainly put his foot in his mouth again.

But on the other hand, the electoral strategy of trying to ride the coat tails of "Trump is destroying democracy!" not only failed, but backfired.

[SimonP]

Today's DQ of Fani Willis, the dismissal of the FL document case due to Smith being improperly appointed, and the immunity decision from SCOTUS have nothing to do with Trump winning the election.

They have everything to do, actually, with Trump winning the 2016 election. If Hillary had won in 2016, we'd still have abortion rights, we wouldn't have presumptive presidential immunity, we'd have some sanity in the Fifth Circuit, and we sure as hell wouldn't have any judges like Aileen Cannon.

Jack Smith's decision to shut down the FL and DC cases stems entirely from his winning the 2024 election. If those had been allowed to play out, Cannon would have gotten a slap from the 11th Circuit, and we'd finally have closure on Trump's attempt to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election.

Do you remember the country we had, before Trump? Why are you celebrating this decline into division and madness?

[tylertusta]

True to form, you choose not to discuss the topic that others are discussing and instead want to discuss something else.

[SimonP]

You'll have to forgive me if I'm not interested in engaging you like you're one who will respond in good faith.

[tylertusta]

No, not forgiven.

[Frank Drackman]

I remember, 8 years of Barry Hussein throwing Amuricans into the "Good War" in Off-gone-E-stan, saying any random black teen criminal could have been his son, amazingly, fucking up health insurance even more than it was already fucked up.
So did Amuricans, which is why Hillary Rodman sits on her fat ass in Westchester, and Parkinsonian Joe's going back to Delaware to live out his last few months in disgrace.

Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

But, trying to hold the govies who break laws accountable isn't good policy, it's uncool and unserious.

Get fucked, govie.

[Kazinski]

Well, I agree that Trump's authoritarian tendencies are concerning, and I hope he keeps his own impulses under control with help from Congress and the Courts.

But I suppose it would be too much for you to acknowledge that one of the main reasons Trump won is the electorate considered him LESS authoritarian than the Democratic alternative.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, I agree that Trump's authoritarian tendencies are concerning...but

[Kazinski]

"Everything anybody says before 'but' is bullshit"

Ned Stark

[David Nieporent]

But I suppose it would be too much for you to acknowledge that one of the main reasons Trump won is the electorate considered him LESS authoritarian than the Democratic alternative.

Editor's note: that is not one of the reasons, main or otherwise, that Trump won.

[Frank Drackman]

The main one, was that like Hillary Rodman, Cums-a-lot had the personality of a used Tampon

[Don Nico]

"But in the end the truth matters"
So try it sometimes

[Swede425]

Whenever you Wade into Fani at work, sometimes there's a price to pay.

[ThePublius]

As far as I can tell Biden and Harris are doing nothing, except that Biden is piling on pardons and clemency, regulations, and apparently trying to "Trump-proof" the government, but otherwise ignoring his presidential responsibilities. Trump is already acting as president, and is getting real results; note the killing of the pork-laden CR*. Now, Senator Kennedy has invited Trump to come to Washington, DC to develop a 'skinny' continuing resolution.

Trump is making progress on other fronts as well.

I'm pleased, but I confess it's kooky, and bit scary that Biden and Harris are AWOL.

* and by the way, someone commented earlier that the congressional pay raise provision was 'piddling.' It's a 40% pay raise! When was the last time you got a 40% pay raise?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>apparently trying to "Trump-proof" the government

The Democracy Defenders saving our Sacred Democracy from, you know, actual democracy.

[Longtobefree]

"When was the last time you got a 40% pay raise?"

When Y2K panic made competent coders worth their weight in gold.

[ThePublius]

Good for you!

[Frank Drackman]

Y2K was even more bullshit than the Global Warming, in 1999, as a goof, I set the clock on one of the Anesthesia Machines to 11:59pm, 12-31-1999, nothing happened when it reached midnight. One of the Attendings though, was convinced badness would happen, being New Years Eve, only Emergency Cases were scheduled, he made us unplug all but 2 Machines, which were older ones without a clock,
of course nothing happened, but made a good plot device for "Office Space"

Frank

[SimonP]

It's true that Biden has more time to spend on presidential duties, since he's not actively trying to subvert an election, foment a violent insurrection and dodge responsibility for mishandling a pandemic.

Those were the days! Make America Trumpy Again!

[M L]

Really important priority stuff Congress is doing in its spending bills.

Section 208, Page 1400: Redefines “criminal offender” to “justice-involved individual.”

Section 111, Page 958: Redefines “out of school youth” to “opportunity youth.”

Section 111, Page 958: Redefines “low-skilled adults” to “adults with foundational skill needs.”

Section 102, Page 947: Redefines “homeless individuals” to “individuals experiencing homelessness.”

[Sarcastr0]

Nice Nancy Mace twitter stenography.

Here is the bill for the many people less lazy than ML:
https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20241216/CR.pdf

A quick check shows that "justice-involved individual" is actually distinct from criminal offender. It appears to include delinquent juveniles as well. So rather than semantic games they've expanded the authority of the law.

The other stuff may be legit or not; harder to tell without the underlying law.
But even if silly semantics gets in the bill, dunno if that means lets shut down the government.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

When you say "shut down the government", what actually gets shuttered?

The whole government?

[ThePublius]

We can only hope.

[Longtobefree]

Not a damn thing.
Payment just gets pushed out a few weeks.

[ThePublius]

Remember when Obama shut down National Park Service venues during a government shutdown? What a mean, cynical thing to do. That's OUR resource, not the government's.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What's the chance that the drones are looking for a stolen nuke?

[Longtobefree]

About the same as they are IRS drones looking for tax cheats.

The stiff is missing, not necessarily stolen. And was no where near weapons grade.

[ThePublius]

I'm going to move a Fiddle Leaf Fig to a bigger pot. I think I have the right size new pot. The question is, for a house plant, is there a right or wrong time of year to do this?

For reference, the plant is now 3' tall, from the soil up, i.e., the shoot. The old pot is about 10" deep and 9" in diameter. The new, beautiful terra cotta pot is about 13" iin diameter at the top, and 12" deep. So, the plant to pot ratio for the new one is perfect.

[KenveeB]

For indoor plants, I think you can do it at any time because the temperature and water levels are controlled. But the "best" time is considered to be early spring.

[ThePublius]

Thank you! Yea, I read a bit, and I'm just going to go ahead with it. I might start looking for another one or two of these, they are magnificent plants.

[ThePublius]

"A bombshell report details how President Joe Biden‘s White House hid from the public his rapidly diminishing mental and physical condition for his entire presidency."

WSJ: How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge

We (on the right) knew all along this was the case, but we were repeatedly assured by the mainstream media that he was "sharp as a tack," riding a unicycle while juggling steak knives in the oval office as he asked Socratic questions during national intelligence briefings.

[Roger S]

Make a list of people who should never be believed again.

[Bored Lawyer]

Not enough paper in the country for that.

[SimonP]

I am looking forward to similar coverage, at some point in the future, about how Trump's handlers have managed him.

[ThePublius]

Don't hang by an eyelash waiting....

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean Hitler has handlers?

[ducksalad]

Pick one:

1. They deceived me! I was victimized!
2. I never believed them so their words made no difference.

You can't have both.

[M L]

1. They deceived people.
2. I never believed them.
3. They are inveterate liars.
4. All of the above.

Fill in the correct answer: ____

[ducksalad]

It was false to claim Joe Biden was doing fine.
It was false to claim that people, in general, were deceived.
It was false to spin subjective disagreement on when his factual decline was bad enough to pull the trigger - which obviously is going to have a partisan shade to it - as some kind of dispute about facts and lying.

But it is, today, gobsmacking bullshit to claim, as ThePublius did, that this is a "bombshell report". Zero people in the entire world are surprised the news. Not the people who said he was OK, not the people who said he wasn't, not the people who said he wasn't but wanted him to stay because they wanted a weak opponent, not the sickening hypocrites who said he had to step down and then yelled "coup" as soon as he did.

[ThePublius]

I didn't claim 'bombshell,' that's a quote from the Daily Mail article. I couldn't include more than one link.

What's sickening is that Dems were shouting "25th Amendment" before Trump even took office in 2017, and no one in the mainstream media mentioned it with Biden, with whom the case was obvious. Even now, with about 40 days left and the world on fire, we don't have a functioning president. Isn't that concerning?

