Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Had a fun discussion with Martinned and Sarcastro a few days ago on of all things the disinformation thread.

it started with this from Martinned:

"entirely fictitious immigrant paedophile grooming gangs."

I, knowing of course they were not entirely fictitious, posted a link to the BBC which discussed a study about 3 such gangs.

Sarcastro then comes in while concedes there were rape gangs and says I didn't establish they were immigrants.

Well I didn't have time for that (which I will call 'implausible deniability'), but the debate is still going on in the UK, so I saw this headline today:

"Home Office Refuses to Release Data on Groomer Deportations"

"Meanwhile, Suella Braverman, a former home secretary, is calling for a strict approach to deporting foreign child sex offenders.

She’s pretty adamant that we need to be tough on this issue. It’s wild to think that a guy who led a grooming gang in Rochdale is still living there, even after being ordered to be sent back to Pakistan. That’s nine years after the deportation was supposed to happen!

Qari Abdul Rauf was one of those guys, and he only served a couple of years in jail before being released. Even though Theresa May ordered his deportation, he’s still in Rochdale, and his victims have to deal with that. Pakistan won’t take him back, which is just frustrating."

Of course next he'll say that's just one, but I am looking forward to that.

https://dywpk.org.uk/home-office-refuses-to-release-data-on-groomer-deportations/

[Kazinski]

To explain why there is so much ourage building now in the UK about the grooming gangs, and the official coverup, you can look at things like Gordon Browns Home Office sent this to local Police in 2009:
"We believe they have made an informed choice about their sexual behaviour and therefore it is not for your police officers to get involved"

https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1876150566289903747?t=KpFYdr1rXJVSD8ArHKUJHw&s=19

[Dr. Ed 2]

See: https://anncoulter.com/2024/12/04/elder-rape-is-a-strength/

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What "outrage building now in the UK" are you fantasizing about?

Also, are you aware that you are quoting Nazir Afzal's rather obvious paraphrasing of the alleged memo (which he later clarified he had never personally seen)?

"Dozens of police officers told me Home Office Circular 17/2008 on child abuse had supporting guidelines (issued by whom I don’t know) which referred to children making an “informed choice”

Never seen it (I’m not police) & certainly no Minister would have needed to agree it"

Shades of the infamous Rob Misek quotation of David Irving, whose sloppy, self-serving "paraphrasing" was falsely attributed to Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, a WWII-era British official...

[Kazinski]

Well I'm hardly the only one to notice:

The Critic Magazine
thecritic.co.uk
The liberal establishment is to blame for public outrage

Ignoring and enabling horrendous crimes has encouraged a nativist backlash

Artillery Row
By

Sebastian Milbank
6 January, 2025

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I lived in the UK for 20 years and had never heard of The Critic Magazine. (Possibly because it was founded in 2019...)

However, according to Media Bias/Fact Check, The Critic is a mostly factual but right-biased UK source. For context, that means it's as biased as Fox News, but more factual.

So, you've now got two reference points of this "building outrage" in the UK, one of which is a complete foreigner (you)...

[AmosArch]

Gaslighto is the type of guy that If you ever got stuck in an underground bunker with him would try to chip away at your certainty that the sky was blue.

[Sarcastr0]

That's the actual definition of gaslight.

Pick a lane.

[Martinned2]

If only someone had actually investigated this issue! O, wait, the Tory government already did: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/iicsa-report-of-the-independent-inquiry-into-child-sexual-abuse

The fact that the Tories today are trying to kiss Elon Musk's ass so that he doesn't put all of his money behind Reform shouldn't make you think that there's an actual story here. There isn't. Elon Musk is just foaming at the mouth. He's actually so far on the right of UK politics that Nigel Farage has asked him to tone it down on his support for Tommy Robinson, because even most Reform voters think Tommy Robinson belongs in prison.

[Kazinski]

Seems to me the Suella Braverman wing of the Tories has more in Common with the Tommy Robinson movement than Farage does.

Farage is worried about being called a racist, Suella, despite being named for the Dallas star, is of South Asian heritage, can't be called racist by whites.

To the South Asian Muslims, she is worse than white, she is Hindu.

[Martinned2]

Yes, some Tories are more racist than Farage. That's why they're unelectable. There is no constituency in the UK (or anywhere else) for "more racist than Farage". Farage, being quite a good politician, knows exactly how much racism is the right amount of racism for his political prospects.

[Michael P]

Your entire argument consists of calling people racist ... because they recognize that these rape gangs exist and are constituted of particular immigrant groups.

The problem here is not those people who are able to accurately engage with reality. The problem is that lots of people, you included, want to create Airstrip One.

[Malika]

Lol, the problem for you here is the person who Martinned responded to made it about race.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean rape, right?

[Michael P]

Martinned is the one who brought up race. I would thank you for playing, but it's probably been years since you last made a valid point.

[Malika]

"Farage is worried about being called a racist, Suella, despite being named for the Dallas star, is of South Asian heritage, can't be called racist by whites.

To the South Asian Muslims, she is worse than white, she is Hindu."

[Michael P]

So you don't know why some Brits have such a dislike for Tommy Robinson. Noted.

[Martinned2]

they recognize that these rape gangs exist and are constituted of particular immigrant groups.

You spelled "lie about" wrong.

[Michael P]

I did not. If I wanted to call out lying about the rape gangs, I would start with you, who -- as Kazinski pointed out -- denied that they even existed.

[Martinned2]

I did no such thing. I denied that immigrants are inherently more prone to raping children, which is what Elon Musk and half the commenters here are claiming.

[Joe_dallas]

That particular sub class of immigrants are massively more prone to raping children. That fact is not in dispute.

[Sarcastr0]

What subclass, Joe? And what evidence makes it indisputable?

[Don Nico]

S_0,
The sub-class is that of criminal gangs. Do you have a problem with that?
The controversy of grooming gangs is more than a decade old. That is sufficient evidence that there may be an issue.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 28 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"What subclass, Joe? And what evidence makes it indisputable?"

Gas0 playing stupid again!

[Sarcastr0]

The sub class of immigrants more likely to rape are those immigrants in criminal gangs.

That's tautological.
The sub class of clowns more likely to rape are those clowns in criminal gangs.

This is how you shoehorn immigration into something where immigration is not involved.

What is the controversy or issue about pedophile rings? They seem pretty universally condemned.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe dodging the question.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Joe dodging the question."

No - There is simply no point in responding when you have no interest in dealing with reality.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe angrily disengaging because he doesn't want to say what subgroup of immigrants he means.

[Mr. Bumble]

No anger there, just frustration at trying to have an adult conversation with a douche.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Joe_highschool coming in with his hot take of evidence-free bullshit and then runs away.

Shocking!

History tells us that you're a lying sack of shit. You've been caught lying when you do try to provide 'evidence,' so it's an easy assumption that you lie about everything.

Maybe you should get your sock-puppet account you're too cowardly to even acknowledge, and have Sonja_T come agree with you.

[bernard11]

This is pathetic. The subclass of illegal immigrants who are criminals are more likely to commit crimes than others.

Wow!! What a fucking brilliant insight. In other news, the subset of Methodist who are criminals are more likely to commit crimes than other Methodists.

This absolutely does not mean that Methodists are particularly crime-prone.

Did any of you people go to school?

[Michael P]

Last week you called them fictional. Not all of us are as susceptible to gaslighting as you wish.

[Martinned2]

Yes, the gangs (plural) are fictional, as are the millions of children allegedly victimised by immigrant paedophile rings, if Musk is to be believed.

[Kazinski]

Well you would be wrong. this chart indicates Afghan refugee/ immigrants are more than 6x more likely to commit sex offences against children than Getmans, Pakistani's more than 4x.

Source at the bottom of the chart.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1875925416332157229?t=iT2caTYSa9MSM_VqgWmhkw&s=19

Which explains why the AfD is surging in Germany.

Of course this data is German, not UK, but i don't know why it would be different in Germany, the country of origin of the migrants is the same.

[Reallynotbob]

I don't get it. The "source" is an X-Twitter account @Marc_Vanguard. But I don't see where the numbers came from.

[Kazinski]

The bottom of the chart image shows the sources.

Just because someone posts a chart image that doesn't make them the source. The person who compiled the chart is the secondary source, and the primary sources of the data are on the bottom.

You should probably print this out and keep it next to your computer for future reference.

[Reallynotbob]

Abrasiveness aside, thanks. I missed the sourcing, which appears mid-paragraph below interpretation.

[Kazinski]

So Braverman is a racist?

A South Asian, both of her parents born in Africa, and she is racist against South Asians?

[Martinned2]

100%

[David Nieporent]

Seems to me the Suella Braverman wing of the Tories has more in Common with the Tommy Robinson movement than Farage does.

Why, does Tommy Robinson not know where Italy is located either?

https://bsky.app/profile/adambienkov.bsky.social/post/3ler2pke3zs2a

[Kazinski]

Rather inartfully expressed but there is indeed a land border between Italy and Turkey, several in fact.

Same as there are several land borders between us and Guatemala, but shared with Mexico.

I certainly don't envy them the overland Journey between Turkey and Italy through the Balklands, when I was in there in winter 2021-22 there was a bus crash that killed 40 Macedonian Albanians transiting Bulgaria coming back from Istanbul, they were storing gas cans in the passenger compartment so they could refuel with cheaper gas they got in Turkey.

Then a month or two later I took the night bus between Belgrade and the Montenagran coast on the Adriatic, extremely mountainous winding, and sparsely populated because there is no flat ground and its too rocky for even trees to grow.

[David Nieporent]

Balklands

"What do you get if you cross Serbia with the Islas Malvinas?"

[Kazinski]

I have no excuse for that, except to try to blame some distraction. I spent 3 months traveling from Athens to Belgrade, and Antalya to Budva, just three years ago and read several Balkans histories.

[David Nieporent]

I was just joshing you; I know it was just a typo or simple mental slip. I just thought it was a funny one.

[Kazinski]

Thanks. But embarassing when you know better.

[bernard11]

Kazinski's history sounds like material for an Eric Ambler novel. Or maybe Graham Greene or Alan Furst.

[Kazinski]

I'm glad Labour set the standard for foreign interference in politics when they sent hundreds of Labour volunteers to the US to help Kamala defeat Trump.

And it doesn't seem like Musk's comments about Starmer are worse than the Ambassador Starmer appointed to Washington made about Trump:

"Lord Mandelson has a record of criticising Donald Trump, once describing him as "little short of a white nationalist and racist"."

It's one thing for Mandelson to make comments like that about Trump as a private citizen, but to then appoint him Ambassador?

If you can't take the heat, don't start the fire.

[Martinned2]

It's not the interference that's the problem, it's the misinformation.

(Or at least that's my view. There are many in the UK who think foreign billionaires should keep their paws of UK elections generally, but I think that's a much less tenable position.)

[Commenter_XY]

If you cannot protect your own children, by deporting known pedos to their home countries, what are you?

That is the damning question Brits are confronting. MP Braverman has a bigger set of balls than many of the boys in Parliament.

It isn't just the shame and dishonor to the country, that tolerated it; it is a stain on Brit identity, who they are as a people. This is what provokes the visceral (correct) reaction.

[Martinned2]

If you cannot protect your own children, by deporting known pedos to their home countries, what are you?

Leaving to one side the (implicit) racism of the assumption that the non-white people you're talking about have a "home country" other than the UK, the answer is: A country with the rule of law.

You should try it...

[Mr. Bumble]

"A country with the rule of law."
Would that include the UK whose courts stripped Rauf of his British citizenship and ordered hi deported nine years ago?

[Michael P]

Maybe it includes the Germany that gives a gang rapist a suspended sentence but Kayla someone who calls him names, and that fined a man 5000 euros for criticizing a 3000-euro fine as too light a punishment for a different rape.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems like you are still conflating South Asian heritage with deportable for most of the accused.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like you are still a douche.

[RedheadedPharoh]

A sealioning douche.

There is no amount of evidence that will satisfy his calls for evidence.

The only time he doesn't require loads of and loads of evidence is to support his own beliefs.

[Michael P]

What by citing a specific example of a convicted Pakistani immigrant whose home country would not accept the rapist's return? It seems like you are still unable to make any argument without resorting to the laziest kind of strawmanning.

[Sarcastr0]

By citing ONLY a specific example, and then leaving the rest as somehow also being solved by deportation policy with no further information being offered.

That's not a very adroit dodge. Though I guess you fell for it.

To repeat what I said last week, I could find no sources either way. Neither could Kaz. But that didn't stop him with assuming immigration status.

Which is racist.

[Michael P]

You are lucky that US citizens cannot be deported for such vicious abuse of straw men. I think that's the kind of thing that the old country sent people to penal colonies for.

[Sarcastr0]

What is the strawman?
Kaz is treating this like an immigration problem and that doesn't seem supported beyond a single example.

[Michael P]

The gangs are at least largely immigrant, which is why it is useful to report deportation statistics relating to them. For example, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855 (three Syrians and one Kuwaiti). Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal -- only one deportation there, and what sounds like shocking corruption (in the "Files removed" section) to protect that particular gang from earlier prosecution.

The fact that you don't know more than the single example that Kaz gave reflects very, very badly on you. As in so many other cases, you opine strongly here from a position of gross ignorance.

[Sarcastr0]

Your proof of 'largely immigrant' is an anecdote again.

Again, it could be true! But you don't get to make that assumption. And you sure don't get to just bring up their race and pretend that's enough.

You can't just say 'coverup!' and skip the evidence bit.

The fact that you don't know more than the single example that Kaz gave reflects very, very badly on you.
More table pounding.

If I'm ignorant, you should be able to prove your case. But instead, just insults.

[Michael P]

What does "British Pakistani" mean to you? Are you hard over on pretending that only the first generation are immigrants, and that assimilation is complete both in timing and distinction from native citizens with the second generation?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/02/labour-defends-blocking-grooming-inquiry-keir-starmer-cps/

[Sarcastr0]

British Pakistani can't be UK citizens?

Seems a lot like you're arguing the brown people in the UK are not real UK citizens. Your assimilation discussion is also pretty fraught. Do you want to deport people who were born in the UK to a country they do not know?

A first generation adult came over decades ago, and is not going to have a lot to do with current immigration policy.

[David Nieporent]

Are you hard over on pretending that only the first generation are immigrants,

Um, yes? That's how it works.

And by "it" I mean both law and the English language.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And by "it" I mean both law and the English language."

You guys have never heard the term second and third generation immigrants.

Used by organizations like the US Census Bureau?

First- and second-generation immigrant populations are growing quickly relative to the third-and-higher generation.

[Kazinski]

Here is more examples:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-61991931

And when they are called Pakistani its because they have Pakistani citizenship. If they are called British Pakistani, that means they have dual citizenship. And if they have dual citizenship then they may have their UK citizenship revoked and be deported to their now sole nation of allegiance.

Keep digging.

[Sarcastr0]

Dual citizens are citizens.

Why are you jumping through hoops to deport when you can just jail these people?

[Kazinski]

They aren't citizens anymore after their UK citizenship is revoked. And Jail is perfectly appropriate while they are awaiting deportation.

I'm not jumping through any hoops, they aren't quoting me:
"Rochdale cannot start to heal until members of a grooming gang have been deported, the region's mayor has said."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-61991931

[Sarcastr0]

Again, why are you jumping through hoops? What about deportation makes it better than jail?

Why do you want to treat these citizens different from other citizens?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I would appear that, under UK law (unlike US law), citizens can have their citizenship revoked under certain circumstances, like organized crime.

But people born British who don't have another nationality can't have their citizenship revoked.

So UK law, for better or worse, allows dual citizens to be treated differently than non-dual citizens.

[Kazinski]

Its not jumping through hoops to let the British apply their own law, as they wrote it.

But I certainly am sympathetic, we are going to start enforcing our laws on deportations soon.

[Mr. Bumble]

Starting with the 1.5 million with final orders of deportation.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know the ins and outs of UK law, but I do know what you're mad the law isn't being applied this way.

You so want to single these people out for different treatment. Whether they are immigrants or no.

It sure looks like you have an agenda beyond just justice!

[Dr. Ed 2]

US citizenship from other than birth can be revoked -- we did it to nazis.

[TwelveInchPianist]

US Citizenship can be revoked if it was obtained through fraud, and we used to ask people if they had been Nazis when they were applying for citizenship. It can't be revoked for misbehavior after you became a citizen.

[Armchair]

The issue first came to light in September 2012, when The Times reported on a 2010 confidential police document highlighting thousands of child sexual exploitation crimes in South Yorkshire annually. Despite awareness of these crimes for decades, local authorities failed to act.

In response to mounting public pressure, Rotherham Borough Council commissioned an independent inquiry led by Professor Alexis Jay. The resulting 2014 report was shocking in its scope, documenting the abuse of at least 1,400 children between 1997 and 2013. It detailed incidents of rape, trafficking, beatings, and intimidation. Many victims were groomed and manipulated into compliance, while others were silenced through threats of violence.

The report also exposed the systemic failures of Rotherham Council, South Yorkshire Police, and other agencies, all of which ignored or minimised the issue. Council leader Roger Stone resigned immediately after the report’s publication, followed by other senior officials, including police and crime commissioner Shaun Wright. By 2015, government-appointed commissioners took over the council, declaring it unfit for purpose

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/rotherham-scandal-elon-musk-demands-accountability-125010200516_1.html

Meanwhile Sarcastr0 sits there minimizing the issue....

[Michael P]

Yes, Gaslight0 instead wants to accuse Kazinski of "leaving the rest as somehow also being solved by deportation policy" as a new goalpost of his own creation.