[Don Nico]

I rather have a babbling old man than a giggling idiot for the next month.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm impressed at how long your hatred burns.

[Commenter_XY]

Merely pointing out VP Harris' incompetence is not hatred; her utter incompetence (as well as her boss) are why she lost the election. What else do you call burning through 1B+ in less than 3 months, and coming up dry (it was a layup, remember)? Oh, and the Harris campaign might need an audit. And, then there is the matter of the layoffs at the holidays.

And now we are finding out the extent to which the VP lied to the American people about POTUS Biden's cognitive issues.

[David Nieporent]

her utter incompetence (as well as her boss) are why she lost the election. What else do you call burning through 1B+ in less than 3 months, and coming up dry (it was a layup, remember)?

I really don't get the idea of seeing elections as something that candidates do. Generally speaking I think people should eschew the passive voice, but in the context of elections is one in which it makes sense. "Such-and-such candidate was elected" is a much more sensible framing than "such-and-such candidate won." A candidate didn't win; people voted for the candidate.

I'm not contending that an election result says nothing about a candidate. But unless a candidate lost by one vote because the candidate forgot to vote for him/herself, losing is not necessarily incompetence or stupidity. Obviously one can always point to things that a losing candidate could have done differently that might. have garnered him/her more votes and changed the outcome, but that is always speculative and generally hindsight besides. And to paraphrase Yogi Berra, if people don't want to vote for you, how are you going to stop them?

To be clear, I do not think that Harris ran a great campaign. But I also do not think that campaigns matter very much; the outcomes are mostly driven by fundamentals like the economy, war, and crime. Then the candidate's established positions on issues. And the candidate's personality/charisma. And only somewhere after all of that comes the candidate's "competence" at running a campaign.

[Commenter_XY]

Your points are fair ones, david.

[ThePublius]

Here it is:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14210053/white-house-conceal-joe-biden-decline-hired-voice-coach.html

[ThePublius]

That's a false dichotomy. I was not fooled, but harm was done by the press covering for his mental decline, fooling many other people, including, I presume, many Democratic cultists. It was harmful to the nation.

[Commenter_XY]

Anyone who had involvement with deliberately lying to the American people about POTUS Biden's cognitive issues should be kept far away from the levers of governmental power.

You never know, there might have been a law or two broken. Something a DOJ might want to look into.

Those 50+ people the WSJ used as sources...can be identified. I am quite sure they have been.

[ThePublius]

I like it:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) suggested Elon Musk serve as Speaker in a Thursday morning post on X following contentious debates over the continuing resolution (CR).

“The Speaker of the House need not be a member of Congress . . . ,” Paul wrote.

“Nothing would disrupt the swamp more than electing Elon Musk . . . think about it . . . nothing’s impossible. (not to mention the joy at seeing the collective establishment, aka ‘uniparty,’ lose their ever-lovin’ minds).”

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5048431-rand-paul-elon-musk-speaker/amp/

[SimonP]

Well, yes, you're an idiot and a fool. Who wouldn't love this? Elon apparently has an infinite amount of time, energy, and mental resources to run a branch of government while leading multiple businesses and tweeting all day.

I tire myself with repetition, but a rubber-stamp Congress and compliant judiciary spells the end of our democracy. This is how it happens. You think you'll like what Trump will do for you, but if you build these impenetrable power structures, it won't matter whether you do or not. You'll have no way out.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"spells the end of our democracy"

I thought Bush v. Gore spelt the end of Our Democracy.

But that can't be true, because of all the Bush administration ex-officials who supported Our Democracy by supporting Harris.

[tylertusta]

Could someone please let me know the date for when democracy ends? I'd like to put it on my calendar.

[Zarniwoop]

Surely there's no conflict of interests here.

After all, Elon's net worth only went up by an estimated $200 Billion (with a B) since the election. There's surely no way he would use his newfound kneepads-and-mouthwash access to Trump for his own personal gain.

[Don Nico]

" his newfound kneepads-and-mouthwash access"
pretty crude manner to express you despising of Musk

[apedad]

Pubs, why don't you just come out and say you have no clue what the Speaker of the House does or what their authority is.

Haven't you been paying attention to the previous and current REPUBLICAN Speakers and their trials and tribulations?

[ducksalad]

Other than the fact that it would make some heads explode that we'd like to see explode - which I grant isn't nothing - what possible benefit do you see?

Let me dismiss the following misconceptions in advance:
1. An idea that the Speaker of the House can simply order Congress to vote for something they don't want to.
2. An idea that the congressional hostage-takers who brought down McCarthy, McHenry, and pretty soon Johnson are going to be awed and impressed by Musk's personal force of will.
3. An idea that Musk has a bunch of never-before-imagined brilliant innovations that will have formerly-benighted congressmen slapping themselves and saying "why didn't I ever think of that".
4. Or the old neo-con trope, now taken over by MAGA, that the solution to all problems is manly resolve and the hero of the moment has lots of manly resolve and that's going to solve it.

Rand Paul is saying it would break up the "uniparty". Great, but what do you and he think is going to replace it? Keep in mind that any realignment is made up of the current cast of characters.

[hobie]

After easily buying the president for a song at a quarter billion $, now all these swamp creatures are clamoring for Elon's mone...expertise. I suppose there are worse corporate titans to have buy the US government. At least Elon can have fun periodically.

[ThePublius]

Wow, that was like turning on the kitchen light in the middle of the night in a shitty apartment in the Bronx: look at all the cockroaches! Ha, ha.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Several people tell you that you're an idiot, and even explain why, and your response is to prove them right by laughing about how stupid you are.

[ThePublius]

Oh, get lost Jason, you never add any content, you just snark other people's posts.

If you had any reading comprehension skills you''d know it was Rand Paul, not me, who suggested Musk be speaker. I was just saying I liked that idea.

[Sarcastr0]

Jeez, even you've joined the bandwagon, trying to distance yourself from your own comment.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Someone has to slap you bitches back into line. I'm happy to do it.

[hobie]

He's been trolling a lot the past month or so

[John F. Carr]

Luigi Mangione has been charged with federal crimes and may be eligible for the death penalty if Trump's Attorney General thinks killing a rich man justifies execution. According to a complaint (not an indictment) the charges are

1 and 2. Interstate Stalking and use of a cell phone and other interstate thingies for stalking. 18 USC 2261(b)(1) and 18 USC 2261A (1)(A) and (2)(A). If the complaint accurately states the crime the prosecution must prove that the target was placed in fear of serious bodily injury or death. If you're going to kill somebody, here's a reason to go for a head shot causing instant unconsciousness before he knows what hits him. Don't play the movie villain game of explaining what's going to happen.

3 and 4. Use of a firearm resulting in death in while committing the first two crimes. Use of a silencer and muffler. 18 USC 924, various subsections.

[ThePublius]

"...if Trump's Attorney General thinks killing a rich man justifies execution."

WTF is that supposed to mean?

[Commenter_XY]

John F Carr...I am fine with giving The Adjuster the needle. No need to incarcerate for decades.

[not guilty]

New York does not have the death penalty. What death eligible federal crime(s) do you think Mr. Mangione has committed?

As I explained less than an hour ago, the feds may not be able to prove the stalking offense (18 U.S.C. § 2261A(1)(A)) identified in the criminal complaint:

The prosecution may well have a difficult time proving that the ambushed, back-shot decedent was placed in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury or sustained substantial emotional distress. And if the alleged § 2261A(1)(A) violation was not committed, then the § 924(c) and (j) charges fail as well.

It may be unwise for the feds to bigfoot state prosecutors here.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, when I boil it down: it sure looks to me like Luigi Mangione murdered Brian Thompson. We have video. A manifesto. A weapon. Bullet casings stamped with words (whoa - premeditation?). A 'Zen' trip. CC charges. Luigi likes to scream at the cameras. Highly intelligent Luigi, who comes from a family of financial means (runs nursing homes).

And....we have a very high priced NYC defense attorney (Karen Friedman Agnifilo).

You were a defense attorney....is this the potential case of a lifetime for a defense attorney? What are the emotions you feel when you get a case like this?

[not guilty]

I'm sure that Ms. Agnifilo (the former second in command in the Manhattan DA's office) feels quite a rush from having been hired.

The state prosecution seems to be a slam dunk as to the lesser included offense of second degree murder. A subtle appeal to jury nullification may be the defense's best hope. In light of the accused's extensive planning, travel across multiple states, lying in weight, use of a noise suppressor and flight to avoid arrest, a defense of insanity or diminished capacity won't fly. Identification of the defendant is solid. The first degree murder charge may be a stretch.

Mr. Mangione’s first-degree murder charge alleges he killed Mr. Thompson “in furtherance of an act of terrorism,” which is legally defined as an intent to intimidate or coerce the civilian population or a government unit. Proving that may be difficult. It is unwise for a pleading to write a check that the proof can't cash.

For the reasons I have identified upthread, the federal charges alleged in the criminal complaint may be problematic. (The grand jury may indict on different charges, though.)

[not guilty]

A pdf of the criminal complaint is here: https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/cb910ec413ebe6c9/b4aa3510-full.pdf

The prosecution may well have a difficult time proving that the ambushed, back-shot decedent was placed in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury or sustained substantial emotional distress. And if the alleged § 2261A(1)(A) violation was not committed, then the § 924(c) and (j) charges fail as well.

[Frank Drackman]

Watch the full video, Luigi shoots the Suit in the back of the leg, then administers the kill shots to the chest. The only "Back" involved was the back of the leg, not sure if Luigi's just a shitty shot, or if it was on purpose.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, almost like a House and Senate passed laws with those punishments, a President signed them, and a Surpreme Court has ruled them as Constitutional.
Pretty sure after a few weeks at Rykers, Luigi will be pleading for the needle.

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'm concerned about due process of law.

Trump has not received due process of law. He had received a special process of law. Some who are dismissive of liberals and libertarians in many cases when they flag unjust prosecutions are quite concerned about Trump's "due process."

[Roger S]

That's right. Trump was singled out for prosecution, and charged with phony crimes that have not been applied to anyone else. Now he is not even being allowed to appeal the NY criminal case.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Most people seem to think he’s been unfairly targeted, forgetting what they’ve seen with their own eyes and ears.

[hobie]

I seem to recall something about fake electors and fraud. I believe that currently all the fake electors are under state criminal indictments. Looks like they'll all take the rap for the big guy. Thoughts and prayers.

[ducksalad]

"Looks like they'll all take the rap for the big guy."

I (slightly) disagree. Some guy in bar says the insurance company executives are criminals that deserve to die and someone ought to do something. Then I go off and do it. That's on me, not on the guy in the bar, at least legally.

Now if the guy in the bar said here's a list of opportunities for direct action with addresses, board meeting schedules, and photos, and suggested the specific action, then that's different. But even then I'm not even slightly less responsible. The rule isn't there's one total felony and it gets divided up. The rule is you can get two, five, or even a dozen convicted murderers out of one murder.

Likewise here. If the fake electors signed anything untrue, they're 100% responsible. If it turns out Trump coordinated with them, they're still 100% responsible and Trump is also 100% responsible. More participants means there was more crime.

[John F. Carr]

While looking for Mangione news from the Department of Justice I found "Former Mississippi State Capitol Police Officer Indicted for Excessive Force Against a Handcuffed Arrestee". A driver didn't stop for an unmarked police car. The pursuing officer (defendant) crashed into a tree trying to stop the car. Uniformed police arrived and handcuffed the driver. The officer then beat him up.

[Zarniwoop]

Mississippi, eh? What do you think the odds are that the 5th Cir will decide that "non-arresting officer beats up an already-handcuffed arrestee" hasn't come up before, so the officer gets QI?

I mean, I wish I were joking.

[hobie]

Speaking of thoughts and prayers, after the school shooting in Wisconsin, I thought my recollections of other Wisconsin shootings must make it the top school shooting state. But it ain't. By a wide, wide margin Kentucky leads all states in school shootings, next is Iowa. Liberal states (apart from CA) and the poorest red states such as in the deep south have the fewest

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Liberal states (apart from CA) and the poorest red states such as in the deep south have the fewest"

I'm glad to see that whatever their rednecky faults, the poor red states at least have passed common-sense gun laws. /sarc

[hobie]

They don't have enough money for guns or bullets

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Very funny.

[Frank Drackman]

So what are the Spooks in Atlanta, Detroit, Chicago, D.C., LA, Miami, Oakland, Dallas, Seattle, Portland shooting each other with? Rubber bands?

[Moderation4ever]

The Winter Solstice occurs in 2 days, Saturday, December 21, 2024 at 03:20 CST. Remember that this is the true reason for the season. As you finish your shopping, wrapping and decorating and settle in with a glass of spiked eggnog consider these words from Madison's FFR Foundation.

"At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only the natural world. Religion is myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So *you're* the reason the Grinch is the most popular Christmas character this year.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

(It seems Christ was moved to the #2 spot.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://ffrf.org/news/radio/

I appreciate the organization but don't truly support this:

Religion is myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

Religion involves various things as shown by the organization working with the Baptist Joint Committee on a report regarding Christian Nationalism & January 6th.

Amanda Tyler's new book is worthwhile.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Can you give me the cliff's notes version of Tyler's How To End Christian Nationalism?

[Nelson]

The short version? Stop trying to bring religion into government. Separation of Church and State would solve the problem nicely, plus it was what the Founders, in trying to codify the ideas of the Enlightenment, intended.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That's a bit too short. It's also short on definitions.

People define "Separation of Church and State" differently. We see this from some material from 1925. Presumably their definition isn't yours, so why not provide your own explanation?

"The true Klansman is pledged to absolute devotion to American principles. Before the sacred altar of the Klan, face to face with the Stars and Stripes, and beneath the holy light of the Fiery Cross, he pledged himself in these words; "I swear that I will most zealously and valiantly shield and preserve, by any and all justifiable means and methods, the sacred Constitutional rights and privileges of . . ."

"1 Free public schools.

"2 Free speech and free press.

"3 Separation of church and state."

https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/227KKKmanual.html

[Nelson]

The separation of Church and State means that we have a secular government. No religiously driven laws, displays, or preferences from lawmakers or by the government.

Like, for example, the requirement to uncritically post the 10 Commandments in public schools. Unless they can be examined and criticized in an academic way, it has no pace in a publicly funded school. Nor should the public pay for a student to attend a school that has religious instruction.

No morally-based laws. No preferential treatment of religious people under the law. The law applies to all equally. Gay marriage is a perfect example. If two consenting adults can get married, any two can. Homosexual marriage should never have been treated differently, but religious morality was a driving force in keeping all Americans from being treated equally under the law. Same with contraception. Same with pretty much every issue where religious moral codes clash with equal treatment.

The fact that the KKK (an overtly Christian organization) claimed to support the separation of Church and State says more about their honesty (and your credulity) than it does about the concept.

The only people who define “the separation of Church and State” as anything other than keeping religion out of the governing of a country with literally hundreds of faiths, sects, and concepts of God are those that want their particular flavor of religion (in America, various sub-sects of Protestant Christianity) to be supported and advanced using the power of the State.

Honest people know exactly what it means.

[not guilty]

Too many self-proclaimed "Christians" believe their deity to be such a weenie that He needs help from Caesar.

Over the years I have come to appreciate more and more the statement attributed to the Mahatma Gandhi: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians -- they are so unlike your Christ."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Gandhi thought Christ was a nonresistant who would not have fought to liberate India from a Japanese takeover. Two years after the defective Christians at whom Gandahi looked down his nose defeated Japan, India was its own country. And not a pacifist country either.

[Frank Drackman]

Wonder what Mahatma thought of the Hindus who killed him, or that Twit Ben Kingsley portraying him (should have got an Emmy for his cameo) in that Soprano's episode

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"The fact that the KKK (an overtly Christian organization) claimed to support the separation of Church and State says more about their honesty (and your credulity) than it does about the concept."

The Klan opposed government aid to nonpublic education. They went a step further and wanted to legally require that all education in certain grades be public. No private religious schools in those grades. It was truly a scandal that the Supreme Court theocratically ruled against the Klan on that issue (sarc).

"No religiously driven laws, displays, or preferences from lawmakers or by the government."

Only Pride flags and gender-affirming care.

[Nelson]

Since those aren’t religious, correct. If it concerns a diety, it’s off limits to government. If it doesn’t, there isn’t a religious issue at all.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So officially-sponsored Buddhism is OK?

[Nelson]

Would you prefer “supernatural figures”? That works, too. Basically, no magic people or creatures.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Do you take account of state-sponsored secular ideologies, even demonstrably-deadly ideologies?