[Sarcastr0]

In response to Martinned talking about "entirely fictitious immigrant paedophile grooming gangs" Kaz rebutted with the following:

"Prof Alexis Jay concluded that the majority of "known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage"

"Greater Manchester Police identified the men convicted at the trial in the Rochdale abuse scandal in February 2012 as British Pakistani."

"The Telford abusers were men of "southern Asian heritage", according to an independent inquiry carried out into the case."

Why the did Kaz, from left field, bring all this race stuff up? I presumed that it was an attempt to establish the 'immigrant' element of Martinned's characterization.

But maybe it's not! The only alternative I can think of is actually worse. He's just skipping engaging with the immigrant part and going for race?
That's worse. Same shit as 'blacks have an inherently criminal culture.'

If you have another explanation I'm open to it. But just handwaiving about strawmanning isn't going to do it.

[Not defending the rest of Martinned's assertion - these pedo rings seem quite real to me.]

[Michael P]

Today's lesson for the invincibly ignorant: "Pakistani" is not a race.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, that quibble bespeaks a failure to come up with a substantive response if I ever saw one.

[Michael P]

No, it bespeaks your fixation on trying to shift the blame from the failures of obviously awful policies to "racism".

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Well, that quibble..."

Quibble? You just went ape-shit claiming Kaz brought up race in a discussion about immigration. But as Michael P points out, he didn't bring up race, he brought up national origin, a trait quite relevant to immigration.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz (and others) brought cites. You brought....nothing. Surprise!

[Martinned2]

There was a very real "pedo ring", yes. And nothing I said denied that. The misinformation campaign concerns the existence of vast numbers of pedo rings, all made up of immigrants, apparently abusing millions of British children. It would probably be good if Elon Musk could stop making claims like that before some lunatic takes him seriously and tries to kill Jess Phillips, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair. You and I are no the same page, then.

Immigration being spuriously added into a bad thing done by groups that include a bunch of nonwhites.

The rest is the usual old and awful playbook.

[Life of Brian]

vast numbers of pedo rings, all made up of immigrants, apparently abusing millions of British children.

"It's only SOME pedo rings, they're not ALL made up of immigrants, and it's not MILLIONS of children. What's the big deal?"

Really stellar stuff.

[Michael P]

And there are only some unspecified large but sub-"vast" number of them. Therefore it's Reasonable Person behavior to call them entirely fictional!

These fucking guys.

[Kazinski]

Weird how we could get that impression from this direct quote: "entirely fictitious immigrant paedophile grooming gangs".

[Sarcastr0]

You defended the immigrant part, which seems the part he was leaning on as well.

Everyone agrees at the issue here.

[Michael P]

Meanwhile, your side is denying that "second generation immigrants" had any meaning at all in stupid and unsupported hopes that a significant majority of the criminals are failures of assimilation rather than being personally deportable. Curious!

[Sarcastr0]

Second generation immigrants are not immigrants. They did not immigrate,

[Kazinski]

Why did I bring up the men's nationalities when discussing immigrant rape gangs?

Ask the BBC, not me.

Martinned said immigrant rape gangs were fictitious, so I googled UK immigrant rape gangs and there in the result was the story I quoted. That's hardly left field to respond directly on point to Martinned's ridiculous claim.

And I certainly dispute that the language is racist, the BBC takes racism very seriously and they have rigorous complaint and review procedures in place. If you think the BBC post I quoted was racist I encourage you to complain.

Here is the link to the article, which I included, but somehow you ommitted.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65174096

I am trying to think of something that more exemplifies why people call you Gaslight0, I directly quote the most anti-racist news organization in the world, using their words, and you omit my link and the source and say I am racist for quoting them using the men's nationality in a discussion specifically about criminal immigrants.

I'm just dumbfounded at how absurd the arguments you make are sometimes.

[Sarcastr0]

It wasn't me who excerpted every sentence mentioning race, it was the BBC is quite a take.

You still haven't established these 'criminal immigrants' are immigrants.

You have established they are brown. That's all.

[Kazinski]

Read the article I already linked to twice:

"Rochdale cannot start to heal until members of a grooming gang have been deported, the region's mayor has said."

[Sarcastr0]

This is a political assertion. It is not evidence.

I mean, above you give the game away when you talk about stripping citizenship.

Immigrants, not immigrants, you don't actually care.

Jail isn't enough for these people. You want to treat this group differently from other rapists for a reason other than immigration status.

And you also seem a fan of Tommy Robinson. Which fits.

[Michael P]

Gaslight0 now wants to NOT deport deportable felons? Or maybe he limits that protection to his rapist Muslim brothers. It's very odd that an American would be such a fan of Muslim rape gangs. But, as one says in his case, it fits.

He is also acting like a denialist about UK law and international treaties: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nationality-and-borders-bill-deprivation-of-citizenship-factsheet/nationality-and-borders-bill-deprivation-of-citizenship-factsheet

[Sarcastr0]

How’s about you don’t say I’m a fan of Muslim rape gangs you fuckhead.

Note that some of them aren’t deportable until their citizenship is stripped.

Kaz has decided that’s necessary and upon being pressed has no really good reason why.

You just throw insulting bullshit because argument is hard

[Michael P]

Aww, the poor gaslighter gets so upset when his rhetorical tactics get turned against him.

[Sarcastr0]

Next time I call someone a fan of rapists let me know.

What the fuck is wrong with you that you’d think that was okay?

[Michael P]

Nothing is wrong with me, and it's not wrong to identify someone who is acting like a huge stan for immigrant rape gangs.

[Sarcastr0]

Meanwhile Sarcastr0 sits there minimizing the issue....

Saying this doesn't serve as a nativist bloody shirt isn't minimizing the issue.

Gonna make with the blood libel accusation again too, Armchair?

[Armchair]

Minimize away. What's a few thousand instances of sexual abuse?

[bernard11]

Pretty serious.

What do you propose to do about Catholic priests?

[Brett Bellmore]

Waving a bloody shirt around doesn't make the pool of blood it was dipped in go away, you know.

[Sarcastr0]

This is you, waiving the bloody shirt.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even supposing that were the case, the blood wouldn't magically vanish just because somebody dipped a shirt in it and waved it around.

You know that I don't care about your raving about optics to avoid engaging with substance, and that's all that's going on here.

[Sarcastr0]

What is the substance you want me to engage with? That this is bad?
That some on here equate being brown in the UK with being an immigrant?

Your emotional appeal is so much short-circuiting actual discussion I don't even know your thesis here.

[Don Nico]

"magic words" don't make peado gangs go away.

[Sarcastr0]

Doing a great job showing you have no idea what the discussion here is about.

[Armchair]

Well, if you don't report it because you're worried about "optics" and "backlash" against immigrant communities....

The peado gangs magically "go away".

[Don Nico]

S_0,
Enjoy your holiday on Thursday. You are so invested in your anti-nativism, and "blood and soil" BS that you can't understand that you are just trying to duck the issue.

[Sarcastr0]

What's the issue, Don?

The criminals are going to jail, as criminals do.

[Michael P]

Criminals go to jail, until they get paroled from life sentences.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13200969/Murdered-20-years-ago-horrific-racist-attack-Krisss-killer-free.html
More details on the murder, which was the first to be prosecuted under Scotland's new race-prejudice laws: https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/19393573.former-glasgow-detective-talks-investigation-murder-kriss-donald/

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, dude. UK doesn't put rapists in jail.

You're as unserious as Bumble, eh?

[Michael P]

It's sad. People call you out for name-calling, straw-manning, and a variety of other fails, and you still jump to straw-man others as quickly as ever.

[Sarcastr0]

That was the point of your post, wasn't it? That the UK is soft on crime, so putting rapists in jail doesn't count?

If not, what did you mean?

[Michael P]

My point was that your arguments are incredibly weak. Your open straw-man there shows it.

What's really sad is that even that straw man has more of a point than you. The whole reason this has gotten so much coverage is that the UK government -- from the national level down to local councils and police -- DID go quite far out of their way to avoid investigating or prosecuting these rape gangs.

[Sarcastr0]

You link seems about some other issue entirely. And then you bring up the investigation which is also collateral.

Throwing everything at the wall like that doesn't speak well of your engagement. I recommend you read Kaz's OP again.

[bernard11]

Nor does it tell us where the blood came from.

[Frank Drackman]

Psssst! Don't tell "45/47" where Kash and Tulsi's parents came from!

[Kazinski]

Is the BBC conflating it too?

Rochdale grooming gang: Town 'will not heal until men deported'

"Aziz, known as "the master" by the gang, was originally fighting deportation alongside Adil Khan, 51, and Qari Rauf, 52, who were also jailed in 2012."

An immigration tribunal heard on Monday how all three were liable to be deprived of their UK citizenship and deported as they also held Pakistani nationality."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-61991931

[Kazinski]

Then one other "cleanup" item from last week, Malika asked why I was bringing up the Tommy Robinson case when there are so many other people around the world in jail for their speech.

Then I ran across this clip of Constantine Kisin saying: "In Russia last year, 400 people were arrested for things they said on social media."

Which I guess is Malika's point, however Kisin went on:

"In Britain, that number was 3300."

That does seem concerning to me.

https://x.com/sillyflippy/status/1822041968446439894?t=5b17NyyOiSaef00V4yRsyA&s=19

[Martinned2]

In Russia most people who say the wrong thing on social media just fall out of a window.

[Mr. Bumble]

Here we send the FBI and DOJ after them.

[Frank Drackman]

No, they fall out of windows here also, Admiral Forrestal for one.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Free Speech has always been an issue in Britain.

Anyone remember the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger?
Or why John Milton wrote Areopagitica in 1644? (Parliament was considering requiring a license to own a printing press.)

[Krayt]

Hence freedom of the press, a literal printing press, the mechanical means of mass production of speech, as kings would, could, and did restrict it as backdoor censorship.

[Malika]

Well, if "Constantine Kisin" equated the two!!!

[Michael P]

Asserting that X is greater than Y is not "equating" anything.

[Malika]

Pathetic. This is what you've devolved into?

[Michael P]

Yawn. Take the L and move on.

[Drewski]

Turns out Constantine Kish is capable of saying things that are not true. Who knew! Russia arrests thousands of people each year for social media activity. They do sweeps for opposition to the invasion of Ukraine, sometimes arresting thousands at a time. This is widely reported information. You'd only be unaware of it if you limited your news on the war to Russian state media.

[Michael P]

People found that the numbers are apparently from 2016 and 2017 respectively, which were reasonably current given that the Kisin interview (according to the links below) was in 2019.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/54123/were-over-3-000-persons-arrested-in-britain-for-social-media-posts-in-2018
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/54135/were-400-people-arrested-in-russia-for-social-media-posts-in-2018

[Kazinski]

Well I'm not that surprised the Russian numbers are higher.

But its the UK numbers that are shocking, anyone disputing those?

[David Nieporent]

That does seem concerning to me.

It's meaningless without knowing the content of what was said.

1. "Putin is a bad president and should be voted out, and his war should be ended."
2. "I am going to kill you, you [racial epithet]."

One could characterize the incarceration of either of these as "arrested for things they said on social media." But one is bad, and one isn't.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The America First Missive:

I'm interested in seeing what people think of this tactically -- not the Ilya "let everyone in" or Ed "machine guns at the border" but what legal advice might be given to a client considering sending something like this out.

I think the Violence Against Women aspect of it is interesting, as is the reference to RICO in Section IE, and where is the ethical line about threatening litigation?

This is clearly a threat -- but is it protected speech? And it is effective -- it made headlines in Maine when two counties received it.

https://aflegal.org/america-first-legal-puts-elected-officials-in-sanctuary-jurisdictions-across-the-united-states-on-notice-and-warns-of-legal-consequences-for-violating-federal-immigration-laws/

[John F. Carr]

It's not RICO.

[not guilty]

I think the Violence Against Women aspect of it is interesting, as is the reference to RICO in Section IE, and where is the ethical line about threatening litigation?

This is clearly a threat -- but is it protected speech? And it is effective -- it made headlines in Maine when two counties received it.

Of course it is protected speech. How would it arguably not be?

The ethics of threatening criminal prosecution to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter vary from state to state. DR 7-105(A) of the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility contained an express prohibition of that practice. The Model Code has been largely superseded by the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which contains no such prohibition. Some states, however, continue to prohibit lawyers from doing so.

That having been said, the America First analysis is weak and unpersuasive. It completely ignores the anti-commandeering doctrine of Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). The Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs. Id., at 925. "It is no more compatible with this independence and autonomy that their officers be 'dragooned' . . . into administering federal law, than it would be compatible with the independence and autonomy of the United States that its officers be impressed into service for the execution of state laws." Id., at 928. A criminal prosecution of state or local officials for merely declining to assist federal officials in deporting undocumented brown folks would raise serious federalism concerns.

The application of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) here to officials of sanctuary cities is quite a stretch. "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 407 (2012). The elements of the crime of "bringing in and harboring certain aliens" are set forth, in relevant part, in 8 U.S.C. § 1324:

Any person who. . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation . . . shall be punished according to [the penalties outlined in this section].

8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii). To convict under the statute, the Government is required to prove:

(1) the alien entered or remained in the United States in violation of the law; (2) the defendant concealed, harbored, or sheltered the alien in the United States; (3) the defendant knew, or recklessly disregarded the fact that the alien entered or remained in the United States in violation of the law; and (4) the defendant's conduct tended to substantially facilitate the alien remaining in the United States.

United States v. Cuevas-Reyes, 572 F.3d 119, 122 (3d Cir. 2009); United States v. DeJesus-Batres, 410 F.3d 154, 160 (5th Cir. 2005).

The terms "shielding," "harboring," and "concealing" under § 1324 encompass conduct "tending to substantially facilitate an alien's remaining in the United States illegally" and to prevent government authorities from detecting the alien's unlawful presence. United States v. Ozcelik, 527 F.3d 88, 100 (3d Cir. 2008), cert denied 555 U.S. 1153 (2009); United States v. Tipton, 518 F.3d 591, 595 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Rubio-Gonzalez, 674 F.2d 1067, 1073 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Yun Zheng, 87 F.4th 336, 343 (6th Cir. 2023).

The America First Legal reference to civil liability under RICO is off the wall. Violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 is not included within the definition of "racketeering activity" at 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). That accordingly cannot support a “pattern of racketeering activity” within the meaning of § 1961(5). Moreover, governmental entities are not suable in a civil RICO action. Gil Ramirez Grp., L.L.C. v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 786 F.3d 400, 412 (5th Cir. 2015); Genty v. Resolution Trust Corp., 937 F.2d 899, 908 (3d Cir. 1991).

[Riva]

Hmm.. if just threatening prosecution is bad, how much worse is actually indicting and prosecuting a political opponent just to gain an electoral advantage? And just wait until the abusive democrat exploitation of all things jan 6 is fully exposed. The Biden administration trash thugs better lawyer up.

[windycityattorney]

"...just to gain an electoral advantage" is doing a lot of work in that comment. Good luck proving that when in fact Trump and his business organization were actually convicted of various crimes in criminal court and Trump himself lost civil judgments in civil court. Even IF its a tangential benefit that the cases could hurt him politically; so long as there is substance to the underlying charges and evidence to support it, it would be a fools errand to pursue criminal charges against those who did so. Is Pam Bondi that fool?

Also, re-hashing J6 might not be the best political idea. There are thousands of hours of video of that inglorious day that still exist and Trump following through on his promise to pardon all the 'patriots' who so patriotically shit on our capitol and beat police officers might not be the political win MAGA thinks it is. Yes, I understand he won the election. But that doesn't mean that wasn't one of the worst days in recent memory and constantly living in the past and settling old scores does not make governing in the present and for the future any easier. In fact, it likely will just make things more difficult.

[Riva]

Uh huh, there was no substance to this lawfare garbage and it would never have been pursued if President Trump was not a political threat. And the fingerprints of the Biden administration are all over this garbage. Colangelo, a former top Biden DOJ official running the fat slob Manhattan DA office's travesty of a case, Fani's special counsel meeting for several hours (multiple times?) with WH counsel, the thug Jack Smith meeting with WH staff. And that's just what we know. So it would be foolish not to investigate further and hold bad actors accountable so this unprecedented weaponization of the law never repeats itself.

And J6 was a protest with some bad actors. Hardly an "insurrection." And, despite your absurd comment, not "one of the worst days in recent memory," unless you happen to be a toddler. And many, many unanswered questions stemming from an event Democrats have shamelessly exploited for years., not the least of which is who was the non-bomber at the DNC the FBI has been trying so hard to forget. It's not a question of settling old scores. The record needs to be corrected after years of Democrat lies and distortions.

[John F. Carr]

I think the scenario is meant to be:

1. City Manager Jones helps Jose the Alien remain in the country illegally.
2. Jose the Alien commits RICO predicate crimes.
3. City Manager Jones is liable as part of a RICO conspiracy.

I still think it's not RICO, but this is closer to RICO than a case built solely on immigration law violations.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s “closer” only in the sense that eating the moon would be easier than eating the sun.

[not guilty]

I think the scenario is meant to be:

1. City Manager Jones helps Jose the Alien remain in the country illegally.
2. Jose the Alien commits RICO predicate crimes.
3. City Manager Jones is liable as part of a RICO conspiracy.

I still think it's not RICO, but this is closer to RICO than a case built solely on immigration law violations.

What is the enterprise there? What are the structural features of such enterprise, that is, a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose? Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938, 946 (2009).