[Nelson]

That isn’t religion in any way, shape, or form. Calling it such is typical dishonest rhetoric from the hard right.

[David Nieporent]

The fact that the KKK (an overtly Christian organization) claimed to support the separation of Church and State says more about their honesty (and your credulity) than it does about the concept.

No, they did. This was about the perceived threat of Catholicism — the Klan was of course an anti-Catholic organization as well as an anti-black and Jew one. They didn't really want a "separation of church and state" in the way that, say, the ACLU does; they wanted the existing setup in which the government treated protestantism as just the water in which everyone swims.

[David Nieporent]

By way of analogy: there are plenty of people who get upset at athletes kneeling during the national anthem on the grounds that it is injecting politics into sports. They sincerely do not even realize the irony there; to them, the anthem isn't politics. It's just the background, that everyone should just accept without noticing as being normal. It's only deviations from that baseline that upset them.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You don't have to analogous with the Klan to want the U. S. flag treated respectfully.

[Sarcastr0]

Employing power to punish if you don’t get what you want is not required.

You cant always get what you want.

[David Nieporent]

I didn't say that people who oppose athletes kneeling are Klan members. I said that thinking that the anthem is apolitical is like thinking that Protestantism is non-religious.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sorry for the bad attitude, sometimes I do that on the Internet. I used an unduly sarcastic tone in mocking your analogy.

Let me just say that I happen to believe that it's a good thing to respect the flag of one's country, and that doing so is political in the best sense. But my hypothesis is that at least *some* people assume that "political" means "bad" (as in, "it's all politics"). Those who define politics that way will be defensive when they're told that a good thing is political. So my hypothesis says that people denying that respecting the flag is political could be actually denying that it's bad. In other words, a question of the meanings of words.

[not guilty]

I think this is the first time I have seen "to analogous" used as a verb.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

This statement gets to the core of what is involved:

https://www.christiansagainstchristiannationalism.org/statement

She addresses the book to everyone but particularly speaks to Christian believers, as one herself, ending each chapter with a Bible verse.

As to citing the KKK, I gather "Free speech and free press" is fine even though they endorsed it. Not that he truly was one (he ate sausages etc.), Hitler being a vegetarian also doesn't by itself mean it is a bad thing. Bad organizations exploit things we should still honor regularly. It is part of their typical m.o.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I used the KKK's definition provocatively. But my point was that you have to be specific when talking about "separation of church and state."

If people had a history of invoking vegetarianism as a rationale to oppress others or make bad laws (for example, hypothetically, banning Jewish ritual slaughter), then people who say they want vegetarianism to be the basis for public policy ought, in fairness, to explain how they're talking about the *good* kind of vegetarianism, and how a *good* vegetarianism couldn't be used as an excuse for bad policy.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There is a general rule that people need to clarify what they mean and not just use non-obvious terms. The reference to the KKK adds little but "provocation" as part of advancing that principle.

It would not necessarily be "bad" or "oppression" if a certain law neutrally required certain slaughter rules to advance animal welfare, even if it inhibited certain religious practices.

If claims of animal welfare were suspiciously used only to burden Jews, it would be suspicious. OTOH, supporters of vegetarianism and veganism support limits for much more than Jews.

[John F. Carr]

The Boston Globe reports on the cost of the high-profile Karen Read murder trial.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/12/19/metro/karen-read-trial-costs-prosecution-price-tag/

This may or may not be paywalled depending on who knows what.

Globe reporters found about $700,000 in expenses for a 29 day trial. Most of the cost was to keep jurors from hearing that the defendant was framed and the real killer was a police officer. That's about $300,000 for police to keep pro-Read protesters away and $59,400 to bus jurors in from an undisclosed location.

The first trial ended in a mistrial. A retrial will begin in the spring with a streamlined case presented by a special prosecutor.

[Moderation4ever]

I left wonder how the Madison School shooter has two handguns when she should not have had any. Well in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, I read that two hours after the shooting the police found a handgun in the parking lot of another school. Seems the owner, a convicted felon, was biking home drunk and dropped the gun. So again, I say, while the second amendment says people, not this felon, can own guns, it does not say it is a good idea for a person to own a gun. If you tend to lose things, your keys, your phone, your gun, maybe it's best not to own one.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Seems the owner, a convicted felon, was biking home drunk and dropped the gun."

There really ought to be laws against this kind of thing.

[Moderation4ever]

Well, there is one against felons owning guns, so are you talking about a law against biking drunk or against dropping your gun.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

My suggestion was that that there are already laws against (a) felons having guns, (b) driving while intoxicated (even on a bicycle), and (c) dropping guns and leaving them around (I presume that's a crime because it was part of the case against Hunter Biden).

[Frank Drackman]

The (Unconstitutional) law only forbids minors from buying firearms, not having or using them. Both of my daughters had their own pistols at age 13, and never shot anyone as far as I know (Teen girls, who knows what goes on in their heads?)

Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Trump, not even President yet, led Congress in reaching a deal. One that's 1200 pgs less of bullshit, corruption, and graft.

Eat shit to everyone in this thread who was clutching their pearls over a precious "government shutdown", which doesn't really amount to anything really getting shutdown. They only shutter the non-critical stuff that normal citizens enjoy. And they do this on purpose to punish citizens b/c they're greedy fucking evil pieces of shit in Washington D.C.

They even have a term for these evil govie nonsense. Washington Monument Syndrome. Fuck you govies.

[hobie]

Shit, dude. We all know you're a child and we tolerate it. Ain't there a blog where you can vent with lots of other unicorns such as yourself that can give you support and affirmation?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Good ol "I live in da hood" hobie .

No one cares about your tweet

[SimonP]

Well, this comment aged well.

Here's a tip for you enterprising but uncompensated MAGA propagandists: give it a minute. Wait for the talking points to be distributed. You're going to look awfully silly if you keep declaring victory every time Trump posts something on his little Twitter-clone.

[Life of Brian]

Dunno about talking points, but the simple fact is it's now on the record for all to see that Team Blue voted 197-2 against a bill that would have kept the government open without all their porkalicous, government-swelling adornments. Ergo, keeping the government open ain't their real priority.

Looking forward to them getting their own talking points together to try to explain that away without ending up looking even more ridiculous.

[Krayt]

This isn't new. They would still lead with the Republicans shut it down, then CNN would have sob stories of Girl Scouts crying how much money they saved with cookie sales for their once in a lifetime trip, those evil Republicans.

One other thing, they don't just close down buildings, but parks, as in walking around on grass. I don't know if that's lawyer fears or politician manipulations, but a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers shall not perish from this Earth.

[SimonP]

Dunno about talking points,...

Goes on to cite one.

The "deal" that "Trump led" was forty Republican votes short of passage. What you're saying here is that the Democrats are at fault for not voting for a deal that they didn't negotiate, and in fact strikes their spending priorities, to make up for Republican hard-line defections.

Do you understand what a "deal" is?

[Brett Bellmore]

And 197 Democrats short of passage. If even a fraction as many Democrats had voted for it as Republicans, it would have passed handily.

" What you're saying here is that the Democrats are at fault for not voting for a deal that they didn't negotiate, and in fact strikes their spending priorities, to make up for Republican hard-line defections. "

That's the usual way it's portrayed when the shoe is on the other foot, so why not?

[Sarcastr0]

It's the GOP, Brett. They wrote the bill. They took out anything Dems might like in it.

And then they couldn't get it done.

Your blame shifting is flat ridiculous.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, as as I said, if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd still be blaming the Republicans, because, when have we ever had a government shutdown that wasn't blamed on Republicans, regardless of who the majority was, or who had written the continuing resolution?

[David Nieporent]

As always, hypothetical hypocrisy.

[Sarcastr0]

Dems are actually very very good at blaming Dems, Brett.

[SimonP]

You're not adding anything here but repetition, Goobs. A bot would be more interesting to debate.

[Life of Brian]

Do you understand what a "deal" is?

Of course I do, but I'm not the one that used it. The bill in question basically seeks to maintain the status quo while the parties continue to negotiate for the long haul. It's not clear what you think the Dems have given such that they're owed something in exchange.

and in fact strikes their spending priorities

Actually, a good bit of the actual extra spending from the 1467 page boondoggle (e.g., disaster relief) carried over. The vast majority of what was "stricken" was the donkeys' last-gasp attempt at larding up Leviathan with one last mountain of regulatory dreck before losing control in January.