What hypothetical plaintiff would have standing vis-a-vis the city manager? To establish that an injury came about “by reason of” a RICO violation, a plaintiff must allege both an injury to the plaintiff’s business or property and “some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.” Hemi Group LLC v. City of New York, 559 U.S. 1, 9 (2010) (citation omitted). “A link that is ‘too remote,’ ‘purely contingent,’ or ‘indirect’ is insufficient.” Id.

[David Nieporent]

What hypothetical plaintiff would have standing vis-a-vis the city manager?

I think he's talking about criminal RICO, so you don't need a plaintiff.

[not guilty]

My impression is that Mr. Carr was responding to the America First Legal blather, which references treble damages under RICO, which would indicate civil RICO: "Victims of crimes committed by aliens protected by a sanctuary jurisdiction may be able to sue officials involved in harboring that alien for triple damages under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act statute."

[David Nieporent]

Oh. You paid more attention than I did, I guess.

[bernard11]

Who gives a fuck about some "missive" issued by a bunch of idiots?

[Dr. Ed 2]

And then the State of Vermont is fining Big Oil for the CO2 released over the past decade because Vermont had a flood last summer that matched the flood it had in the 1920s.

https://apnews.com/article/vermont-climate-change-superfund-oil-companies-b6565729f23e85eed4d3da44b04ae2e5

It's 5 degrees in Montpelier (the state capitol) right now, with a -7 wind chill factor. Today's high is predicted to be 16 degrees.

Vermont has no oil wells and no oil refineries -- I'd love to have Big Oil say "we won't ship to Vermont anymore." And *can* the oil companies (individually) simply refuse to ship their products to Vermont?

And the ultimate irony here is that the weather is RETURNING TO what was normal in the 1920s and 1930s when the Connecticut River Valley had *massive* floods without CO2....

[Martinned2]

And *can* the oil companies (individually) simply refuse to ship their products to Vermont?

Sure, as long as they don't have meetings to discuss not shipping oil to Vermont anymore. Because that would be collusion contrary to 15 USC 1.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What if they all hire the law firm of Wee, Cheatam, & Howe to represent them, and the law firm recommends to each this as a trial tactic?

[Martinned2]

Under a Trump administration that would be fine. Under normal antitrust principles, that would be a hub & spoke cartel.

https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2020/10/22/cigarette-manufacturers-fined-e-82-million-for-hub-and-spoke-cartel-in-the-netherlands/

[Michael P]

That case doesn't involve legal advice from counsel about how to avoid liability from a hostile sovereign government. It seems less than directly on point, except perhaps to fascist government lawyers looking for excuses to punish any companies that do not submit to their control.

[Martinned2]

The fact that something is legal advice doesn't shield it from antitrust liability. It just makes various things harder to prove.

[Krayt]

"We can no longer meet your regulatory requitements. Bye."

"That's anti-trust!"

"Bye. You win. We are evil, and won't insult you and your gold digging lawyers any more. Hooray! Be ye of light hearts! An evil has lifted!"

[Martinned2]

That's the very definition of a decision that competitors can make without having to meet and discuss the matter.

[Brett Bellmore]

The proper way to do that is "algorithmic collusion", where the various companies just use the same algorithm to independently arrive at the same behavior without actually communicating with each other any plans. Not currently covered by anti-trust law.

The key is that the companies have to very carefully avoid actually agreeing to use the same algorithm.

[Martinned2]

Possibly. That question is currently being litigated.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69074245/united-states-of-america-v-realpage-inc/

[Brett Bellmore]

That's why I said "currently".

The thing is, I'm not sure, if the companies genuinely didn't agree to use the same algorithm, that this is materially different from their genuinely having independently decided to do the same thing.

[Martinned2]

Sort of. If they used the same algorithm and knew they were using the same algorithm it is, at a minimum, what EU antitrust law calls a "concerted practice". Whether that is enough to satisfy section 1 of the Sherman Act is a question where the courts could go either way, I'd say.

[Krayt]

Algorithmic collusion, sans computers, is what happens when corruption looses regulators as wildcats, slashing at everything they can, until donations start rolling in. It doesn't need to be tit for tat, just unspoken, no cloak rooms necessary! And often defensively prophyllactic.

[Mr. Bumble]

Vermont is a piker compared to NY. On Boxing Day NY Gov. Hochul signed into law a $75 billion "superfund tax" which purports to tax oil companies for climate effects fro 2000 to 2018.
See adjacent article on why NY is failing.
Bonus tax: congestion pricing went into effect yesterday in Manhattan below 60th street.

[Michael P]

Gov Hochul bragged about it, even: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-landmark-legislation-creating-new-climate-superfund

This is more evidence that we should except New York State from the Full Faith and Credit Clause. (For those who don't understand what "except" means in this context, see definition 2 at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exception.)

[Sarcastr0]

I still don't understand how you make an exception to the Constitution.

[Michael P]

Did you ever actually set foot inside a law school?

See https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-type-of-speech-is-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment-34258 for a an example of where the Constitution is recognized as having unwritten exceptions. That's probably not the right way to implement this exception, but good grief, your apparent ignorance beggars belief.

[Sarcastr0]

You're making a policy argument to abrogate the Constitution for one particular state.

That's a new version of rights jurisprudence I've not seen.

[Michael P]

People said very similar things about the third-party and reasonable expectation of privacy doctrines, both introduced in Katz v. United States (1967).

But now you're moving the goalposts. (I am shocked. Shocked! Well, not that shocked.)

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. So you want a change in the law! A pretty radical one, akin to the Warren Court era.

You do seem like a big Warren Court fan.

[Michael P]

I specifically said earlier that judge-made law is probably not the right way to implement this exception. Maybe it would be if it's very narrow. At some point the responsible states will again need to constrain the misbehaviors of their impetuous peers.

[Brett Bellmore]

There IS a sort of implied requirement that the "public acts" have to be constitutional to benefit from the full faith and credit clause. So a good argument that the action in question was unconstitutional, (Perhaps on the basis of it being ex post facto, which clause doesn't actually say that it's limited to criminal laws.)

But that just gets you to denying FF&C to specific acts or categories of acts, it doesn't get to to denying to to the state regardless of topic.

So, really, all you'd get is that other states wouldn't be required to aid them in collecting the loot.

[Sarcastr0]

If an act is unconstitutional, the remedy is not via the Full Faith and Credit clause.

[Brett Bellmore]

If an act is unconstitutional, the sole remedy is not via the FF&C clause, but the FF&C clause certainly doesn't apply to unconstitutional acts, so other states could refrain from granting FF&C while waiting on the judiciary to acknowledge that unconstitutionality.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you have any examples of this sort of thing happening in the past?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not aware of any examples off hand, but if some act was unconstitutional in the first place, then, logically, giving it FF&C would likewise be unconstitutional.

[Sarcastr0]

In other contexts, you seem really down on law being used in a way that wasn't practiced in the Founding era.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Didn't states refuse to extradite to Georgia when it had a chain gang?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Preventing this kind of collateral attack is literally the point of the full faith and credit clause.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Some worthwhile classic films...

"The Prince and the Showgirl" is a mixture of satire and romance and Marilyn Monroe provides an intriguing performance that has some surprises for those who expect a typical romance.

"Three Wise Girls" is Jean Harlow's first breakout role. It can be accessed on YouTube. Her platinum blonde looks, snarkiness, and ultimate vulnerability all come out.

"Hotel Berlin" is based on a book by the author of "Grand Hotel," who was a Jewish refugee herself. It portrays events in the waning days of Nazi Germany. It was released in early 1945 before the war was over. Such stars as Raymond Massey and Peter Lorre provide good performances.

"The Ghost and Mrs. Muir" (not the sitcom) is based on a book by a female author who used the pseudonym "R.A. Dick." The book is worthwhile too and has some different touches. An English widow finds as a haunted cottage to her liking. Gene Tierney and Rex Harrison brings a lot of class to the proceedings and there is also a young Natalie Wood.

[Mr. Bumble]

One of my favorites:
"Mr. Blanding Builds His Dream House" 1948. Cary Grant, Myrna Loy and Melvin Douglas (as the lawyer).
Objecting to the $7000 cost to "knock out a wall" to expand their cramped NY apartment Mr. Blanding looks into moving to Connecticut and buying a fixer upper.
Quite a different America; also noticed the make up of the construction crew.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

definitely better than the Tom Hanks and Shelly Long version, The Money Pit

[Frank Drackman]

"Hotel for Dogs" That Emma Roberts is good in everything
"Elektra Glide in Blue" Boy did I want a Harley when I was 10 (still do), Robert Blake has the starring role but Billy Green Bush chews up the Arizona Scenery (what does that mean exactly? I hear reviewers say it)
"Battle of Britain" Man, did I want a Hawker Hurricane when I was 10 (Still do) fast forward through the lame love story, Edward Fox (the "Jackal" from "Day of the Jackal") plays a pompous prick pilot who chews up the Luftwaffe(and who I've tried to imitate since with his "For the less educated among us....(Insert pompous prick opinion here)
"Dazed and Confused" set on the last day of School 1976, where Matthew M started allriteallriteallrite (and a million shitty imitators should have been aborted)

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

I don't think Fox was in Battle of Britain. Do you mean Robert Shaw?

"For the less educated among us..." is a line from A Bridge Too Far.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Edward Fox plays Pilot Officer Archie in Battle of Britian

[Bob from Ohio]

Thanks. Don't recall him there but its on his filmography.

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks, I mis remembered (HT "W") my own quote
it's "For the benefit of the Uneducated among us I shall now translate.." then before the Prick Archie can translate what the French Officer is saying, the less pretentious Pilot does.

[Commenter_XY]

SCOTUS made their ruling, now let them enforce it...

CJ Roberts alluded to this in his recent report. Namely, defiance of one or more branches of government in response to a ruling by SCOTUS. I am sure this has happened on multiple occasions in our 245 years as a Republic, a branch of government 'ignoring' compliance with a SCOTUS decision.

From a legal perspective, what happens? Suppose SCOTUS rules a policy (i.e. mass detention and summary deportation of illegal aliens) is unconstitutional (just assume this as thought experiment), even though Congress allocated funds for it, and the Executive is executing it. The President waves the 'national security' card in a national speech, and says we cannot and will not stop detention and summary deportation. Congress agrees, and takes no action.

Then what?

[Mr. Bumble]

Mr. Roberts call out the SC militia?

[Malika]

Ethnic cleansing dreaming....

[Mr. Bumble]

...and what ethnicity would that be?

[Malika]

Those ones.

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks to "Dobbs" whether or not to have Ethnic Cleansing is decided by the several states.

[Stephen Lathrop]

From a legal perspective, what happens?

Commenter_XY — Exactly what did happen, in Korematsu v. U.S. The Supreme Court mumbles and caves, but probably without such a powerful dissent. Nobody on the Court now can rival Justice Robert H. Jackson. Probably, no one on the Court since RH Jackson could do it.

It has been a long time since the Court featured such a powerfully eloquent and dispassionate Justice. Surely the nation all along has had at least a few of his kind available for service. The question why none has found his or her way to the Court stands as implicit criticism of the appointment process.

[John F. Carr]

Who obeys whose orders? It's up to the folks on the ground to decide.

[Kazinski]

Of course the story about Jackson and the Supreme Court misses the fact that the Supreme Court ruling was against Georgia, and Georgia had a larger Militia than the US Army at the time.

It wasn't a matter of sending a few US Marshalls, invading a state and starting a war doesn't seem like a good solution even of he could pull it off.

[Commenter_XY]

See, you're heading where I am generally headed, I think.

How many times has this 'defiance' actually occurred in our history? Do we even know?
And what was the aftermath?

I am fairly confident it has happened at least twice, based on cites above. So what happened, legally, after those events? That is what I am getting at. What actually happened?

[Krayt]

I don't see how they could rule it unconstitutional, fantasies around here about the federal government having 0 say in it notwithstanding, but if the government doesn't follow the laws as they themselves created, that could be a problem.

[bernard11]

First, Congress funding a project, and the President carrying it out does not make it Constitutional.

Second, that would be grounds for impeachment and conviction. Now, probably the Congress that funded the whole thing will not actually impeach, but that's on their head. Like The President they will have blatantly violated their oath.

The consequence of that is that the Constitution becomes nothing but a historical document that has zero effect. It means that the President can do what he likes without worrying about it.

Does that strike you as an appealing process? Can you stop gloating over Trump's win long enough to think about all that?

[Stephen Lathrop]

During the recent election for Speaker of the House, something remarkable happened. The representative from the Virgin Islands, Congresswoman Stacey E. Plaskett, representative from the U.S. Virgin Islands, interrupted the proceedings to complain she was not permitted to vote.

Plaskett, asserted she was permitted to vote during committee proceedings, on the committees of which she was a member. And said she was allowed to vote on questions before the Committee of the Whole—but not permitted to vote on the question of who should be Speaker. What seemed remarkable to me was the source of the prohibition.

Plaskett said it happened under the authority of nothing more than a Congressional rule, to bar her and various other representatives from island territories from voting on the question who should be Speaker. I had no idea that Congressional rule making authority could extend to an arbitrary decision on a question so substantive as which members have voting power, and which not, issue by issue.

I found myself asking why if that could happen, when the next Speaker election comes up in a Democratic Party controlled House, why don't the Ds pass a rule to bar votes from an equivalent number of reps from smaller Republican controlled states. Perhaps Wyoming, the Dakotas, and a few others.

Of course I get that the abominable Insular Cases, decided by 5-4 votes in the Supreme Court during the early 20th century, made up from whole cloth an arbitrary distinction between kinds of territories, to prejudice the rights of residents of some of those territories, and to privilege residents of other territories. And those decisions still stand.

Those decisions announced for basis not Constitutional principles, but instead overtly racist principles, calling residents of the targeted places savages unworthy of full Constitutional protections. Those assertions were condemned for their racism at the time.

Plaskett pointed out to the House that as representative from the U.S. Virgin Islands, she spoke for the rights of American-governed people whose history included giving birth to Alexander Hamilton, and sending him to the U.S. to play his various and famous roles in the nation's founding.

[Martinned2]

As long as the US Virgin Islands are not a state, I'm not sure they're entitled to a voting member of Congress, regardless of the Insular Cases. Neither incorporated nor unincorporated territories had voting Representatives.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned2 — There seems to have been a distinction between voting to pass legislation, and voting on procedural stuff. Otherwise, how could Plaskett have been voting in committees, and in the Committee of the Whole?

Note also, incorporated and unincorporated territories have been otherwise treated to arbitrary prejudices, for and against. But not on the basis of anything like Constitutional principles that I am able to discern.

Also remarkable, Justice Gorsuch, who has publicly called the Insular Cases outrageous, was on the Court when an opportunity to take up a challenge arose, and cert got denied. I would like to understand better how that happened. It seems to imply that at least one of the left-leaning justices joined to deny cert, or that Gorsuch did.

[Martinned2]

There seems to have been a distinction between voting to pass legislation, and voting on procedural stuff.

To the extent that such a distinction exists, it isn't dictated by the Insular Cases, or by anything else in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. And what Congress has created, Congress can take away.

[Brett Bellmore]

Giving them a vote on procedural matters is a fairly dubious exercise of "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." They're stretching things to the limit just humoring them to that extent.

[Drewski]

"There seems to have been a distinction between voting to pass legislation, and voting on procedural stuff. Otherwise, how could Plaskett have been voting in committees"

Delegates can only vote in committee. It's really that simple. I don't have strong opinions on how good or bad of a thing that is, but if it confuses you then you should talk to a doctor about your cognitive health.

"American-governed people whose history included giving birth to Alexander Hamilton"

This is one of the worst turns of phrase I've ever seen. Anyway, Hamilton wasn't born in the Virgin Islands. He was born in Nevis, now St. Kitts and Nevis. Even if he were, so what? A famous white guy was born there, therefore God was mandating a divine right to vote in the US House or Representatives?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Drewski — My bad on Hamilton's birthplace. I should have remembered that.

As for, "Delegates can only vote in committee. It's really that simple," that's just you refusing to engage, like Bellmore.

I get that you don't want folks in the U.S. Virgin Islands to get full citizenship privileges. That does not make the issue a non-controversy. A notion to insist on consistent use of Constitutional principles seems the opposite of reliance on claims of divine right. What made you think to bring that up?

Still less does your screed put to rest the conundrum how the current state of affairs could have been arrived at by any legitimately Constitutional process. It's not as if the Constitutional questions were not hotly controversial at the time those decisions were made. Overtly racist justifications offered by the Court then seem an even flimsier basis now.

[David Nieporent]

I get that you don't want folks in the U.S. Virgin Islands to get full citizenship privileges.

This has nothing to do with "citizenship privileges." People from the USVI are citizens. (Though statutorily rather than constitutionally — that's where the Insular cases come into play.) But that doesn’t mean that the USVI gets a representative. There are plenty of American citizens living in France, and they are also entitled to "citizenship privileges," but that doesn't mean that France is entitled to a representative.

Still less does your screed put to rest the conundrum how the current state of affairs could have been arrived at by any legitimately Constitutional process. It's not as if the Constitutional questions were not hotly controversial at the time those decisions were made. Overtly racist justifications offered by the Court then seem an even flimsier basis now.

There were non-state territories of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of the constitution. You think it was "hotly controversial" that residents of the Ohio territory were not entitled to have a representative in Congress before 1803, when it was admitted as a state? Because I've read the debates over ratification of the constitution, and I don't recall any such controversy.

[Drewski]

"that's just you refusing to engage"

Indeed. If it is an issue, it is one I could not possibly care less about either way. I'd support statehood for them if they want it.

The fact that you care about this deeply is not a reason for me to do so.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Speaker of the House oversees committees too.

The Constitution authorizes each house to pass rules for its proceedings. I don't think there is a constitutional problem with allowing territorial delegates (which involve both parties) to vote for speaker. It would be different if they voted for a bill on the floor.

Tidbit: the Constitution allowed those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the document to be president which covers someone like Hamilton, wherever he was born.

Overall, I think it is a problem that territories do not have the authority to vote for president. Full representation in Congress is separate given how thinly populated they are, putting aside Puerto Rico. Voting for a speaker, however, seems a logical.

[David Nieporent]

Martinned2 — There seems to have been a distinction between voting to pass legislation, and voting on procedural stuff.

That is correct. Only the former is a formal exercise of legislative power. The latter is just administrative. That's the same reason that a filibuster is not the same thing as voting down legislation — something you were confused about last week. Congress can let Caligula's horse vote in committee if it wants; it's only the actual floor votes on legislation that are limited to constitutionally-defined members.

Note also, incorporated and unincorporated territories have been otherwise treated to arbitrary prejudices, for and against. But not on the basis of anything like Constitutional principles that I am able to discern.

The Constitutional principle is that only states are represented in Congress for constitutional purposes.

[John F. Carr]

Under American law if the Speaker of the House and the Clerk of the House say a bill passed, then it passed the chamber. This is the "enrolled bill" rule. Under current law I doubt there is a remedy for counting votes from non-members. The Supreme Court could invent one.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't encourage John Roberts.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would love to see an end to the enrolled bill doctrine.

[Frank Drackman]

Hamilton was born in Saint Kitts (and should have stayed there)

[Brett Bellmore]

The irregular thing, constitutionally, is that they get treated as "members" at all, since "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States", and as you note, the Virgin Islands are not a state.

They get to vote on procedural matters as privilege granted by Congress in exercise of their power to set their own rules, but Congress could give tourists who win a lottery that much if they wanted. These 'representatives' have no constitutional status at all.

[Frank Drackman]

Ouch! to bad that doesn't apply to D.C., oh wait, it does

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, for all you know, those representatives properly enjoy birthright citizenship, which the Insular Cases improperly denied to them.

Here is a hint: with a controversy already under discussion, you may look foolish if your approach is to deny a controversy exists.

Just for framing purposes, how come Hamilton got to be a fully-privileged U.S. citizen, and Plaskett did not? This controversy focuses on what happened to create that distinction, with an eye to question whether what happened was Constitutionally legitimate.

Plaskett, a person with standing sufficient to be on the floor of the House, and get recognized to speak during the voting to choose a Speaker, insists that is a controversy worth public attention.

You, a person with standing barely sufficient to command attention at a freak show blog open to anyone, say there is no controversy. Can you see any problem with how you are approaching this?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Bellmore, for all you know, those representatives properly enjoy birthright citizenship, which the Insular Cases improperly denied to them. "

This is simply irrelevant to the constitutional issue, which is that States, and ONLY States, get representation in Congress. The Constitution is clear on that point.

"Plaskett, a person with standing sufficient to be on the floor of the House, and get recognized to speak during the voting to choose a Speaker,"

And that presence and standing is actually more constitutionally dubious than his not getting a vote.

The real issue here is that the Constitution didn't actually contemplate any non-state territories besides DC. We weren't SUPPOSED to have territories.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, DC was contemplated, as was the federal government purchasing land for forts and the like.

But overseas colonies? No, that wasn't expected.

[Ridgeway]

What about the Northwest Territory, which had been ceded to the new USA in 1783 as part of the Treaty of Paris?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you got me there, even if it wasn't overseas. I don't think they intended that the US engage in the game of empire, but I really did overstate my case.

[Ridgeway]

As I recall there was a bit of controversy as to whether the Federal govt has the constitutional authority to make the Louisiana Purchase, but if even Jefferson thought it OK, it was not much of a controversy.

Interestingly, after the Mexican War there was a lot of interest in the southern (slave) states to expand into the Caribbean, as well as Mexico and Central America, as a means to expand slavery and increase their political clout. The original "filibuster" had to to with armed semi-private expeditions aimed at fomenting revolution/allegiance switching in those areas. They were not successful (think small-scale Bay of Pigs).

[Noscitur a sociis]

The real issue here is that the Constitution didn't actually contemplate any non-state territories besides DC. We weren't SUPPOSED to have territories.

This is a first ballot hall of fame Brett Bellmore-ism. Could well be a strong contender for greatest ever.

[Absaroka]

"an equivalent number of reps from smaller Republican controlled states. Perhaps Wyoming, the Dakotas, and a few others"

Not to get all mathy, but the population of the USVI is about 15% of the population of Wyoming.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Plaskett said it happened under the authority of nothing more than a Congressional rule"

She lied. Just showboating to take advantage of the rare interest in the House.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Of course I get that the abominable Insular Cases, decided by 5-4 votes in the Supreme Court during the early 20th century, made up from whole cloth an arbitrary distinction between kinds of territories, to prejudice the rights of residents of some of those territories, and to privilege residents of other territories. And those decisions still stand.

This has literally nothing to do with the Insular Cases. Territories, incorporated or unincorporated (to use the terminology of those cases) have never had voting representatives in Congress.

[David Nieporent]

Of course I get that the abominable Insular Cases, decided by 5-4 votes in the Supreme Court during the early 20th century, made up from whole cloth an arbitrary distinction between kinds of territories, to prejudice the rights of residents of some of those territories, and to privilege residents of other territories. And those decisions still stand.

The Insular Cases may be abominable, but they have nothing to do with the discussion. This is the distinction between states and territories, not the difference between incorporated and unincorporated territories.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, remind me, what was it that put power into the hands of Congress to decide on its own every constitutional controversy arising in U.S. territories? Do you assert the Constitution itself decreed that? Do you assert that, and further assert that it was never challenged?

Please forgive my skepticism. The most-recent last time I got such a confident assertion from you, it was to tell me that employers have nothing to do with H-1B visa applications. That turned out wrong.

We legal laymen have to learn to be cautious about advice we get for free from legal experts practicing here on the internet without formal constraint.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What, pray tell, the fuck are you talking about? There is no “controversy” about whether non-state U.S. territories are allowed to have voting members of congress: they’re not, and they never have. And it’s not Congress that decided it: it’s the constitution.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur — Do you suppose, "no controversy," means, "I am entitled to ignore substantive critics who disagree with me?"

Leave me out of it. I do not count myself a substantive critic.

Are you unaware that others with notable legal credentials have made this a renewed issue? It took me about 5 seconds to turn up on Goggle a selection of arguments from well-credentialed folks who seem to disagree with you.

[David Nieporent]

Is Goggle the sovcit version of Google that tells you that 23 random people can show up somewhere, declare themselves to be a grand jury, and start indicting people?

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you want a discussion, please supply us with the argument you’ve found that the Constitution permits (much less demands) non-states to have voting members of congress, p

[David Nieporent]

Nieporent, remind me, what was it that put power into the hands of Congress to decide on its own every constitutional controversy arising in U.S. territories? Do you assert the Constitution itself decreed that? Do you assert that, and further assert that it was never challenged?

I do not have any idea what you think you are trying to say here. The constitution of course grants Congress the power to legislate in territories, but nobody suggests that this is not subject to judicial oversight. Though SCOTUS partially abdicated that role with respect to unincorporated territories.

And I don't know what you think any of that has to do with the discussion of congressional representation.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The constitution of course grants Congress the power to legislate in territories, but nobody suggests that this is not subject to judicial oversight. Though SCOTUS partially abdicated that role with respect to unincorporated territories.

Is that what Scalia meant by, "argle-bargle?"

[David Nieporent]

Please forgive my skepticism. The most-recent last time I got such a confident assertion from you, it was to tell me that employers have nothing to do with H-1B visa applications. That turned out wrong.

That is not remotely what I said. What I said is that employers do not decide who gets issued H-1B visas.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It is remotely what you said. Proximately, too. Closer than what you are saying now. Show our exchange in full context if you want others to believe you.

[David Nieporent]

You don't even understand your own arguments; you certainly don't understand mine.

[Malika]

From last week:

Kazinski 4 days ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
One thing I don't see as a coincidence is that both cars were rented from the same peer to peer car rental app.

A few thinks make it pretty certain they were part of the same conspiracy:"

Lol

[RedheadedPharoh]

Are you that desperate for attention? lol

I'm guessing no father was in your life and you were raised by a single mother?

Yikes.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, much better to ignore it, and hope no one remembers...

[Kazinski]

I thought this comment was much better if you are going to quote my stuff (which I encourage), you should pick the best ones, but none of them are clunkers:

Kazinski 4 days ago
Well just my opinion of course, right now.

But lets look at the similarities, with the proviso of course that half the shit that comes out the first 48 hours after an attack turns out to be bullshit:

1. Attack on the same day.
2. Same car rental app.
3. Both electric trucks.
4. Both had IED as part of the attack.
5. Both Army or former Army
6. Both were stationed at Ft. Bragg.

If I had 6 numbers lining up on my Mega Millions entry last Friday then I would have won 1.2 billion."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Could you at least say specifically what tribal valence you are attempting to be persuasive about?

[Malika]

Also from last week:

Joe_dallas 4 days ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Typical leftist delusion
Continue to ignore the islamic religion which is a the heart of the two incidents

[not guilty]

Justice Juan Merchan has appropriately denied Donald Trump's posttrial Motion to Dismiss the Indictment and Vacate the Jury's Verdict. https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/24610f90ca6f8977/1512a8de-full.pdf Trump is set to be sentenced this Friday, and he can thereafter appeal from his conviction and sentence.

So far as holding Trump accountable, however, the judge weenied out by announcing his intention (p. 17) to impose a sentence of an unconditional discharge. IMO a sentence of confinement, the execution of which is stayed while Trump remains in office as president, would be preferable.

[Brett Bellmore]

Unconditional discharge gives him the best chance of the appeals court rejecting Trump's appeal, and thus preserving the guilty verdict.

[Sarcastr0]

As Noscitur noted, the jury verdict will almost certainly not be overturned via appeal.

[Stephen Lathrop]

AND, there was almost certainly time enough to get in at least one federal trial on Trump's cases prior to the election.

Seems like a fair number of smart people continue with difficulty to discern the state of the new emperor's clothes.

You know what's been happening here Sarcastr0? A lot of stuff that never happened before, time after time. How many times will it take to turn that pattern into a useful guide to evaluate what is likely to come next?

[Brett Bellmore]

What I expect, though possibly not at the first level of appeal, is that the verdict will be overturned as a matter of law, not fact, due to the highly irregular way the court allowed a state conviction based on a federal predicate crime that Trump was never charged with, let alone convicted of, and which the jurors didn't even have to agree about.

[not guilty]

"What I expect, though possibly not at the first level of appeal, is that the verdict will be overturned as a matter of law, not fact, due to the highly irregular way the court allowed a state conviction based on a federal predicate crime that Trump was never charged with, let alone convicted of, and which the jurors didn't even have to agree about."

As has been pointed out numerous times on these threads, that is not at all what happened, Brett. The jury found Donald Trump guilty of 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree in violation of New York Penal Law § 175.10. The applicable actus reus is making or causing a false entry in the business records of an enterprise. The applicable mens rea is having an intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

The accused need not have been charged with, nor convicted of the object offense. The object offense could have been committed by a person other than the accused. Indeed, the object offense need not have been committed by any person, so long as the accused intended to commit or aid in its commission when the record was falsified. The jury were properly instructed that "Under our law, although the People must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed."

The jury were instructed that the other crime that the prosecution alleged that Trump intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152, which:

provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.

The portion of the jury instructions that Trump and his MAGA supporters squeal like Bobby Trippe about is:

Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.

In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.

The court went on to instruct as to how each of these unlawful means could be shown.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24699539/people-v-djt-jury-instructions-and-charges-final-5-23-24.pdf

All of this has been explained before ad infinitum. Moreover, if the jury instructions, taken as a whole, are determined to include reversible error, the remedy would be a new trial before a different jury, which would necessarily await Trump's leaving office as president.

[Michael Ejercito]

The applicable mens rea is having an intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
So what was this other crime?

[Mr. Bumble]

Being Donald Trump and having stolen the presidency from Madam Hillary.

[not guilty]

"So what was this other crime?"

Did you even read the jury charge that I linked to and quoted from?

The jury were instructed that the other crime that the prosecution alleged that Trump intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152, [which]:

provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.

[Brett Bellmore]

"by unlawful means"

Where the 'unlawful means' was a supposed violation of federal law, which Trump was never charged with violating.

[Josh R]

There were three unlawful means, two of which were federal. And no, Trump wasn't charged with any of the unlawful means. So what?

[Commenter_XY]

So the judge merchan basically said, 'Hey jury, just pick any one of these three laws to establish mental state and convict, and no, you don't have to agree on which one. Just pick any one of them. That is good enough for me'.

This will go the the NY Court of Appeals.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So the judge merchan basically said, 'Hey jury, just pick any one of these three laws to establish mental state and convict, and no, you don't have to agree on which one. Just pick any one of them. That is good enough for me'.

The jury was instructed that it needed to unanimously find an intent to further a crime, but that it did not need to be unanimous about which crime. This was a correct statement of New York law as laid out by the Court of Appeals and is the majority rule in this situation in the U.S. I would be surprised if this case is the vehicle where it is revisited.

[Josh R]

The jury was instructed that it needed to unanimously find an intent to further a crime, but that it did not need to be unanimous about which crime.

No. The one and only further crime the jury had to unanimously agree that Trump intended to commit was NY 17-152 (Conspiracy to promote or prevent an election by unlawful means). They did not have to be unanimous on the unlawful means.

As such, it is even more unlikely the Court of Appeals will reverse.

[not guilty]

So the judge merchan basically said, 'Hey jury, just pick any one of these three laws to establish mental state and convict, and no, you don't have to agree on which one. Just pick any one of them. That is good enough for me'.

No, Justice Merchan did not say that at all.

He instructed the jury (pp. 27-29) that the indictment charged multiple counts alleging that Donald Trump violated New York Penal Law § 175.10, falsifying business records in the first degree, and he gave the essential elements of that charged offense, defining the critical terms.

He gave further instruction regarding an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. (P. 29.) He specifically instructed (p.30) that:

The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152.

Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.

XY. that is NOT three predicate crimes. That is ONE predicate crime.

The Court further instructed (p. 31) that:

Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.

[David Nieporent]

So the judge merchan basically said, 'Hey jury, just pick any one of these three laws to establish mental state and convict, and no, you don't have to agree on which one. Just pick any one of them. That is good enough for me'.

It's good enough, period. This is not something special to Donald Trump. I really think this is confusing because (a) it involves Trump and therefore people are motivated to misunderstand and/or lie about it; and (b) it involves election law, which people don't understand. As I've noted before, there are other more commonplace contexts in which this type of statute applies:

If you merely enter a building without authorization, that's trespassing. (Let's say you're a homeless person trying to keep warm.) But if you enter a building with the intent to commit another crime, that's burglary. An indictment for burglary need not specify what the other crime might be. The defendant need not be prosecuted for or convicted of committing that other crime. The jury need not announce what the other crime might be. The jury need not even agree what that other crime might be.

Maybe some jurors think it's vandalism, some think it's theft, some think it's arson, some think it's sexual assault. That's okay; doesn't matter. That's because the other crime is not an element of burglary. Only the intent to commit another crime — any other crime — is.
​
​
​
EDIT: I wrote this — I swear — weeks ago, for one of the previous discussions, but I never posted it. So I copied and pasted it here, before I scrolled down and saw that not guilty had used this exact example today.

[Commenter_XY]

I just want to thank Nas, Josh R, NG and David for their comments. They were all helpful. I mean that. It is the lack of juror unanimity on what the underlying unlawful means were (the pick any one of these) to convict Pres Trump that I am confident will go to NY Court of Appeals. I don't think this case is over before that Court weighs in on that specific question.

Schad was a plurality, correct? Not precedential?

Assume Pres Trump is convicted, given an unconditional discharge, his appeal fails, and the NY Ct of Appeals declines to hear the case.

Is there now a federal appeals process available?

[David Nieporent]

Assume Pres Trump is convicted, given an unconditional discharge, his appeal fails, and the NY Ct of Appeals declines to hear the case.

Is there now a federal appeals process available?

Sort of; a state court decision can be appealed only to SCOTUS. Lower federal courts do not have jurisdiction.

[Commenter_XY]

Thx David, so the case goes to SCOTUS when state processes are exhausted. And they would need to agree to hear it. Long row to hoe.

[not guilty]

As Justice Scalia wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court, "The Constitution gives a criminal defendant the right to have a jury determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, his guilt of every element of the crime with which he is charged." United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 522-523 (1995). The Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to support a conviction in both federal court and in state court. Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83, ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 1397 (2020).

The means of commission of a criminal offense may or may not rise to being an essential element of the offense. Take for example a hypothetical statute declaring that robbery by use or display of a firearm is a felony. To support a verdict of guilt, a jury would need to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did in fact employ a firearm in commission of the robbery. However, if six jurors believed that the defendant used or displayed a revolver, while six other jurors believed that he used or displayed a pistol, that would not vitiate the jury's verdict.

Schad v. Arizona yielded a four justice plurality opinion by Justice Souter, with Justice Scalia concurring in judgment. As I have pointed out elsewhere on this thread, Scalia agreed with the plurality as to the portions of the opinion relevant here. The decision has full precedential effect as to those areas of agreement.

[Josh R]

I don't see Scalia's concurrence in the judgment being determinative for this case. His doctrine is whether history supports non-unanimity in the means of a crime. We don't know how the courts will view the history of conspiracy to prevent or promote an election by unlawful means.