[Zarniwoop]

It's not clear what you think the Dems have given such that they're owed something in exchange.

Their votes, LoB, their votes.

And when the stuff they negotiated for over the course of weeks got suddenly yoinked because of an 11th hour misinformation-fueled Xitter tantrum from Elon Musk, those votes went away.

Shocking! How could that possibly have have happened?

Reuters reporting today:

Republican Representative Ralph Norman told reporters that party leaders planned to hold a vote on a third spending bill, though he did not provide details.

Others said they would not try to win over Democrats whose support likely will be needed to extend funding past midnight Friday (0500 GMT Saturday), when it is due to expire.

“We’re not working with Democrats,” Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna said.

If the House GOP doesn't want to work with Democrats, they are welcome to pass a bill with GOP-only support, and send it on to the Senate. But they can't bust a deal, try to go it alone, and then whine and moan about not getting Democratic votes.

This shouldn't be hard to understand.

[Life of Brian]

Indeed it's not hard to understand at all, Mr. Vann Harl -- you've done an bang-up job of clearly and succinctly reinforcing that the Dems are holding the ongoing orderly operation of the federal government hostage to attempt to get in one last round of pet projects in the final few weeks before it becomes a lot more difficult for them to do that.

My question to Simon, though, was not about the rather obvious dirty-dog politics and ransom demands at play, but what genuine grounds he believes the Dems have to hold out for something other than an even-handed extension of the status quo. So far we appear to have a null set.

[SimonP]

So far, LoB, you're getting exactly the kind of response from me as I'm accustomed to getting from MAGA, whenever we're debating some kind of policy point.

Does it matter what the Democrats want? Maybe I just want them to make Republicans look bad. Isn't that what our politics is all about, now? When did you decide to care about fine points of policy?

[Life of Brian]

Interestingly enough, I had just taken Nieporent to task yesterday for falling back on "you MAGA people" as a lazy out card when the going got difficult. It must be catching.

My 7-year comment history here (actually far longer, but I believe comments from the prior sites are gone with the wind) speaks for itself, and as I recall you and I have actually gone fairly deep into issues a few times when you weren't in grumpy bear mode.

[Zarniwoop]

Shrug. The GOP is in the majority in the House. They control the agenda, and have two basic options:
1) get enough votes from their majority to pass a bill.
2) acquire additional votes by negotiation from the minority party.

You seem to be a snowflake trying to justify option 3) “Whaaaah, the other side won’t vote for our bill when we won’t even talk to them and include them in the process”.

I do note that Johnson is recently reported to be talking to Minority Leader Jeffries… hopefully because he’s smart enough to know that if option 1) doesn’t work, option 2) is the real-world alternative, not your weirdo fantasyland belief that option 3) should exist.

We’ll see what happens! Trump/Musk shutdown in less than 7 hours still seems like a possibility.

[Life of Brian]

Man, apparently everyone's in a saucy/cynical mood going into Christmas break. Hopefully there's some eggnog in your future.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the 'Pubs come back later today with a unified front on a tweaked bill -- I mean, you quoted as much in your prior post. But I know you're smart enough to know that I'm smart enough to know that if the Dems don't help get it out of the House, they're not going to let it out in the Senate.

And so yes, if we continue our general practice of not negotiating with terrorists, we do indeed have the prospect of a shutdown, but with a ceiling of 30ish days and nearly half of it over the holidays. It may be worth a few minutes of measured thought by Team Blue whether this is the way they want to be remembered, particularly if they follow on with their usual spiteful baloney like putting protective fencing around the monuments and parks over Christmas.

[Life of Brian]

Well, I just skimmed through a redline of what the House ultimately passed, and aside from a few apparently ticky-tacky things around the edges the only real change needed to get 100% Dem support was removing the extension on the suspension of the debt ceiling.

That seems like a pretty weird hill to choose to die on -- Occam might suggest they dug in simply because Trump had asked for it. But whatever gets their holiday cheer on, I guess.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it does get them an opportunity to play their favorite game of chicken in the early months of the Trump administration.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, but that movie has had exactly the same ending since the "debt ceiling" was instituted, so I suspect by now people are generally numb to what they know are always temporary theatrics.

And even if they don't come to their senses by then and take Trump up on his proposal to do what they've always wanted and remove the debt ceiling altogether, I suspect by then there will be enough other smelling-salt issues in the mix that this will largely get lost in the noise.

[Jmaie]

So, what is wisdom?

A younger me thought it was just things we learn as we get older. True but facile. An older me has quipped, "I don't know much more than I knew when I was 20, it's just a whole lot easier to see through the BS." Only partly true...

I would add a few things.

Experiences that I couldn't imagine before they happened to me, simply because I had no frame of reference. Aging for example, I distinctly remember the first time I hurt my hand turning a door know because I hit the stop and kept going. Soft tissue just can't take what bone and muscle can. Little man inside my knee with a pickaxe going to town when my daughter jumped on my back for a piggy back ride.

Breaking assumptions ingrained during formative years. Like the idea that electoral process weeded out the incompetent resulting in our elected officials being "a cut above."

Learning that folks can have opinions greatly different from my own, that they feel with the same intensity as I feel mine, and that doesn't make them a bad person. That my deeply (fill in political allegiance here) neighbor will still loan me his lawn mower and I will help him fix his car.

That profanity on an internet forum changes no minds and (usually) reflects poorly on the profaner.

And a great lesson learned right here on the Conspiracy, the pointlessness of arguing with an autist. Thanks S(O), and I mean that with no snark whatsoever.

Cheers.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Not ratifying the ERA provided more flexibility to develop the law of sex/gender equality."

You're fuckin' A right!

[Don Nico]

As we enter the last month of the Biden presidency, we are approaching the greatest foreign policy failure of his lack of courage: the immanent test or announcement of an Iranian nuclear device.
IAEA DG Grossi acknowledges that Iran has offered no credible reason for enriching uranium to 60% U-235 and that the Natanz facility alone could enrich this feedstock to produce 1 or 2 bare sphere critical masses of weapons grade uranium in 2 to 3 weeks. He and the former IAEA Dputy DG Heinonen acknowledge that they may already have done that and that Iran has underground facilities where they could have performed sufficient "cold tests" for the design and building of a gun-type device compatible with the delivery capabilities of Iranian IRBMs

Yes, I know all about the JCPOA, which some here will say would have delayed this day by a few years.
But for the past year, this emergency situation (even as so described by team Biden) has existed and nothing has been done to prevent it.

What is to be done in the next few weeks? What do people think?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I suspect Israel is brainstorming this issue.

[Don Nico]

That is certain. Listen or read the news from Israel.

[Sarcastr0]

You are angry Biden didn't invade Iran?

[Don Nico]

Wow, you are incorrigible.
No one said invade except YOU. Why do you have to be dishonest especially when you have NOTHINg useful to contribute. YOu whine, whine, whine about Brett, but you are worse.

The fact is that there are options
the US bombs the nuclear sites
Israel bombs the nuclear sites for a longer period
the US and Israel bomb the nuclear sites
The world lives with a North Korea style nuclear power
Otherwise somehow the US effects immediate regime change in Iran, but doubtless that means some boots on the ground.

Tell us what is you choice and why. And don't give us the telepathy crap because you are the one using telepathy ("so you are angry...")

[Sarcastr0]

Do one of those no-boots-on-the-ground wars.
That includes bombing up nuclear enrichment sites.

And political assassinations have always been successful in creating allies in the middle east.

Sorry, I gave you too much credit.

You piss your pants about what Putin's gonna do to us, but this you think is worth the risk?

[Don Nico]

More of you lies.
"You piss your pants about what Putin's gonna do to us"
YOU mention Putin, not me. What is the matter of you? I guess years in the Fed bubble have made an habitual liar of you unable to imagine criticizing a demented old man. You prefer to see the ayatollah regime maintain chaos in the Middle East indefinitely.
You offer no constructive comment; that seems to be beyond you.

So stop being a coward and a troll. Tell us what you think should be done about Iran at the nuclear brink.
This is the third time I challenge you.
Time is up for your sitting on your thumbs and rotating

[Sarcastr0]

You have in the past not been shy about citing fear of Putin as a reason why we should stop assisting Ukraine.

Noting your inconsistency seems relevant.

There you go again demanding I present a solution just because I pointed out yours is that of a warmongering fool.

I can criticize you without meeting your hubris.