[Riva]

And the same crowd that was completely oblivious to the legal arguments underlying presidential immunity now is equally clueless as to the due process issues here. And oblivious as to the lack of a FECA violation, and Bragg's lack of jurisdiction over federal election law in the first place. And Merchan's statutory conflict of interest. In fact, that this case was designed to handicap President Trump's campaign in the first place still completely escapes most here. TDS at its best. Or maybe you're just idiots? Or a little of both?

[Josh R]

I stand apart from other anti-Trumpers in believing this case should not have been brought because it was politically motivated (*). But that being said, I believe the legal underpinnings are sound.

(*) The case in a vacuum was about hiding hush money payments to conceal an affair in order to enhance Trump's electoral prospects. IMO, that's not something a prosecutor should charge. On the other hand, there is the Al Capone argument that Trump should have been charged because of his escaping culpability for trying to steal an election.

[Brett Bellmore]

You've just restated the legal sophistry behind punishing Trump on the basis of a crime he was never charged with, let alone convicted of, and which wasn't even a state crime.

I think this sophistry is exactly what will be rejected on appeal.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. You still think BrettLaw will prevail in court.

[not guilty]

Ron White, meet Brett Bellmore -- who vividly illustrates your maxim that you can't fix stupid.

Donald Trump was charged with and convicted of 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree in violation of New York Penal Law § 175.10.

Compare the crime of common law burglary. The essential elements are: (1) the breaking and entering (2) of the dwelling house (3) of another (4) in the nighttime (5) with the intent to commit a felony. If there is no such intent to commit a felony, the breaking and entering may constitute illegal trespass. It is the element of intent to commit a separate felony that elevates the unlawful entry from a misdemeanor to the felony offense of burglary. The separate felony need not have been actually committed in order to support a burglary conviction.

Let's hypothesize a trial wherein the government's evidence shows that the accused broke into another person's dwelling house at nighttime. There is evidence that the accused intended to rape, rob and kidnap the occupant of the house, but he was apprehended as soon as he entered, before any other offense came to fruition.

If four jurors found an intent to rape, four other jurors found an intent to rob, and the remaining four found an intent to kidnap the intended victim, a conviction of burglary would still stand even though jurors may not have agreed on what predicate felony was intended.

[Riva]

What was the second crime making this time expired alleged bookkeeping crime a felony?

[not guilty]

"What was the second crime making this time expired alleged bookkeeping crime a felony?"

Read the jury charge, Riva. And it helps immeasurably to first pull you head out from up your hindquarters.

[Riva]

Let me help you out. Nobody really knows because the jury was allowed to reach a non-unanimous verdict on three possible secondary offenses. You might have realized that yourself if you could get your TDS deranged head out of your ass.

[not guilty]

"Nobody really knows because the jury was allowed to reach a non-unanimous verdict on three possible secondary offenses."

No, Riva, the jury were not allowed to reach a non-unanimous verdict as to anything. Each count of the indictment alleged a single offense. In order to convict, the jury were required to, and did in fact, find every essential element of the offense to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon the evidence or the absence of evidence.

The jury were instructed specifically:

The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152.

Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.

That is a single predicate offense. It is not, as you falsely claim, three possible secondary offenses. The jury were further instructed:

Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.

In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

That there may be different means of commission of a single offense does not transmute one offense into multiple offenses. Justice Souter wrote for a four justice plurality in Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 631-632 (1991):

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." McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 449 (1990) (BLACKMUN, J., concurring) (footnotes omitted).

. . . We see no reason . . . 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.

Justice Scalia, concurring in part and concurring in judgment, there 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. [Citations omitted.] That rule is not only constitutional, it is probably indispensable in a system that requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict. When a woman's charred body has been found in a burned house, and there is ample evidence that the defendant set out to kill her, it would be absurd to set him free because six jurors believe he strangled her to death (and caused the fire accidentally in his hasty escape), while six others believe he left her unconscious and set the fire to kill her. While that seems perfectly obvious, it is also true, as the plurality points out, see ante, at 633, that one can conceive of novel "umbrella" crimes (a felony consisting of either robbery or failure to file a tax return) where permitting a 6-6 verdict would seem contrary to due process.

Id., at 649-650.

New York law agrees with Schad. In People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383 (N.Y. 2004), the trial court instructed the jury:

"Your verdict, as I have mentioned before on each of these charges, has to be unanimous. That means all twelve have to agree upon a verdict. All twelve of you deliberating on a case do not have to agree that the Defendant was the shooter nor do all twelve deliberating on the case have to find that the Defendant was the commander. It is sufficient that all twelve find the Defendant was either the shooter or the commander under Murder in the First Degree."

Id., at 406. The Court of Appeals approved the instruction and affirmed the conviction and death sentence, opining:

As we sift carefully through the evidence, it becomes apparent that defendant makes much of what is essentially a preliminary fact. "Plainly there is no general requirement that the jury reach agreement on the preliminary factual issues which underlie the verdict" (Schad, 501 US at 632, quoting McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 US 433, 449 [Blackmun, J., concurring]).

Id., at 408. Indeed, the Court further 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.

[Josh R]

not guilty, why didn't Scalia join the plurality?

[Noscitur a sociis]

not guilty, why didn't Scalia join the plurality?

Scalia disagreed with the more nuanced due process analysis, and instead thought that the record of historical practice in the case of murder was dispositive.

[not guilty]

As best I can tell, Justice Scalia was comfortable with Arizona's treatment of first degree murder as a single offense which embraced both common law (premeditated and deliberate) murder as well as killing in the course of a robbery, because that was consistent with historical tradition of murder as a single, indivisible offense:

Submitting killing in the course of a robbery and premeditated killing to the jury under a single charge is not some novel composite that can be subjected to the indignity of "fundamental fairness" review. It was the norm when this country was founded, was the norm when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, and remains the norm today.

501 U.S. at 651. He was less certain as to how the plurality's "fundamental fairness" due process analysis would apply in contexts without similar historical antecedents.

[Riva]

Not Guily, you're mistaken. I think you should read the cases you cite a little more carefully. The conviction affirmed in Schad concerned “[s]ubmitting killing in the course of a robbery and premeditated killing to the jury under a single charge.” As noted by Scalia, “this was not some novel composite that can be subjected to the indignity of ‘fundamental fairness’ review.” “It was the norm when this country was founded…” The Trump case, however, fits the circumstances which Scalia conceded would actually support a likely due process violation: “…one can conceive of novel "umbrella" crimes (a felony consisting of either robbery or failure to file a tax return) where permitting a 6-to-6 verdict would seem contrary to due process.” And, as noted by the plurality, "nothing in our history suggests that the Due Process Clause would permit a State to convict anyone under a charge of 'Crime' so generic that any combination of jury findings of embezzlement, reckless driving, murder, burglary, tax evasion, or littering, for example, would suffice for conviction." This is essentially the error committed by Merchan (among many, many, many others) in the very instructions you cite. (And, of course, there is the small matter that Bragg has no jurisdiction over alleged federal election law violations and that were was no such violation under the facts)

[Josh R]

To not guilty and Noscitur: I believe the binding precedent (under Marks) is whether historical practice allows for non-unanimity in the case of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election by different unlawful means. Perhaps Mateo, which accepted the Schaad plurality holds more sway in NY.

To Riva: conspiracy to promote or prevent an election by violations of FECA, tax code or falsifying records is not at all like a felony by robbery or failure to file a tax return. The latter's crime is an ambiguous umbrella such that the means are ends to themselves. In contrast, the means in the former all relate to a clear, common end.

[not guilty]

No, Riva, I am not mistaken at all. Scalia wrote only for himself in Schad. Look at how the Court of Appeals of New York aligned with Justice Souter's Schad plurality in People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383 (N.Y. 2004), which I quoted above.

"Plainly there is no general requirement that the jury reach agreement on the preliminary factual issues which underlie the verdict." Id., at 408, quoting Schad, 501 U.S. at 632.

Again from Mateo:

: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. Moreover, Scalia's concurrence in Schad agreed with the plurality's treatment of Sullivan. 501 U>S. at 649.

Don't forget the First Rule of Holes, Riva: STOP DIGGING!!

[Riva]

Not Guilty, that is not surprising since the NY court was simply reviewing another murder conviction. This is entirely distinguishable from the combination of non-unanimous jury findings in the charge in the Trump case. If you really can’t understand the difference, there is no point in continuing this exchange. Take your own advice and stop digging.

[Riva]

To Josh R, nope. The differences between the alternatives in the Trump case (distinct statutory offenses which raise the time-expired alleged bookkeeping error to a felony, 34 frigging times no less for each entry) “may not reasonably be viewed simply as alternatives to a common end but must be treated as differentiating what the Constitution requires to be treated as separate offenses,” as noted by the plurality in Schad. Now I’m not saying Schad is the controlling precedent President Trump should use if a traditional appeal to this farce is necessary, I’m just responding to a citation that Not Guilty thought was controlling.

[Josh R]

Again, there was only one statutory offense that raised the falsification charge to a felony.

[Riva]

Uh huh, if you say so. But let's look at the multiple choice test given the jury, just for the fun of it. Was there a violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA? (we'll ignore for the time being that there was no such violation and that Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce FECA anyway). A falsification of other business records (there was none)? or a violation of tax laws? (that's nice and clear)

[not guilty]

"Uh huh, if you say so. But let's look at the multiple choice test given the jury, just for the fun of it. Was there a violations [sic] of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA? (we'll ignore for the time being that there was no such violation and that Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce FECA anyway). A falsification of other business records (there was none)? or a violation of tax laws? (that's nice and clear)"

Riva, have you read the jury charge or not? Yes or no?

The jurors were not asked to determine any violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, falsification of other business records or of tax laws.

The jurors were asked to determine whether the prosecution had shown beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that Donald Trump made or caused to be made a false entry in the business records of an enterprise; (2) that when he did so, Trump acted with an intent to defraud which included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission of another crime.

Those are the essential elements of the offense, on each of which the jury were required to unanimously agree in order to convict. The prosecution was not required to prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.

The instructions specified that the prosecution alleged other crime that Trump intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152. That is an inchoate offense providing that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.

Do you know what an inchoate offense is, Riva? Yes or no?

[Josh R]

WTF? The predicate crime was a state crime (NY 17-152).

And to not guilty: your burglary analogy applies had there been more than one predicate crime for the jury to choose from. But, there wasn't.

[David Nieporent]

And to not guilty: your burglary analogy applies had there been more than one predicate crime for the jury to choose from. But, there wasn't.

It's true that there was a second level to this case that makes this not entirely analogous to the burglary situation, but the burglary example refutes the argument that the Trump people are making based on their mistaken understanding of the posture of the case.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Charging, prosecuting, and instructing the jury on the actual elements of the statute is not generally considered “sophistry”.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It is when you're MAGA and the defendant is Trump.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What I expect, though possibly not at the first level of appeal, is that the verdict will be overturned as a matter of law, not fact, due to the highly irregular way the court allowed a state conviction based on a federal predicate crime that Trump was never charged with, let alone convicted of, and which the jurors didn't even have to agree about.

I think that this was a very silly and transparently politically-motivated prosecution that should never have been brought. However, these are very silly arguments, largely based on a misunderstanding of what happened.

1. The statue provides for an enhanced penalty if the basic offense was committed to further or conceal another crime. There is no requirement that the defendant be complicit in the other crime at all—indeed, no requirement that the other crime actually be committed at all. So there’s certainly nothing irregular about a prosecution where the defendant hasn’t been convicted of that crime.

2. In this context, the majority rule in the United States is that the jury needs to be unanimous about the intent to (as applicable) commit/further/conceal etc. another crime, but need not be unanimous about what that crime was. New York has explicitly adopted this doctrine. This case isn’t the one it’s going to use to change that (nor is the Supreme Court going to use it to say that this approach is unconstitutional).

There is a non-frivolous but very weak argument that the other crimes can only refer to state crimes: I would be very surprised if a New York court took that approach (and of course federal courts would be unable to second-guess that). The only remotely viable appellate claim I can see would be based on the Supreme Court’s new doctrine excluding evidence of official presidential acts. I don’t know enough about the details to have a strong opinion there, but based on what I do know that still seems like a stretch.

[Riva]

And what was the secondary crime making this a felony? We could ask the jury, but they didn't unanimously agree, having been allowed to find guilt on any one of 3 alleged crimes. Well, that's perfectly fair and constitutional.

[not guilty]

Riva, You are a liar, and the truth ain't in you.

The jury were demonstrably not allowed to find guilt on any one of 3 alleged crimes.

Repeating the same Big Lie ad infinitum until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward didn't work for Joseph Goebbels, and I hope it won't work for Team MAGA either.

[Riva]

Same to you jackass. You're full of shit and know it. I'm afraid just ranting lie doesn't cut it. And, just so you know clown, Lavrentiy Beria is the more apt reference for this lawfare crap.

[Ridgeway]

I could be misremembering, but I thought the other non-frivolous argument is that the alleged campaign finance violation was not actually criminal. I know Cohen pleaded guilty to it, but with no additional penalty. Isn't it essentially the same fact pattern as was alleged against John Edwards way back when? At the time, I understood there was a significant question whether his conduct was actually criminal, and that the case got resolved before that could be definitively answered.

[Riva]

You mistakenly included "not"

[not guilty]

"Unconditional discharge gives him the best chance of the appeals court rejecting Trump's appeal, and thus preserving the guilty verdict."

How so? Trump is entitled as of right to one level of appellate review. The Appellate Division has no discretion to "reject[] Trump's appeal."

Did you perhaps mean to say that the sentence increases the likelihood of an appellate court affirming the judgment of guilt?

[Brett Bellmore]

That would probably be a better way to describe it, yes. The appeals court is more likely to take a "no harm, no foul" view of the conviction if there's no penalty at all attached to it.

[Commenter_XY]

I netted out there too = NY Court of Appeals saying 'meh, no punishment means no harm, no foul'. But, is conviction of 34 felonies really 'no harm', regardless of how punished is (not) meted out?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's his best chance of the conviction surviving, not that it's a good chance.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The convictions themselves are “harm” sufficient to enable Trump to challenge them. (Compare a defendant arguing against an excessive sentence: if the defendant served the entire sentence while the case was pending, that would likely make any further appeal moot.)

However, the Court of Appeals has a discretionary docket. While I don’t have any knowledge of their case selection process, I think it’s somewhat less likely that they’d take a case if there are no real sanctions awaiting the defendant. That said, Trump was never going to get a sentence harsh enough to trigger interest on its own.

[Bob from Ohio]

I think he is using Court of Appeals in the idiosyncratic NY terminology but in normal US terminology, the first layer of appeal.

[Mr. Bumble]

"IMO a sentence of confinement, the execution of which is stayed while Trump remains in office as president, would be preferable."
Thankfully you are just a retired, disabled former defense attorney and not a judge.

[Drewski]

Says you, an unemployed guy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

"Weenied out," seems harsh.

Until we get a procedure to keep the public fully informed about death threats made against judges and their families, it will be impossible to judge accurately which judges are willing to chance personal catastrophe for the sake of duty, and which not.

It will likewise remain impossible to determine how harsh treatment should be of defendants who encourage death threats as means to escape accountability.

[Drewski]

I have to disagree. I think it's more important that the convictions be finalized before Trump dies of old age. A long-delayed sentence is disfavored generally and will potentially give him years and years worth of colorable arguments. The symbolic value of Trump's conviction being legally final outweighs the symbolic value of him maybe doing a little probation in a few years if he lives that long.

[Bob from Ohio]

"symbolic value of Trump's conviction"

LOL He got elected despite all this symbolic value.

It has the symbolic value of a traffic ticket.

[Drewski]

Then it shouldn't bother you so much. Yet you've written literally thousands of words about how much it upsets you.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, is there anything in this sentence, an unconditional discharge, that would incline the NY Court of Appeals to rule on Pres Trump's assumed appeal one way or the other? Is there some different legal status unique to UD (I don't think there is, legally).

My understanding is one reason UD is applied is that punishment would serve no purpose, and is waived. So you're guilty, and convicted, but no punishment. That is what I am assuming Judge Merchan will say. Might the NY Court of Appeals (the highest state court) say, 'meh, no punishment means no harm, no foul' and wash their hands of it?

What are a POTUS Trump's legal options at that point?

[apedad]

The judge stated the UD is because punishment is no longer practical, not because it would serve no purpose.

“While this court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and defendant, an opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the court's inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the people concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation,” Merchan wrote.

And plenty of people of found guilty but receive little to no punishment.

[not guilty]

"NG, is there anything in this sentence, an unconditional discharge, that would incline the NY Court of Appeals to rule on Pres Trump's assumed appeal one way or the other? Is there some different legal status unique to UD (I don't think there is, legally)."

Except in cases involving the death penalty, whether the Court of Appeals of New York will or will not hear a criminal case after the intermediate appellate court rules is discretionary. https://nycourts.gov/ctapps/coacase.htm I don't anticipate that the particular sentence imposed will affect whether the higher court takes the case or not.

Once sentenced, Trump may appeal as of right to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department.

[Bob from Ohio]

"IMO a sentence of confinement, the execution of which is stayed "

Keep hope alive!

[Martinned2]

True. In a banana republic like the US that's never going to happen.

[Bob from Ohio]

"banana republic"

You realise [sic] that, if you talk like that, no one will think you're worth having a serious substantive conversation with, right?

[Martinned2]

I'm sorry you don't like harsh truth. "New strongman gets elected" = "all his legal troubles magically end" is one of the classics of the genre.