[Don Nico]

Wow, you really are a overbearing coward. Just keep stamping your feet.

To defend yourself you offer another LIE. I have suggested being afraid of Putin. I have suggested in the past that our demented POTUS has been playing a dangerous game of chicken with a nuclear power. But I guess that you cannot help yourself from criticizing your own delusion.
You showed nothing about my argument, especially as I did not argue what should be done about Iran.
Instead I described pointed out what top IAEA experts have said publicly in the last week and asked for opinions from others about their thoughts.
And no, you did criticize my argument because that would require that you make a substantive comment and you are afraid to do that.
However, you would not know that. Instead you rather shout
"warmongering fool" because your poor telepathy is at work again.

Everybody knows the gaslighting game; you fool no one.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Classic Sarcastr0!

Attack the commenter for something no one said! Brilliant!

[Krayt]

Not a great choice, is that? I wasn't aware it was even on the table.

I further suppose people will bitch if Israel takes care of business, even though the whole world secretly hopes so.

I guess we'll just sit here and wish real hard.

[tylertusta]

You're trolling again, Peanut.

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, being against war with Iran is a pretty normal take.

[tylertusta]

I don't believe you mean anything that you say.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't think I'm against the US getting into a war with Iran?

...OK.

I seem to have been mistaken in engaging with you.

FWIW, I think you've been in good faith this whole time, just wrong a lot.

I'll hold of on replying to you for a bit, so you can cool off.

[Armchair]

"What is to be done in the next few weeks? What do people think?"

Don,

Biden basically isn't there anymore. Trump has more influence and power in the current US Government than Biden does. That being said, Trump isn't actually President yet, so can't do anything in the next few week.

I expect we'll see Israel take lead, while having a number of conversations with the incoming Trump administration. And as necessary, Trump will take action. Whether it be military, support of Israel's military, or other.

[Don Nico]

My guess is that if Mossad spies in Iran sense any rush to fabricate a testable nuclear device of make a run at 90+ enrichment, Israel will begin bombing facilities at Natanz and Fordow. If the ultra-centrifuges underground at Fordow are actually in operation they are still extremely sensitive to vibrations and can destroy themselves.
If Iran sits tight, Israel will wait to negotiate with Trump, but that would have to be on a fast-track.

[Zarniwoop]

let me be clear, I have no interest in Iran obtainting nuclear weapons. That said:

IAEA DG Grossi acknowledges that Iran has offered no credible reason for enriching uranium to 60% U-235 and that the Natanz facility alone could enrich this feedstock to produce 1 or 2 bare sphere critical masses of weapons grade uranium in 2 to 3 weeks.

Get Kissinger-type realpolitik for a minute. Why do you think Iran might want a nuke or several? "Credible" my posterior. Iran might not say what the reason is, but we can all read between the lines.

To repeat, I don't support the outcome. It will destabilize a lot of stuff. But saying "Iran has no reason" is kinda hopelessly naive.

On a positive note, I think the success of Israel and allies defending against Iran missile attacks significantly diminishes the value of regional nuclear warheads to Iran. If Iran launches 100 missiles and zero or maybe one gets through (and impacts in a desert) ... does Iran want to nuke sand, but give Israel an excuse to shoot one back and hit the center of Tehran?

[Don Nico]

Z,
Former Dep DG Heinonen's statement was that there are no credible reasons that Iran has offered no reason (meaning application) for enriching to 60% and that there are very few applications at all for making a large inventory at that enrichment. A small amount could be useful for a specially designed high-flux, high-brightness research reactor, but such a reactor would not need a large inventory.
In realpolitik Iran does have a "reason" which is to threaten to become a nuclear power and therefore at threat to Israel and the Sunni Arab states
Regarding my use of credible, let me clarify. That means that a simple gun type design would not need a nuclear test, for its functioning to have a very high probability of giving a yield in the range of 10 - 20 kT. That was just the case of Little Boy dropped on Japan. The gun design had never been tested before being used in a weapon.
I mostly agree with your last paragraph; however, Israel's defences are not at the >99% level. One Houthi warhead (out of several) got through last night and destroyed a school.

[Zarniwoop]

Regarding my use of credible, let me clarify. That means that a simple gun type design would not need a nuclear test, for its functioning to have a very high probability of giving a yield in the range of 10 - 20 kT

I expect there's enough info out there that a decently competent, state-funded effort could build a smaller and more efficient implosion-type bomb and expect it to work on the first try.

I could ask a former roomie who was Course 22, I spose.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's my understanding that nobody has EVER failed to get a fission bomb to work on the first try.

[Zarniwoop]

North Korea's first test in 2006 is thought to possibly be a fizzle (yield of ~0.7kt). But their subsequent tests were also small (2-5.4kt in 2009, 6-16kt in 2013) before announcing a successful test (15-25kt) of a missile-ready warhead in 2016

I suspect Iran would want to test first, like NK. Engineering something that's reliably missile-deliverable is not trivial, even if you can make fissile material go boom.

[Don Nico]

Uranium is not the preferable material for an implosion device. However, it can be used for one. Getting the "smaller and more efficient" design and expecting it to work on the first try is a dicey bet absent very extensive cold test facilities.
A first gun type device could be ~ 1 ft in diameter. It would not be light. Relatively simple cold test would be necessary.

If Iran is comfortable to have a 20 weapons stockpile, they don't have to worry much about burn efficiency.

[tylertusta]

I think the success of Israel and allies defending against Iran missile attacks significantly diminishes the value of regional nuclear warheads to Iran.

No. Not at all. A nuclear Iran would be the single most destabilizing event to happen since the Russians got the bomb in 1949.

Israel wasn't perfect with intercepting Iranian missiles: some missiles still got through.

All it takes is one nuke to do incredible amounts of damage and create tens, if not hundreds of thousands of casualties. Furthermore, the nuclear interception problem is much harder than a conventional warhead problem because nuclear weapons have a much larger area of effect.

The other reason why it's bad is that other nations will also want nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent to Iranian aggression, and Middle Eastern states aren't exactly renowned for their stability.

[Zarniwoop]

I think the success of Israel and allies defending against Iran missile attacks significantly diminishes the value of regional nuclear warheads to Iran.

No. Not at all. A nuclear Iran would be the single most destabilizing event to happen since the Russians got the bomb in 1949.

Those two statements are not contradictory in the least. If Iran has a handful of untested warheads, and each warhead-equipped missile has a 1% chance of reaching a target, that is a fukovalot less valuable to them than a handful of warheads each with a 90% chance of reaching a target.

So if you're Tehran, do you launch a nuke, knowing that
1) your first missile has 99% chance of failure
and
2) Israel also has nukes, so you might not get a second missile

(I assume here, because Israelis are most decidedly not idiots, that someone waves a Geiger counter at downed missile parts)

Do some basic stats, consult with the ghost of Henry K, and get back to me when you see the difference.

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume that, for that reason, a fission bomb aimed at Israel would arrive by ship, or possibly by truck, NOT by rocket.

[tylertusta]

Usually countries work out the reliability problems within the first one or two test detonations.

The bigger problem is putting effort into miniaturization to fit their warheads onto missiles. Iran will probably get help from North Korea, and possibly Russia.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think Iran can risk that approach, because Israel knows what happens to them if Iran gets a reliable nuclear bomb. And so, Iran knows what happens to them if they give Israel time to realize they've got one. Israel is probably the only nation in the world that would first strike a nuclear Iran, just as a matter of national survival.

So they may just build the bulky 99% reliable fission bomb, deliver it by covert means rather than rocket, and do their first test above ground inside Israel.

[Don Nico]

Those tests are typically to assure implosion designs. Pakistan did a number of "cold" tests in underground facilities before its first series of five tests, all of which worked.
A gun assembly, ruggedized for missile delivery, could be cold tested on a shake table.
Getting an implosion device in the 50 kT - 100kT range would likely that much more cold testing and likely a nuclear test for high confidence.

[tylertusta]

Those statements are absolutely in conflict.

You're assuming what happens if Iran is nuclear tomorrow with. Your assumption is shortsighted, so I shall educate you.

The number of warheads that needs to get through, in Israel's case, is just one. Half of Israel's population lives in and around Tel Aviv. That's five million people, dead or wounded, if a warhead of sufficient size detonates above the city. If Iran has a hundred warheads, and Israel can shoot down 99% of them, that's still have of their country's population effectively gone.