[VinniUSMC]

Would that be the same banana republic which produced the verdict? Or is that (D)ifferent?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'm quite open to the idea that Trump specifically -- not a typical person of his age and so forth -- warrants some jail time. I don't think it is necessarily outrageous if he didn't receive that.

At the very least, "unconditional discharge" sounds too lax.

I would be open to a fine and various conditions, the latter stayed while he was in office & during an appeal.

The important thing to me is that the verdict was left in place with a reference to the importance of doing so mixed in with a discussion of how much of a crybaby Trump was about the judge.

I could have done without the reference to John Roberts' end-of-the -term report. I wonder how many times judges will cite that, including perhaps one Judge Edith Jones.

[David Nieporent]

So far as holding Trump accountable, however, the judge weenied out by announcing his intention (p. 17) to impose a sentence of an unconditional discharge. IMO a sentence of confinement, the execution of which is stayed while Trump remains in office as president, would be preferable.

My guess is that Merchan indeed decided it wasn't worth a fight, given the procedural posture. I think he should just impose a fine, though, rather than an unconditional discharge.

[Drewski]

If he imposes a fine, Trump will refuse to pay and NY could do nothing about it. Then Trump would crow about it for years. No, thanks, the man is insufferable enough.

[David Nieporent]

and NY could do nothing about it.

Why do you think that's true? Just as with a civil verdict, NY could seize any property of Trump's located in the state of NY necessary to pay the fine.

[Drewski]

No, he gets a hearing. A hearing that can't be scheduled until he takes office. Clinton v Jones explicitly left open the question of whether a sitting President may be subject to civil action by a state tribunal for private acts. That's years of litigation right there. And with the entire GOP looking for angles, he'd probably drum up a dozen other terrible arguments that courts would nevertheless give serious attention to.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in other news, it is being reported that Little Fidel will be resigning as Canadian PM.

[Martinned2]

You realise that, if you talk like that, no one will think you're worth having a serious substantive conversation with, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

You realize that you're tacitly excluding half or more of the population from consideration with your "no one"?

[Martinned2]

I don't see you engaging in a substantive conversation about the merits and the likelihood of a resignation of "Little Fidel".

[Brett Bellmore]

Canadian politics stopped having a great deal of impact on my life when my family sold our cottage on Lake St. Claire, which had been in the family for generations. (When the Canadian government levied a punitive tax on beachfront property owned by foreigners, payable immediately, we couldn't raise the sum, had to sell for a fraction of the value.) It lost the rest of its relevance to my life when I moved from Michigan, and was no longer visiting Canada on a regular basis.

But I do follow it a bit, because it's disturbing having a neighboring country sliding towards authoritarian rule. I'll be glad to see him go, if it's really true. What he was doing in the context of that trucker's strike was really ugly.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird, you don't really seem to mention the Castro part of this comparison.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not all that interested in that silly rumor about him being Castro's illegitimate son.

Biologically, anyway. Ideologically, there seems to be something to it.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL. You don't like the Canadian PM for being too liberal. And you don't like Castro, who was a communist.

Therefore...

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I don't like the Canadian PM being too 'liberal', where being 'liberal' is used in an Orwellian way to mean "authoritarian".

[Sarcastr0]

As authoritarian as Castro?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not yet, and if he's resigning, probably not ever. But he was certainly trending that way. Seizing the bank accounts of people merely suspected of supporting the truckers?

That's pretty authoritarian.

[Sarcastr0]

"Not yet"

Haha you're such a drama queen.

Just densely packed potential Castros as far as the eye can see.

And of course accusing others of being authoritarian is pretty rich given what you defend in Trump's authority and right-wing ideological requirements being pushed on schools.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, Sarcastr0, I don't think people like Castro are all THAT unusual. I think the pool of potential Castros is fairly large, and happily, most of them never achieve that potential.

But when you see a guy implementing "emergency powers" to crush the opposition to his policies, you're looking at one of those evil seeds that's actually sprouting.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"But when you see a guy implementing "emergency powers" to crush the opposition to his policies, you're looking at one of those evil seeds that's actually sprouting."

Like this?

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

Uh oh!

[Sarcastr0]

I think the pool of potential Castros is fairly large, and happily, most of them never achieve that potential.

So despite the empirical evidence, you know what those authoritarian libs are all thinking.

[SRG2]

You realise that it's Mr Bumble, not a serious substantive poster, right?

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, unlike Il Douche and yourself I am not a serious, substantive commentor.
Were you a hall pass monitor in grade school?

[SRG2]

QED

[Bob from Ohio]

"no one"

You mean you won't.

Its funny since from "photo evidence" Governor T. looks like Fidel and nothing like his putative father.

[Frank Drackman]

So Mr. Bumble, what's your take on Scott Moe, Premier of Saskatchewan? I'm inclined to like any politician who keeps the name "Moe" (and was born in "Prince Albert" so many jokes waiting to be told). He had 2 DUI's by the time he was 22, and later pulled a Ted Kennedy, killing someone with his car (Blunt Force injuries rather than Asphyxiation (NOT Drowning, there's a difference)
Unlike Kennedy, he called the cops and remained at the scene.
Don't you love having serious substantive conversations?

Frank

[Martinned2]

It looks like Sir Keir Starmer has finally had enough with crazy internet billionaires/incoming US government officials trying to get his ministers killed through misinformation campaigns: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/jan/06/uk-politics-keir-starmer-nhs-reforms-grooming-gangs-live-updates

[Michael P]

Two Tier Keir really is a despicable politician. He should follow Little Fidel in resigning. Of course, preceding him would also be fine.

[Sarcastr0]

Reposting Musk's shitposts like a parrot.

[Michael P]

I don't think I have seen anything from Musk on the question of Two Tier Keir. Everything that I see from him is second-hand -- I have never thought Musk was worth reading or following directly.

It's sad that you engage in purported mind-reading for such vacuously awful points given that you criticize others for supposedly pretending to read minds when they are really just responding to what was openly said.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/06/elon-musk-calls-pm-two-tier-keir-over-police-response-to-uk-riots

"Owner of X uses platform to promote conspiracy theory that white far-right ‘protesters’ involved in disorder are treated more severely than minorities."

You got any support for your assertion here? Musk sure doesn't.

[Michael P]

Oh, fuck off. I'm not interested in dancing at your command. Two Tier Keir is Two Tier Keir. If you want to assert that the UK injustice system is actually fair, back it up with a source that doesn't rely on the label "far-right" and scare quotes.

[CountmontyC]

I love how the left panics because they believe that a President Trump will imprison journalists but have no issue with the British government imprisoning Tommy Robinson for reporting on a trial.

[Sarcastr0]

He demonstrably lied and ruined a family's life.

In the US he wouldn't be in prison for it, but he wouldn't be shielded from consequeence.

The idea that he's a martyr for freedom is quite a stretch.

[Michael P]

"He demonstrably lied and ruined a family's life."

I love how the purported opponent of mindreading expects us to read his mind to know (a) what incident he is vaguely referring to and (b) how he distinguishes that from what most of his favored politicians do every week.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm replying to a comment. The comment gives ample context. If you want the story of what 'reporting' Robinson did that got him put into jail, look it up.

This one is on you, not me.

[Sarcastr0]

So no proof, and indeed from Musk's shitposting.

And in response all you have is pounding the table. And trying to shift the burden.

[Michael P]

Specifically not from Musk, as I said. He didn't originate the term, either. You are one of the few real shitposters here.

[Sarcastr0]

You read Musk. You used a phrase he did.

If you're going to challenge my assumption, where did you find that phrase, Michael?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Answer your Master, Michael, he's ordering you!

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-UK-mean-by-referring-to-the-PM-as-Two-Tier-Starmer

People can be such ignorant little bitches when live in a shitty evil govie bubbles.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Great sealioning, Sarcastr0!

If anyone bothered, then you could move on and declare their sources as not credible.

[Martinned2]

The President of France, the prime minister of Norway, and the German government have now also joined Sir Keir in condemning Elon Musk's latest misinformation campaign.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/06/emmanuel-macron-joins-growing-criticism-elon-musk-europe

[Bob from Ohio]

Yeah, European swamp creatures don't care much for free speech.

[Martinned2]

Yeah, American billionaires don't care much for criticism. (See also: Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post"

No business owner likes an employee publicly attacking them. Most employees don't do it, the ones who do soon have different jobs.

[Martinned2]

Those business owners should probably not buy a newspaper then. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

[Commenter_XY]

Businessman expresses his dissatisfaction with political leadership. It is a political crisis, LOL, and they're have an attack of the vapors, and clutching pearls 'oh so tightly'.

How is Elon Musk different than Klaus Schwab?

[Martinned2]

You spelled "incoming US government official" wrong. Either way, if it threatens to get people killed, someone needs to tell him to STFU.

[Bob from Ohio]

"if it threatens to get people killed"

All tyrants say criticism is a threat.

[Frank Drackman]

11/12 teams in the College Foo-bawl Playoff from "Red" States (a "Blue" State team hasn't won the BCS since USC in 2004)

[Moderation4ever]

Let us not kid ourselves that football is more highly regarded in some area of the country that in others. Friday Night Lights was written many years ago, but I can still remember that the only computer the high school had was in the athletic department to analyze play statistics. I love my Green Bay Packers and Wisconsin Badgers and while I would like them to win, my loyalty to them is not based on their winning, but on the enjoyment I get watching them play.

[Commenter_XY]

The Pack may get torn apart by the talons of the Eagles next week.

[RedheadedPharoh]

What kind of sicko actually enjoys watching the Packers play? Isn't that too painful?

[Moderation4ever]

You never feel like you time is wasted because the Packers can win or lose in the last 2 minutes. You have to watch the whole game.

[Josh R]

Firstly, it's 8 Red, 3 Purple and 1 Blue. Secondly, that's not surprising given that Blue states are more urban and urban areas are more inclined towards professional sports.

[Frank Drackman]

You been to Oregon? you get a little inland and it's friggin Idaho

[Josh R]

I live in Eugene (this town is in mourning). Eastern Oregon makes up less than 15% of the population.

[Commenter_XY]

Bob from Ohio is smiling...

[Bob from Ohio]

God no, the last thing I want is An Ohio State University being successful.

Go Irish!

[Frank Drackman]

Like I said, it's Idaho

[Josh R]

OK. But, the state is Blue because the Idaho part has only 15% of the population.

[Reallynotbob]

Why stop there? Try analyzing the county of origin using HS affiliation. I bet the red % rises even higher.

Then just for fun, run the socio-economic numbers. Go wild--compare 'em with the military enlistment numbers and county of origin.

Feeling frisky? Now run the net public fund draw/contribution numbers for all those counties.

I bet all that investment leads to better net outcomes though, right? I mean, we're investing in these athletes for a reason aren't we? Here's the abstract from a 2005 paper on the subject:

"This paper investigates how students’ collegiate athletic participation affects their subsequent labor market success. It uses newly developed distributional tests to establish that the wage distribution of former college athletes is significantly different from non-athletes and that athletic participation is a significant determinant of wages. Additionally, by using newly developed techniques in nonparametric regression, it shows that on average former college athletes earn a wage premium. However, the premium is not uniform, but skewed so that more than half the athletes actually earn less than non-athletes. Further, the premium is not uniform across occupations. Athletes earn more in the fields of business, military, and manual labor, but surprisingly, athletes are more likely to become high school teachers, which pays a relatively lower wage to athletes. "

TL;DR: most college athletes don't do as well as non-athletes after graduation.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://docs.iza.org/dp1882.pdf

[apedad]

[RedheadedPharoh]

Best comment ever by you.

[Moderation4ever]

I read in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, that Wisconsin's Governor Tony Evers will again ask the legislature to help create binding state referendums for Wisconsinites to directly vote for legislation. Twenty states have provision for this, and I think Wisconsin should as well. There is a real need to bring politics back to the people's business. I would like an ultimatum process, either the legislature votes on the matter, or the people will.

[Frank Drackman]

Too bad there's that pesky Article IV Section IV guaranteeing every state a Republican form of Government

[Michael P]

Who's going to enforce it? The Supreme Court declined to, particularly in response to a challenge of ballot initiatives, in Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912).

[Moderation4ever]

Plenty of states have initiatives and referendums. When the republic form of government is working you don't need these measures. It when those elected to represent the people don't think they are required to listen to the people.

[Michael P]

Where does such direct legislation stand relative to laws adopted by the legislature and signed by the executive? If, for example, direct legislation purports to reduce the legal rights of some group, would courts be obliged to comply?

Direct democracy works reasonably well for groups up to around the Dunbar number (whatever that is) or for sufficiently large majorities. The results of California's ballot propositions show the hazards of allowing majorities of 50%+1 to modify the constitution. (Technically, it looks like California is even worse: When more than one proposition addresses the same issue in an "all-or-nothing" approach, only a plurality is needed to adopt it.)

Would this Wisconsin process be similar to section 9.20 of the state code, except for the state level rather than town/village level?

[Brett Bellmore]

My understanding is that direct legislation, AKA ballot initiatives and propositions, are constitutionally on exactly the same level as legislative products, so far as federal constitutional law is concerned. They can, of course, be differently situated in regards to state constitutions.

I certainly do agree that allowing constitutions to be amended by simple majority is dodgy.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Well, like they did with Prop 8, just get some partisan homo judge to overrule Democracy and create law as the elites want it. You know, the Democrat Way.

[Michael Ejercito]

That judge also defied Supreme Court precedent.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I loved his argument he made where the government's job was to confer dignity to people... but apparently only pairs of homosexuals.

Every other romantic configuration? well screw them! No government dignity for you!

[John F. Carr]

It has been suggested that initiative petitions allow a group to win the battle and lose the war. The legislature is still hostile to the cause.

[Brett Bellmore]

There is a lot of truth to that: State governments are often not particularly diligent about defending/enforcing laws that were forced on them by the people.

[ducksalad]

There's the nice theory about democracy and the people ultimately ruling and all that.

But then there's the sad fact that there's a negative correlation between states that I think are well run, and states that have initiative and referendum.

[Moderation4ever]

If the state is well run and the legislature doing the will of the people, then you really don't need initiatives and referendum.

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

LINCOLN"S LYCEUM ADDRESS

good men, men who love tranquility, who desire to abide by the laws, and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country; seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose. Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocractic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed--I mean the attachment of the People. Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last. By such things, the feelings of the best citizens will become more or less alienated from it; and thus it will be left without friends, or with too few, and those few too weak, to make their friendship effectual.

[hobie]

I can't rightly recall, but I think something happened today (a "Day of Love" as it's been designated) where "my Republican Congressmen" and some fraudulent documents spirited by Ron Johnson tried to get Hang Mike Pence to overthrow an United States election. Moment of silence please. We shall never forget the sacrifice

[Michael P]

There's a lot that you do not rightly recall, for example the agency properly assigned to documents. Maybe you should check yourself into a facility that can properly care for you.

[David Nieporent]

If only Mike Pence had the courage to do the right thing, Kamala Harris's election would have been certified today.

[Armchair]

If Trump was president, all the hostages in Gaza would be free....

Below is an interesting bit from Tony Blinken regarding Hamas. Basically, whenever there appeared to be a substantial public gap between the US and Israel, Hamas would pull back from negotiations and wouldn't release the hostages. (Surprise...).
https://www.jns.org/blinkens-stunning-confession/

Remember, Trump was one of the most pro-Israel presidents of the last 30 years. Far more so than Biden. He wouldn't have "pressured" Israel in public like Biden has...and as a result, Hamas would have realized there was no distance between the US and Israel...pushing Hamas to release the hostages.

But Biden...well....

[Commenter_XY]

Obama's Iran policy (carried out by POTUS Biden's NatSec team) remains an abysmal failure. This is just another example, in a long series of examples, of the utter incompetence of that team, and the flawed assumptions of that failed policy.

Everything that POTUSObamas Biden's NatSec team touched, turned to shit. And they've managed to kill Americans and have others taken hostage, to boot.

[Martinned2]

Obama's Iran policy (carried out by POTUS Biden's NatSec team) remains an abysmal failure.

What do you mean "remains"? Trump sank it months after it started.

[tylertusta]

What do you mean "remains"? Trump sank it months after it started.

Did you miss the part where he said "carried out by POTUS Biden's NatSec team?"

Biden resurrected Obama's foreign policy when Trump left office, so it's no real stretch to say that Obama's foreign policy remains.

[Martinned2]

But Obama's Iran deal continues to be as dead as it has been since 2017, which is why presumably the Iranian regime has been busy developing nukes all this time. (There's no way of knowing, given that we can't send in inspectors anymore.)

[tylertusta]

Obama's Middle Eastern policy was more than the Iran nuclear deal just like Biden's policy was more than trying to recreate the old Iranian nuclear deal.

[Sarcastr0]

Beyond Iran, Obama's Middle East policy wrecked ISIS in a lasting way. It's still a brand, but it's no longer much else.

He did it by enlisting Muslim groups hostile to ISIS' cause.
That's the only COIN-type engagement that I've seen be successful. Gives me some hope.

[Commenter_XY]

Pres Obama's policy incubated ISIS, nitwit. He called them the JV Team. A pity he did nothing to stop them.

WRT ME policy, whether it was the Arab Spring, supporting the muslim brotherthood in Egypt, killing off Libyan leaders, or paying off Iranian mullahs...Obama and his team were a ME foreign policy disaster. Utterly incompetent, and arrogantly so. The perfect progressive.