In the recent ballistic missile attacks, Israel didn't even achieve a 99% success rate. They prioritized missiles that would land in occupied parts of Nevatim Airbase while ignoring the ones that landed in empty parts.

The problem with trying to extrapolate this success rate to nuclear weapons is that nuclear weapons have a much larger footprint. Israel had the luxury of allowing weapons to impact a few hundred feet away from buildings because the conventional warheads don't go that far. Contrast with a small-to-medium sized warhead with a yield of 100 kilotons: it has a fireball diameter of over half a mile and a blast radius of 5 miles.

Israel is fortunate to have invested significantly in anti-ballistic missile protection against a ballistic missile attack None of the other states in the region have a similar system. Does Saudi Arabia had a David's Sling? No. Kuwait? UAE? Bahrain (well, Bahrain has a US fleet base, so I guess there's that).

Those states- especially the Saudis!- will need their own deterrence because they cannot even approach Israel's success rate.

Do some basic stats, consult with the ghost of whatever shitbird who taught you math, and then get back to me when you see the difference.

[Don Nico]

Note that a single Houthi IRBM got through Israel's defences yesterday landing in a park near Tel Aviv and injuring 16 persons. One is all that it takes. Hiroshima is witness to that fact.
A simple gun design can deliver 15 to 20 kT of yield; note that the radius of effects scales with the cube root of yield.

[Don Nico]

"your first missile has 99% chance of failure"
That is a bad assumption, as the Houthis have showed in two attacks that got through this past week.

[SimonP]

All it takes is one nuke to do incredible amounts of damage and create tens, if not hundreds of thousands of casualties.

This is a claim you'll continue to make right up until the moment Israel engages in a preemptive nuclear strike within Iran.

[tylertusta]

You continue to win the gold medal in the special olympics for mental gymnastics.

[Commenter_XY]

What is to be done in the next few weeks? What do people think?

Iran policy has been a complete and utter failure. It started with Pres Carter, Pres Reagan, Pres Bush, Pres Obama, Pres Biden have all perpetuated the failure. I have said more than once that I thought Iran had a few devices already. Nobody has recently invaded a nuke armed country. That changes the game. The world needs to get used to the idea that we may already have a nuclear armed Iran. And the timing of this happening, at the transition of a presidency, is not accidental. Pres Trump has a fundamentally different approach. That is what I think.

Supporting Israel in cutting off Iran's ability to resupply hezball-less terrorists is essential. Lebanon (and the Lebanese) must address the problem of having hezball-less as an unwelcome guest. Syria is a mess, but we must speak with Turkey and prevail upon them not to invade. And simultaneously talk to HTS. Gaza, I don't think a deal with hamas is going to hold for very long, as no ceasefire deal with hamas has lasted. Israel must prevail and remove hamas (and PA) influence. In short...try not to let things blow up in the next 30 days. That is what we should do.

[Zarniwoop]

Pres Trump has a fundamentally different approach. That is what I think.

Pull out out the multi-national deal that actually stopped, for a time, Iran's nuclear progress? Petulant "I don't get credit for making the deal so I'll blow it up" actions have predictable consequences...

(see also current shutdown. Has Johnson's Plan C failed to pass the House yet?)

[Brett Bellmore]

"Actually stopped"; You've at least got a sense of humor. It didn't stop anything. Maybe slowed things down a little. Maybe.

The problem is, they weren't actually keeping their side of the deal; Instead our side was taking care not to uncover any violations, by letting them veto where we did inspections.

[Sarcastr0]

Not supported, Brett.

The right just pulled out because Obama did it.

[Don Nico]

No, because it was not such a good deal.
You are so damned partisan.
But in any case the lost opportunities are water over the damn. They are irrelevant to the future

[Brett Bellmore]

Iran Deal Limits Inspectors’ Access to Suspicious Sites

Bottom line was that Iran exercised veto power over where and when inspections actually happened.

Known or Possible Iranian Violations of the JCPOA Fact Sheet (Yes, I know you'll likely reject the source, but they have links for everything.)

And it was later determined that they had significant undeclared nuclear resources that never got inspected, and continued work in places they wouldn't let us inspect, and we let them not let us.

So, no, they weren't keeping their side of the deal, the Obama administration was merely pretending it was being kept, while Iran's nuclear program continued advancing towards building a bomb.

Trump refused to go along with the pretense.

[Commenter_XY]

It was a bad deal. PM Netanyahu said as much, at the time. Time has shown his assessment to be correct.

It should have been submitted to the Senate as a treaty. Senator Cotton released a letter to the Ayatollah at the time explaining that absent Senate ratification, the agreement is meaningless and isn't binding.

[Don Nico]

Israel should do what it needs to do. Should it wait one month? That depends on the war cabinet's assessment of how good Mossad's intelligence is about Iran.

[Commenter_XY]

What America should do and what Israel should do are two different things.

[Armchair]

New concept: Move the DC District court and US Court of Appeals for the DC court) to the Mean Center of US Population...

As a concept, Washington DC "used" to roughly be in the center of the US population when the country started. In 1790, it stood at Kent County, MD. 1800 was Howard County, MD, 1810 was Loudon County, MD. For those familiar with geography in the area, these are all roughly around the Washington DC area.

However, as the country has grown, the center of US population has moved increasingly away from Washington DC. DC itself has become an anomaly....the single richest area of the country, with a more partisan distribution in its two party vote than virtually anywhere else. (Interesting fact...DC was more "Democratic" than each and every congressional district in California). Does it really make sense to have the center of government, to have federal court cases with national implications decided in such an unrepresentative area? Perhaps...a change is in order.

Imagine instead if government cases were heard in the current mean center of the US population. That would put it today in.... Wright County, Missouri.

Think how things might change in such a situation. A rural county, one with just 18,000 residents. One which did not have the highest median household income of over $100,000 a year, but a below average median income ($30,685). One that had not for more than 50 years only known how to vote one way overwhelmingly, but which had actually changed which party it voted for. An area more representative of America, rather than an outlier enclave.

It's a thought worth considering.

[Lennyk78]

The problem isn't one of location, but of jury qualification. Limit a D.C. jury pool to white men who don't want for the federal government, a consulting firm or a law firm and you'll get fair juries.

[tylertusta]

If we're only tinkering with the DC courts, then the easier answer is to just give back nearly all of DC to Maryland. Transfer the DC Circuit's judges to the 4th Circuit, and the DC District Court judges into the Marland District Courts.

After that, we can explore moving the seat of government to the interior of the country.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't stop there; repeal the 23rd Amendment (DC can be incorporated back into MD for purposes pf representation) and repeal home rule.

[tylertusta]

Good point. Best we clean out any leftover stuff to prevent electoral vote shenanigans.

[John F. Carr]

If the seat of government is mandated to be at the center of population then it will tend to wander around, discouraging the concentration of facilities we have around Washington.

I remember a "find my stolen device" type service kept directing users to some guy in the center of the country. This Midwesterner has my stolen phone! The angry users were ignoring the notation that the location was only accurate to the continent level. Geographic center of the lower 48 plus or minus two thousand miles. The homeowner sued.

[Absaroka]

Perhaps one of these incidents?

I think the 'geographic center' cases were a little different, and predate 'Find My Device'. My recollection is that there were address-to-lat/lon services (Google ? Someone else?) that would return the central point of whatever area they could localize the address to, so for a suburban lot you would get a point in the center of the lot. Buuuut, if it was a rural address the service didn't know about, you might get a lat/lon that was just the center of e.g. Kansas. And that was a bummer for some poor farmer who happened to live at that position, who kept having various police and bounty hunters showing up looking for bad guys. It was bad enough the local sheriff put up a big sign on the driveway saying that out of town police or bail bond people better chat with the sheriff first (the article had a picture of the sign). I believe the resolution eventually was to arbitrarily move the state center point to the middle of a nearby lake, which would suggest to people that perhaps the lat/lon they were using was inaccurate.

I dunno what happened if some state didn't have a conveniently located water feature, or how granular they got (what if you only know the county?)

Apologies for memory errors; I tried to google for it but my searches were all full of the recent google geofence news.

[John F. Carr]

I was thinking of this case: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/kansas-couple-sues-ip-mapping-firm-for-turning-their-life-into-a-digital-hell/

The lawsuit was settled. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4510056/arnold-v-maxmind-inc/

[Absaroka]

That's the one, thanks!

[tylertusta]

I think putting the seat in Kansas or Missouri makes sense.