Iran policy, in particular, was a horrendous failure. Just ask our American hostages, assuming they're still alive.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Pres Obama's policy incubated ISIS, nitwit. He called them the JV Team. A pity he did nothing to stop them."

Yeah, he didn't do anything at all!

Oh wait, "Mr. Ethnic Cleansing is Good" C_XY is the source of this claim? I guess we better check the facts then.

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

Uh oh. Looks like you're full of shit as usual!

[tylertusta]

I wouldn't say that about ISIS. They're contained, not "wrecked in a lasting way" and they definitely aren't more than a "brand."

Furthermore, the destruction of ISIS was mostly through conventional conflict, not through the use of COIN. ISIS made the mistake of being so successful that they gave air power nice targets to blow up.

Finally, there have been plenty of successful counterinsurgencies that you aren't familiar with: Iraqi Kurds in the 1970s, Chechnya post 2nd Chechen War, a couple in the Philippines since WW2, the Contras in Nicaragua, and others.

[Sarcastr0]

The destruction of ISIS was via conventional conflict *that we didn't do directly*. That homegrown nature seems to have been key. Certainly other times we rolled in directly have not been as successful.

You're right I'm not up on your 3 examples. Though IIRC the Contras pretty precipitously lost their US backing.

I did look up the insurgency following the end Chechen War. Took 9 years, but you're right Russia successfully counterinsurgencied. And their technique of using local opposition seems very similar!

[tylertusta]

The destruction of ISIS was via conventional conflict *that we didn't do directly*.

US air power dropped bombs on them. That's as direct as it gets.

And their technique of using local opposition seems very similar!

It's more complicated than that. If you're interested in reading up on the successes and failures of COIN, a while ago RAND did case studies and looked at successful and unsuccessful counterinsurgencies and why the succeeded or failed. There were some trends. Basically, the "blow everything up" strategy doesn't work all that well, but other strategies can work depending on the circumstances.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR291z2/RAND_RR291z2.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks - I am interested, based a bit of time supporting DoD R&D back when our 2 quagmires were hot.

[David Nieporent]

Finally, there have been plenty of successful counterinsurgencies that you aren't familiar with: Iraqi Kurds in the 1970s, Chechnya post 2nd Chechen War, a couple in the Philippines since WW2, the Contras in Nicaragua, and others.

Add the defeat of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

[Sarcastr0]

Brief wiki makes that look a lot more like a conventional war.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Contras in Nicaragua"

They forced an actual free election in 1990 where the Reds lost.

So I question your "successful".

[tylertusta]

By 1988 the Contras were basically done as an insurgency. They disbanded in 1989 only to have the government lose democratically in 1990.

[Martinned2]

The specific claim from Commenter's comment that I took issue with was about Iran. You can tell, because I quoted it (in italics).

[tylertusta]

It's fair to say that their Iran policy was their Middle Eastern policy.

Rapprochement with Iran was the foundation of both the Biden and Obama policies for the region. The nuclear deal was just one part of a bundle of foreign policy decisions that attempted to normalize relations with Iran. The goal was to end sanctions against Iran so they could remove the US from the region.

[Martinned2]

Sure, if you ignore the Obama administration's policies towards ISIS, Israel/Palestine, Saudi, Yemen, and lots of other places that may or may not be in the Middle East (depending on who you ask).

[Commenter_XY]

And the Obama admin screwed the pooch on all of them, and added UKR to the mix. Everything Obama (and Biden) touched just turned to shit. That is because their starting assumptions and their way of thinking was just wrong. They're too proud and arrogant to see it.

[tylertusta]

ISIS was a secondary concern, one that was only cared about once they took over wide swaths of Iraq. Obama got egg on his face and had to look like he was Doing Something™.

Israel/Palestine, Yemen, and Saudi foreign policy were all colored by Obama's desire to normalize relations with Iran and disengage the US from commitments in the region.

For example, Obama blocked arms sales to the Saudis ostensibly over their fighting the Houthis in Yemen. It was seen an escalation (lol!) so Obama blocked the deal.

How far the world has come in just eight years!

[Martinned2]

If Trump was president, all the hostages in Gaza would be free....

Against stiff competition, that might be the dumbest thing said in this entire thread.

[Commenter_XY]

Has Pres Trump remained POTUS, the Abraham Accords would have been expanded greatly, and marginalized hamas, hezbollah, and a host of others.

Instead, we got Obama's incompetent team paired with a cognitively deficient POTUS, dead and kidnapped Americans.

[Martinned2]

Has Pres Trump remained POTUS, the Abraham Accords would have been expanded greatly, and marginalized hamas, hezbollah, and a host of others.

That's a different claim entirely, but just as wrong. The fact that Hamas thought it was being marginalised is the whole reason why it carried out the October 7 attacks in the first place.

[Brett Bellmore]

They carried out the attack because they're genocidal maniacs.

[tylertusta]

The whole reason they carried out the attack?

You don't even believe that, so why are you trying to sell us on it?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Martinned is a reflexive antisemite. Unfortunately, left wing circles in Europe are so steeped in casual Jew hating that this kind of lying actually works sometimes, so he forgets how to talk around normal people (or even Volokh Conspiracy commenters). Best to just ignore him with the rest of the bigots.

[tylertusta]

Makes sense. Thanks!

[Martinned2]

O, fuck off!

[Commenter_XY]

Truth hurts, eurotrash.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

A prolific liar such as yourself has no business referring to the word 'truth.'

[Michael P]

He has you dead to rights. If you don't like it, that's probably a good cue for self-reflection.

[Bob from Ohio]

"whole reason "

No, raping, kidnapping and murdering Jews was the whole reason. The timing might have been influenced by fear of being "marginalised ".

[Armchair]

Read the article. Understand Hamas's logic. Then understand that Trump was unreservedly pro-Israel, while Biden was much more...reserved... we'll say.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"If Trump was president, all the hostages in Gaza would be free...."

It's difficult to ridicule any further a statement so obviously ridiculous, but shouldn't you be arguing that if Trump had been president, there wouldn't have been any hostages to free?

[Swede425]

First full week back to "work" after the holidays.
Mostly from home (except when traveling to a site).
Set up an atomizer in my home office and now attempting alchemy with essential oils (researching recipes online).
Christmas tree and decor comes down sometime this week.
Then car shopping for youngest son who will be attending Michigan State in the Fall.

[Ska]

The bitter-sweet trade off of ending the holiday season and reclaiming a much needed 16 square foot patch of living room. Not to mention carrying the carcass of a six week old, dried out tree down three flights of steps without leaving pine needles in the common area hallway.

[RedheadedPharoh]

The average American across all adult age groups is on four prescriptions.

Eat a Standard American Diet, go to a Standard American Doctor, you will die from a Standard American Disease.

SAD!

Thanks Dr. Fauci & Govie Sarcastr0!

[apedad]

I don't get it.

The govt is forcing people to be unhealthy?

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't say the food pyramid and agricultural subsidies were exactly a case of government force, more a matter of government encouragement.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Do you think the government has any influence over our food and our health?

Why do people like you always want to cede them more and more power and control, but never look to them to be accountable for their failures?

How is that a healthy view of authority?

[SRG2]

The US had a serious obesity problem well before Covid. I wonder how many of these prescriptions are for obesity-related conditions.

FWIW when I last visited my urologist, and I noted that the only prescription med I take is finasteride, he agreed that, nowadays, for a man of 67 this was unusual.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm personally on 3, but this is mostly due to having gone through chemo catching up with me. It really does a number on you, even if it saves your life.

[Frank Drackman]

Did he tell you the side effects of Finasteride?
Impotence
Decreased Libido
Decreased Volume of Ejaculate
Ejaculation Disorder
Breast Enlargement
Breast Tenderness
Rash
I'll deal with the 3am piss break

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Does long term prophylactic use of saw palmetto work?

[Life of Brian]

In the wonderful world of anecdotes, I've taken pygeum for the last 2-3 years and have experienced a number of significant and unmistakable improvements in prostate-related stuff. It has more of a generalized anti-inflammatory mechanism as opposed to the targeted DHT blocking of Finasteride/saw palmetto, so doesn't have the potential hairline sparing action if that's part of what you're looking for.

[SRG2]

FWIW a few years back four of us were driving down for Penn Relays (as participants - which I still do) and we were discussing various inconveniences and treatments for BPH and I said, chaps, 30 years ago we'd have spent the journey talking about girls.

[Life of Brian]

True story. LOL

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't with me, long term jerking off doesn't either (Believe me, I've tried) although LTJO does decrease the incidence of Prostrate Cancer

[SRG2]

Probably not: https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/saw-palmetto

[RedheadedPharoh]

NIH isn't going to publish anything that suggests something works that they don't get a royalty off of.

Follow the incentives. Dr. Fauci didn't become a multi-millionaire top 1% elite by serving the interests of the public during his lifelong tenure as a public servant.

[David Nieporent]

Horseshoe theory again!

[RedheadedPharoh]

Attacking Dr. Fauci isn't a Leftist position. He's a govie. He is worshipped by the Leftists.

Attacking a government agency's incentives also isn't a Leftist position. They worship government agencies as if they were perfect deities and demand these agencies control all of their lives.

[Life of Brian]

It's really not disputable that if you travel outside the US in just about any direction, the scientific community is a lot more open-minded toward non-pharmaceutical/integrative medicine.

For example, this joint paper from a number of European university researchers surveys over 250 studies on natural BPH remedies including saw palmetto, pygeum, pumpkin seed oil and others, walking in depth through the mechanisms as currently understood and the demonstrated benefits.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The average American across all adult age groups is on four prescriptions.

Assuming it’s true, is there some reason why that statistic on its own should be a cause for concern?

I’d imagine the average (median?) American a hundred years ago was on zero prescriptions. The median American also owned zero cars, TVs, air conditioners, refrigerators, washing machines, or iPhones. No one is concerned that American ingenuity and free enterprise has helped us given us the wealth and resources to live better lives with the latter kinds of goods: why would we be upset that medical research (which is largely an American phenomenon) has enabled us to be healthier too?

[RedheadedPharoh]

I'm not sure I can get onboard with your premise that taking prescriptions is a sign of better health.

That seems like quite a stretch. Further, the Standard American Medical Model isn't to cure, but to treat symptoms and put people on pharmacy subscriptions.

If you were cured, you wouldn't need medication. But we aren't being cured, our symptoms are being managed.

[SRG2]

Certainly it is hard to find strong evidence against this...

As I've joked, "do you get tired late evening? Do you find yourself yawning unexpectedly? Do you often get the urge to lie down at night? You could be suffering from nocturnal fatigue syndrome..."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

" Further, the Standard American Medical Model isn't to cure, but to treat symptoms and put people on pharmacy subscriptions."

Nobody here believes you have any knowledge of any serious subject.

[Sarcastr0]

It's also a horseshoe moment - this is a leftist take on the health care system under capitalism.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Our health care system isn't under capitalism, though.

It's predominately controlled and funded by the government. That's why it's so bad. If it were free market capitalism for the non-catastrophic stuff, all of our routine healthcare would be more like LASIK. A capitalist healthcare miracle.

Further, RFK, Jr. is the only reformer with any chance of success. And the Leftist have reviled and attacked him mercilessly.

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Alternate question:

"How do you make a Liberal defend our healthcare system?"

^^^^^

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm neither a liberal, nor am I defending our healthcare system.

I'm pointing out that you're an idiot without any knowledge or authority of the subject matter.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I'm not sure I can get onboard with your premise that taking prescriptions is a sign of better health.

It’s not a sign of better health. But it’s not, in its own, a sign of worse health either.

For instance, I’m sure that there are a lot more people taking antidepressants now than there were a generation ago. That could be because more people are actually experiencing clinical depression. But it could also be because the same percentage of people are depressed, but they’re more proactive about seeking help, doctors are more educated about how to make diagnoses, and the pharmaceuticals industry has invented more effective treatments. In which case, the same share of the population would, through receiving appropriate treatment, be living happier and better lives. Ditto, mutatis mutandis, for just about every other medical condition from high cholesterol to male pattern baldness to acne.

To take a less charged and conspiracy-prone example: I am certain there are a lot more people with corrective lenses than there were a century ago. But I doubt it’s because our collective vision is getting worse: rather, it’s because technology has made them a lot cheaper, and we’re much more aggressive about diagnosing vision problems than we used to be. The fact that most people can actually see is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Again, it’s possible that an increase in prescriptions is caused by worsening health. But the increase alone doesn’t show that.

[RedheadedPharoh]

You're making well reasoned arguments, but they suffer one fatal flaw.

You're making them in absence of the current healthcare crisis context. Americans are facing an epidemic of chronic disease and a mental health crisis.

If those two things weren't the current situation, I think you'd be right.

It isn't the case that Americans have always had these chronic illnesses and mental health struggles just undiscovered or untreated.

That defies reason.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Americans are facing an epidemic of chronic disease and a mental health crisis.
…
It isn't the case that Americans have always had these chronic illnesses and mental health struggles just undiscovered or untreated.

So why didn’t you open the discussion with that instead of the bit about prescriptions?

[Absaroka]

"But it’s not, in its own, a sign of worse health either."

Indeed. My better half had (has?) Hashimoto's Disease, which is an autoimmune disease that wrecks your thyroid, leading to various unpleasant symptoms. In days of olde you suffered. Today you can get a prescription for the relevant hormone and lead a completely normal life. I can't see any downside at all.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Al Qaeda now has it's own nation.
Taliban now has it's own nation.

Thanks President Biden & Govie Sarcastr0!

[Martinned2]

Hang on, your claim is that it's a bad thing that Assad was overthrown? (And that it's a bad thing that Trump agreed with the Taliban that the US would withdraw from Afghanistan.)

[tylertusta]

Hang on, your claim is that it's a bad thing that Assad was overthrown?

Did he say that?

And that it's a bad thing that Trump agreed with the Taliban that the US would withdraw from Afghanistan.

Did he say that?

[Martinned2]

Didn't you notice me asking what he meant to say?

[tylertusta]

Nothing to notice since you didn't ask him what he meant to say.

You inserted your own words then asked him to defend your statements as if he had said them.

[Martinned2]

I did not. I said: "your claim is...". To which the answer is yes or no. I in no way asked him to defend anything.

Reading is hard...

[tylertusta]

By how you phrased the question you did asked him to defend a position he did not take. You didn't even write the words "Did you mean to say that...?" He didn't even bring up Trump, but you did.

(I had a good laugh when I read your comment on how "reading is hard" because you also told me that you asked him what he meant when you didn't even manage that)

It's ironic that you're asking for your statements to be taken literally while you take an expansive, non-literal view on the statements that RedheadedPharoh made.

Pick one.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Martin isn't a native English speaker. What's your excuse?

"Hang on, your claim is [X]?"

That's Martin asking a "question". The big hint here is the funny looking punctuation mark at the end. (It functions like the "desu ka" at the end of a spoken question in Japanese.)

One of the truly wonderful things about the English language is its flexibility. Indeed, one need not employ only a single method of asking a question. All that really matters is that the question is understood. That way, the person who was asked the question can answer it, if they desire to do so.

Somehow, I doubt you really didn't understand Martin's words...

[tylertusta]

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, ObviouslySpam.

His command of the English language is probably better than yours.

[tylertusta]

I think it's a bit premature to say whether the changes in Syria are going to be good or bad. The current groups in charge of the capital are at least trying to disavow Al Qaeda and ISIS ties, so that's promising.

[Commenter_XY]

HTS could also be wolves in sheeps clothing. Let's remember who is backing them = Turkey. And Erdogan's remarks about Turkey's destiny to expand beyond their borders doesn't sound very promising.

[SimonP]

The risk is that HTS consolidates power and turns Syria into a Taliban-like state. Turkey would not welcome that development.

If he aligns with Turkey - whatever Turkey's longer-term territorial ambitions - it'll mean a counterweight to Iran in the region. Erdogan has been hostile towards Israel, but not "existential threat" hostile, so it would be an important shift.

[Commenter_XY]

That isn't much of a risk to Turkey = Syria becoming a Taliban-like state

If you give safe harbor to hamas terrorists and their leaders, and support hamas while Israel is fighting for their lives in a declared war against hamas...how is that not 'existential threat hostile' to Israel?

[SimonP]

I'm not going to debate Middle East politics with a simpleton. Go read something.

[Armchair]

Re - Immigration.

Two countries have previously been put forward as paragons of pro-immigration policies. Sweden and Canada.

Interestingly, in recent years however, both countries have taken a hard turn to the anti-immigration direction. Sweden is now a net exporter of people. Canada is now sharply decreasing the number of permanent immigrants per year allowed. Moreover, the hangover of poor immigration policy seems to be driving economic malaise in these countries.

It's important to understand...immigration isn't a panacea. It has many effect, some detrimental, some seen years down the road. And even if GDP overall increases, if GDP per capita decreases (as it has in Canada), one needs to examine the effects and what's happened.

[Martinned2]

both countries have taken a hard turn to the anti-immigration direction

So have lots of countries with little to no immigration.

[Mr. Bumble]

No snark intended. What are those countries (that have taken a hard turn)?

[Martinned2]

Pretty much everywhere in Europe, regardless of immigrant numbers. But of course countries like the US, Canada, and India have shifted to the (far) right as well.

But, to return to my previous claim, the reason why countries like Slovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria vote for anti-immigrant populist isn't because those countries have so many immigrants.

[Ska]

Oooh, the far right. So anyone who espouses beliefs to the right of... Bill Clinton?

The far right meme belongs in the same trashbin as "save our democracy." Overly used and has no value - other than signaling the speaker thinks firmly left is really the center.