I have one exception: Congress should move around the country. Every two years, Congress relocates to a different state in a nonstop grand tour of the nation. There's no need for Congress to be geographically near the President or the Supreme Court.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, instead of my Congressional dormitory, 535 Congressional motor homes?

[tylertusta]

They can build a new "Congressional Village" whenever they relocate the legislature to a new location. Congresscritters would then move around like the military has to where every two years they go to a new duty station.

This also fixes a big problem with our current system: Our elected officials supplement their income because you can't own a house in DC on an elected official's salary.

Instead we offset their largest expenditure (housing costs) and suddenly they don't have to become stock traders like Pelosi.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the motor homes would be a lot cheaper.

[tylertusta]

Too cheap. We're the top dog nation on the planet. At some point we have to rub it in other countries' faces.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's how you stop being the top dog, you know. Being inefficient just to rub it in others' faces.

[John F. Carr]

I hear a Schoolhouse Rock / Allman Brothers Band mashup coming on. The bill sings "I was born in the back seat of a Greyhound bus."

[bernard11]

No, it's not worth considering. It's moronic beyond belief.

And Wright County is hardly representative of the US.

For starters, it's 91.6% white, only .6% Black. The median household income is less than half the US median.

How do you think it's going to provide housing, schools, hospitals, transportation, for all those new residents.

And the US is hardly rural. Wright County's population density of 26/sq. mi. is barely over a quarter of US density of of 95 (density of the contiguous states is 113).

This is one of the most preposterous suggestions ever on this site.

The US is a big, technologically advanced,

[Brett Bellmore]

I would require that members of Congress live in their districts full time, visiting DC only for ceremonial purposes, and let Congress meet by teleconference, with all proceedings and communications between members archived in read only format in multiple locations.

[tylertusta]

I think that would be extremely unhelpful. There is much to be gained by having people hold meetings in person.

[Zarniwoop]

Agreed, trying to run the governemnt by introducing communications barriers seems ... I'm looking for a pithy word, but keep coming back to "dumb".

This might be why Elon "Mister DOGE" Musk demanded that Tesla employees had to return to the office 40+hrs/wk or be fire. And if Elon says it, it must!!1! be true.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think of it as a communications barrier, so much as a "keep in touch with your constituents instead of going native" mechanism. With a side order of "obstructing plotting to put one over on your constituents".

[tylertusta]

I understand what you're getting at, but given individual Congresscritter approval ratings within their own districts I suspect they understand their own districts' needs all too well.

[Brett Bellmore]

A lot of that is due to obstacles incumbents have managed to place in the way of challengers. They haven't achieved a reelection rate well over 90% by just being preternaturally good at serving their constituents.

[Zarniwoop]

I want a magic pony!

Your desire and mine seem about equally likely.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trust me, you don't want a pony, they're a lot of upkeep, and a lot worse tempered than you think. Though, maybe the magic ones are better.

Agreed about the likelihood, though.

[David Nieporent]

all proceedings and communications between members archived in read only format in multiple locations.

Do you plan to outlaw the telephone?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, of course not. I'd just make it a strict liability offense for a Congressman to use one for legislative business without the call being recorded. 😉

[bernard11]

Stupid idea.

[bernard11]

Didn't finish. Sorry.

The main point is that we are a complex society, and all these ideas about reverting to some simple organization are nonsense.

I mean, Wright County as a model? Really?

The only thing I see in all these suggestions is the idea that rural dwellers are the "real Americans," which is bigoted horseshit.

[Frank Drackman]

First free-kick field goal in an NFL game since Gerald Ford was President, that's what passes for excitement in today's No Fun League, at least we'll get 4 College games this weekend with real kick offs,

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/fbi-arrests-man-for-plotting-mass-casualty-attack-against-israeli-consulate-in-nyc/

Immediate deportation (and a lifetime ban from entering US ever again) for this Egyptian national, college student....after serving his sentence.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're vociferously demanding the status quo?

[Commenter_XY]

He has no blood on his hands, so to speak. Post conviction, he could be deported immediately and then bar he (and his family) from entering the US, permanently.

[M L]

Pentagon Press Secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder on Thursday:

"As you know, we have been briefing you regularly that there are approximately 900 U.S. troops deployed to Syria. In light of the situation in Syria and the significant interest, we recently learned that those numbers were higher, and so asked to look into it, I learned today that in fact there are approximately 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria."

Well what do you know. Understandably, it is hard to keep track of what our military is doing in far flung lands. Glad he deigned to look into it.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4013726/dod-announces-2000-troops-in-syria-department-prepared-for-government-shutdown/

Do you think somebody might have lied, under oath, to Congress?

[Commenter_XY]

One potential reason we saw a very recent doubling of US troops.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/400958

[Brett Bellmore]

That guy in the State Department admitted, bragged really, that they'd been lying to Trump about troop levels during his first term. Just the fact that he was willing to say it publicly tells you there's starting to be a pathological culture of dishonesty to the elected part of government, in the unelected part.

[Commenter_XY]

The people who did that (lied to Pres Trump about troop levels) should never, ever be close to the governmental levers of power.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Now you hypocritical fucks are pretending to care about alleged lies?

LOL.

[Brett Bellmore]

Outgoing Syria Envoy Admits Hiding US Troop Numbers; Praises Trump’s Mideast Record

"“We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” Jeffrey said in an interview. The actual number of troops in northeast Syria is “a lot more than” the roughly two hundred troops Trump initially agreed to leave there in 2019."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

As usual, you're one of the first to miss the point entirely.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the point here is that the unelected parts of government have gotten into the habit of lying to the elected parts, in order to deprive the latter of the power to direct policy that they're legally, constitutionally, entitled to exercise.

And that you want to pretend that the lies are just "alleged", because you think it's good that they usurp that power by lying to the people we elect.

What did you think the point was?

[Commenter_XY]

They're still in the anger phase of grief and loss, Brett. 😉

[Brett Bellmore]

The bureaucracy is the only part of government they still control, so of course they want it to exercise supremacy over the other branches.

If Trump manages to wrest that from them, too, (I don't give him much chance of that in 1 term, unless he can go full Milei.) they're going to go totally nuts, and probably openly revolutionary.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"And that you want to pretend that the lies are just "alleged", because you think it's good that they usurp that power by lying to the people we elect."

It's past time to take yourself out to a pasture and spare us your stupidity if that's your conclusion.

The point, you illiterate waste of oxygen, is that your ilk doesn't give a fuck about the lies Trump has told, is telling, and will continue to tell, yet here you and your fellow Nazi swine are crying about this 'story' and caterwauling that an alleged lie should prevent someone from being in charge of anything.

As to the veracity of your story, I don't believe it for several reasons:

1) Unsubstantiated.
2) Whistleblowers don't run to some obscure website.
3) Legitimate websites don't publish interviews completely and utterly void of transcripts, with fun little "quotes" every now and then to "prove" their interpretation of an alleged interviewee's remarks.

[Mr. Bumble]

Jason, you ignorant slut! H/T Dan Aykroyd.

[Brett Bellmore]

Balkinization Symposium on Rogers M. Smith and Desmond King, America’s New Racial Battle Lines: Protect versus Repair

These Balkanization symposia are generally crippled by Balkin's determination to never include anybody who isn't reliably on the his (left) end of the political spectrum. This one is no different.

Sure, it's his blog, he's entitled to do that. But I do mean that "crippled"; Because they never allow perspectives that might actually disagree with the left, their left-wing perspectives are never challenged and sharpened by critical engagement. They're free to run with easily refuted ideas, without risk of contradiction.

It really is disappointing, because Balkanization wasn't always like this...

But I guess that's just academia writ small, isn't it? They conducted a purge, and now they're suffering from a lack of critical engagement, going crazy because there's nobody left to tell them when something is nuts.

[Brett Bellmore]

I might add that's why I like the Conspiracy, and Reason; While they have their perspectives, they've never taken that last step of completely closing the bubble; People are always free to disagree in the comments, and some of them read the comments.

[Sarcastr0]

You're awful at dealing with dissent, though.

[John F. Carr]

You're saying Balkinization is not Balkanized.

[tylertusta]

I think he's saying the opposite, actually. Balkinization is emblematic of the balkanization of our institutions.

[Commenter_XY]

The kids are not alright...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/civil-rights-probe-finds-philly-school-district-failed-to-tackle-antisemitic-harassment/