[Martinned2]

I'm actually to the right of centre. (And so is Bill Clinton.) But if you don't think US democracy is under threat, you don't deserve to keep it. Unfortunately, the loss of US democracy and rule of law also hurts the people who would very much like to keep them.

[ThePublius]

That's the funniest thing you've posted here so far! Ha, ha....

[RedheadedPharoh]

Stop illegally interfering in our elections.

You are a foreign national with foreign interests that do not align with citizens of America.

You are harming our democracy and interfering in our elections.

Is your backwater 3rd world shithole so unimportant that you spend your days interfering in our sacred democracy?

[tylertusta]

I thought he was a US citizen who was living abroad?

[Bob from Ohio]

He is Dutch but lives in the UK.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Ah so he does live in a 3rd world shit hole.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How is Martin "illegally interfering" in [US] elections?

I personally own plenty of guns, but in my view, any country in which you need a gun to feel safe is a "shithole". Do you agree?

[Frank Drackman]

Every country's that way. Pope John Paul II got shot in Vatican City.

[RedheadedPharoh]

You don't feel safe in the entire country and need to a gun to feel safe?

Are you for real? Just go live in the White parts that aren't under Democrat control.

Except maybe Appalachia. Although, you're probably fine there too if you're White.

[VinniUSMC]

"The centre" as opposed to the center.

People who spell "centre" think the center of a 0-10 scale is 1, so them being a 2 makes them right of center.

Also, fuck off Nazi scum. You fool no one.

[Armchair]

So, the countries with "little to no immigration" have somehow taken a turn to be more anti-immigration than they were before?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, similar to the way in which pizza restaurants with "little to no adrenochrome harvesting" going on in their basements were somehow targeted for armed liberation.

Do you get it now?

[DixieTune]

Immigration of people from the third world when your national policy is to allow them to keep their third world cultures and languages is bound to fail, every time. It only works if you force assimilation and you have a very weak social safety net.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You "allow them to keep"... How generous of you!

[DixieTune]

Tit for tat is a common concept throughout history. If people don't like the host country's conditions, they don't have to immigrate.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The US does not prohibit immigrants from "keeping their cultures and languages". That is not a "condition" of immigration to the US.

[DixieTune]

It used to be a de factor condition.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Still wrong.

[DixieTune]

Did we use to print ballots in other languages? Driver's tests? Did we give people tons of free shit? No, no, and no.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

As a matter of fact, yes we did.

None of those things required immigrants to abandon their language or culture.

You are just another xenophobic asshole.

[bernard11]

It has previously been pointed out to you, by myself and others, that your GDP argument is innumerate.

It is easily possible for the following three things all to happen simultaneously as a result of immigration.

1. Increase in total GDP
2. Decrease in GDP per capita
3. Increase in GDP per capita among both immigrants and non-immigrants.

I and others have previously given you simple numerical examples, but your innumeracy seems to be invincible.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think your #3 really should be "Increase in GDP per capita among both immigrants and some non-immigrants."

Clearly immigration benefits immigrants. They wouldn't immigrate otherwise.

Clearly it benefits some natives, or else it wouldn't be permitted, immigration policy being controlled by natives.

But it's certainly capable of reducing the per capita GDP of a substantial fraction of the preexisting population, while benefiting immigrants and some select natives.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think your #3 really should be "Increase in GDP per capita among both immigrants and some non-immigrants.”

Wrong. It’s possible for all members of each subgroup to benefit.

<blockquoteBut it's certainly capable of reducing the per capita GDP of a substantial fraction of the preexisting population, while benefiting immigrants and some select natives.

Yes, that’s also mathematically possible. Do you have some reason to think that what could happen is what would happen?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Wrong. It’s possible for all members of each subgroup to benefit."

Ah, you're suggesting that every subgroup could benefit, and the per capita GDP of the nation as a whole decline anyway, if you brought a lot of poor people.

OK, granted, that's mathematically possible, but probably not economically, since you'd be increasing the supply of labor for low paid jobs, which should drive the pay down, not up.

[Armchair]

"I and others have previously given you simple numerical examples,"

Show real world examples. With data.

[M L]

You're talking nonsense bernard.

How can GDP per capita decrease and increase at the same time?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Here’s a toy example with some round numbers to make the math easier to follow.

Suppose Country A has a population of 100 people, a GDP of $100,000, and thus a per capita GDP of $1000.

Suppose 10 people immigrate from a country where the per capital GDP is only $1.

After relocating to Country A and having access to its economy and markets, suppose the immigrants massively increase their productive, raising their per capita share of the GDP to $10. Suppose further that having them in the country also increases the productivity of the native Aian, increasing their own share of the GDP from $100,000 to $101,000.

The total GDP is now $101,100 instead of $100,000, a net increase (bernard11’s number 1). However, the per capita GDP is now $101,100/110=$919.0909…, a decrease (bernard11’s number 2). But GDP per capita has increased for both the immigrants (from $1 to $10) and natives (from $1000 to $1010).

This counterintuitive phenomenon—where a trend within a large group moves in the opposite direction of trends within its subgroups—is called Simpson’s Paradox, and is pretty important to understand before you start interpreting statistical data.

[Brett Bellmore]

But you're kind of cheating here, because the increase is based on moving people outside the system INTO one of the subgroups, and yet counting their economic status while they were outside as part of the calculation.

They weren't "immigrants" before immigrating.

Anyway, as I said above, while he's right that it's mathematically possible, it's economically unlikely for ALL groups in the population to rise as a result; There are always losers.

You're just ignoring that there are actually three groups here;
A: Pre-existing Aians who were doing well.
B: Pre-existing Aians who compete in the job market with group C.
C: Immigrants

Group C wins, because even though they drive down wages, they're driven down to a much higher level than in their home country.

Group A wins due to paying the reduced wages.

But Group B loses, because they experience the wage drop from before to after the immigration.

And this is actually consistent with American experience: The lowest income inequality we ever saw was in the early to mid 20th century, when we'd pretty much stopped immigration. When we opened it up again, income inequality shot back up.

[M L]

You beat me to it, I put it differently below before I saw your reply.

"The lowest income inequality we ever saw was in the early to mid 20th century, when we'd pretty much stopped immigration. When we opened it up again, income inequality shot back up."

Yes. I posted this the other day:

https://x.com/NumbersUSA/status/1873789063817551900

[Brett Bellmore]

It was so profound it's referred to as "the Great Compression".

[M L]

Ok. It's not possible for bernard's #2 and #3 to both happen, where "immigrants and nonimmigrants" means those categories of people within the country in question before and after the change. Which is I think the most natural interpretation. But I see your point.

For example, my statement is like saying it's not possible for the average weight of the male population to go up, and the average weight of the female population to go up, while the average weight of the population overall went down (barring some category outside of male and female).

The trick you are doing there is importing the previous, outside status of individuals added to a subgroup and including that in the baseline. So, if the population adds bunch of new females who simultaneously gain weight but remain relatively skinny, then the above could happen, as long as you define the starting point for "average weight of the female population" to include the starting weights of those outside of... the population, who were later added.

Setting aside all of that, GDP per capita is a pretty rough measure that doesn't tell you much. Specifically, it tells you next to nothing about who benefits from a particular policy, i.e. the distribution of benefits, though it may be a step closer than GDP alone. There are plenty of reasons one could be concerned about per capita GDP and what it might indicate, for example extreme amounts of inequality among groups in your example.

At any rate, Armchair's point seems sound that a decline in per capita GDP warrants an examination of economic effects, as do unprecedented experiments in mass immigration generally. It's not "innumerate" and bernard's post is far from establishing that it is.

Of course, the entire premise that everyone should or must or does maximize "GDP" or even personal income is flawed from the outset. Most people don't choose to work 100 hr weeks for example.

[David Nieporent]

For example, my statement is like saying it's not possible for the average weight of the male population to go up, and the average weight of the female population to go up, while the average weight of the population overall went down (barring some category outside of male and female).

You are mistaken, unless you think the population of the United States is static. It doesn't require immigrants; just a change in the proportion of male and female residents. (Through births or deaths.)

[M L]

No, I'm right. It doesn't matter what happens with deaths, births, immigration or otherwise.

The overall GDP (or lbs) per capita is going to be the weighted average of the immigrant and nonimmigrant (or male and female) groups. If all of the individual averages go up, then so will the weighted average. Just basic math.

In terms of births, the way Noscitur is getting around this is like saying that that all the new people that were born weighed 2 pounds when they were in utero, and we're going to include them in our calculation of the before and after average weights of the subgroups. But at the same time, we're going to exclude them from our 'before' calculation of the overall group average weight, since they weren't born yet.

Perhaps a simpler way to describe the problem with Noscitur's example, from a different direction, is simply that per capita GDP did not decrease for the overall group at issue (bernard's #2), instead, it increased. The 10 immigrants and their production was left out of the numerator and denominator for the 'before' overall GDP per capita calculation. $100,010 / 110 = $909.18.

[David Nieporent]

The overall GDP (or lbs) per capita is going to be the weighted average of the immigrant and nonimmigrant (or male and female) groups. If all of the individual averages go up, then so will the weighted average. Just basic math.

But that's not basic math! You're still missing Simpsons' Paradox.

[Josh R]

Lets' say we start with 50% men and 50% women. Men weigh on average 200 and women 140. Overall average weight is 170.

After 10 years, we have 40% men and 60% women. Men now weigh on average 205 and women 145. Overall average weight is 169.

[M L]

Whoops! I indeed described this particular thing completely wrong. I blame this head cold and the drugs I'm on for it. Thanks David N and Josh R for pointing out my mistake. The other points in my comment still stand.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trudeau just resigned.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-news-conference-1.7423680

I'm surprised he lasted this long...

[Frank Drackman]

Can't wait for the Merchan sentencing, hopefully he'll serve his sentence in his native Colombia.

[Dr. Ed 2]

🙂

[RedheadedPharoh]

Happy Patriots Day everyone!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It's April already? Who won the Super Bowl?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriots%27_Day

[Don Nico]

Not here in Boston. You're way too early.

[ThePublius]

To those not getting it: he's referring to January 6th, 2021, when thousands protested the theft of the presidential election by the Democrats.

[bernard11]

IOW, both of you are idiots and cultists.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Can you define a "woman"?

If you can, could you compare and contrast your current definition with what you held as your definition say just five years ago?

[ThePublius]

Oh, I forgot, anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot and cultist. As if the Democratic party and progressive movement aren't cults, and populated mostly by idiots who can't tell you what a woman is, report on trucks crashing into people and guns killing people, and persist on letting crime go, ignoring criminal acts, and letting violent criminals out onto the streets. Got it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You: "...and persist on letting crime go, ignoring criminal acts, and letting violent criminals out onto the streets. Got it."

Also you:

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/06/monday-open-thread-87/?comments=true#comment-10857339

It's a missed opportunity that more of the J6 assholes weren't shot and killed.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I "got it" & I think most people did -- it is just silly among other things & there is actually a generally accepted Patriot's Day, which is what the replies reference.

[Michael Ejercito]

Gaza has fourteen days to surrender unconditionally.

Or else.

[John F. Carr]

You have 30 days to move your strip.
You have 10 days to move your strip.
Your strip has been impounded.
Your strip has been crushed into a cube.
You have 30 days to move your cube.

[ThePublius]

As is should be. The gaza strip should be absorbed and incorporated into Israel, and governed by a just and fair government, for once. Enough is enough. A forever war with "neighbors" who continually launch missiles at their neighbors and occasional launch incursions characterized by murder and rape and unmentionably heinous acts should not be allowed to persist.

[Bob from Ohio]

"gaza strip should be absorbed and incorporated into Israel"

The strip itself, sure, not the populace though.

[M L]

This may be a dumb question but could Israel, or Israelis, just buy up the entire Gaza strip, one parcel at at time?

[ThePublius]

Interesting thought, but did you know that it's. crime in Gaza to sell real estate to a Jew, punishable by death?

[M L]

I did not!

[John F. Carr]

Seriously now, there's little Trump can do. Israel already has license to cause as much death and destruction as it wants. Biden (Sullivan) has been pro-Israel in this fight with only a few reservations.

[Brett Bellmore]

With as many reservations as he could get away with, given October 7th.

[ducksalad]

Exact opposite, and I think you know that.

The "reservations" were mostly symbolic and as few as he thought he could get away with to appease his party's left flank. (Two notes: He misjudged and they were not appeased, and of course it was all his handlers, not himself.)

As soon as the election was over the criticism dried up and his handlers are now pushing $8B in new arms sales.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm assuming he had constraints on both sides, his party's left flank, and the American people. He certainly did try to get arms to Hamas. As well as providing Iran with a fortune that they, money being fungible, spent launching rockets towards Israel.

But he certainly could have gone more with the American people, and less with what his left flank was demanding.

[David Nieporent]

He certainly did try to get arms to Hamas.

The Palestinian Authority is not Hamas.

[Brett Bellmore]

Lol! Sure, tell yourself what you need to believe, to sleep at night.

[ducksalad]

1. 70% of the PA's revenue is tax money transferred from Israel. Israel's current government routinely signs off on these transfers:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israel-makes-partial-transfer-of-tax-revenues-withheld-from-pa-since-april/

Do you think they're stupid enough to do this if it's going to arms for Hamas while they're at war?

2. One reason they keep paying is that the PA spends a good deal of effort fighting Islamists and doing security work on behalf of Israel:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/pa-security-forces-kill-islamic-jihad-commander-sparking-clashes-in-jenin/

3. And while one is properly concerned with where Hamas currently gets their arms, don't forget how they got armed in the first place:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

And don't forget why they did it: because Hamas opposes the PA.

[Commenter_XY]

That is true David. I would only note that the PA has invited hamas to be a partner in governing gaza, post-war. Best friends? = PA, hamas

[ThePublius]

"Biden (Sullivan) has been pro-Israel in this fight with only a few reservations."

That's bullshit, and even now Anthony Blinken, Biden's Secretary of State, has admitted so.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Israel already has license to cause as much death and destruction as it wants."

They can kill the Hamas leaders in Qatar and/or Turkey

[Commenter_XY]

Hopefully, they do = Israel wipes out hamas members in Turkey

[Noscitur a sociis]

Or else what?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He won't be the most peacetest President in American history?

[DixieTune]

Biden is going out of his way to do as much damage to America and to shove his finger in conservatives and the American people's eyes as he can. Commuting the sentences of child killers, giving the Medal of Freedom to Soros and Hillary, putting into place destructive rule changes, and so on and so forth.

[Don Nico]

The absurdity of this award was shown by the award to Robert F. Kennedy who died nearly 60 years ago. What was that except a way to insult RFK, Jr. Joe is just a vindictive old man slipping into oblivion as his insult to reporters yesterday showed.

[Martinned2]

Is it more absurd than giving the Medal of Freedom to Babe Ruth?

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/medaloffreedom/#:~:text=after%20his%20death.-,GEORGE%20HERMAN%20%E2%80%9CBABE%E2%80%9D%20RUTH%2C%20Jr.,-George%20Herman%20%E2%80%9CBabe

[ThePublius]

"Off the baseball field, he created The Babe Ruth Foundation and tirelessly raised funds for the war effort during the Second World War."

What have Soros and Hillary and Cheney done that compares to this?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Well Hillary got mega rich trafficking Haitian children to the elites and Soros has interfered with countless local elections getting Democrat DAs in place which had led to thousands of senseless murders and rapes against Americans.

So you know, just typical Democrat things

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"...getting Democrat DAs in place which had led to thousands of senseless murders and rapes against Americans."

Yep, you're a fucking retard alright. Too bad you aren't also a victim of your own imagination.

[Riva]

Don't forget her gift of the Russian collusion fraud, made up by her hired foreign agent Steele and promoted by her Perkins Coie cutouts and media hacks. As for Soros, we can thank him for all those DAs not prosecuting crime and making Democrat cities even more unsafe.

[DixieTune]

They've advanced partisan left wing ideals, which in a democrat's eye, is noble.

[Frank Drackman]

In his defense, the Babe had a better year than Hoover

[Don Nico]

No, that is also the stupid idea of bitter old man trying to look gracious for a moment.
But the RFK medal was just given to be hurtful to his son. Joe cannot suppress his bitterness over having been politically assassinated by his "friends' and his lack of contact with reality (he still thinks that he would have defeated Trump.
It's sad. We all get old, some faster than others.

[Mr. Bumble]

I wish you and others would stop equating chronological age with ability both physical and mental.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Sorry if I’m being obtuse, but why would someone find it insulting to have the president give an award to their father?

[Bob from Ohio]

Kerry Kennedy accepted it. Her statements against her brother have not been very sisterly.

[Don Nico]

Yes, because it was meant as a rebuke to the son. Why else give an award to someone who is dead for 60 years. (Yes, and the Babe was dead even longer). The old man has lost his mind.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But again, why would giving someone’s father an award be a rebuke to them? Apologies if I’m missing something obvious, it just doesn’t seem like an insult’s!

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, and the Babe was dead even longer

Do you see how you conceded your whole accusation right here?

I mean look at the list of recipients over history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom_recipients

Carter gave a posthumous medal to LBJ, I note.

You've made up a standard so you could get mad at it.

[David Nieporent]

1) If you think he did it as a "rebuke to the son," then how does that show he has "lost his mind"? (Unless by "the old man" you meant RFKJ, but that assumes facts not in evidence.) It seems to show quite clear thinking.

2) Why would continuing a tradition of posthumous awards show that one has lost one's mind anyway? Roberto Clemente and Harvey Milk got theirs 31 years after their deaths, Elvis got his 41 years after his death, James Chaney/Andrew Goodman/Michael Schwermer got theirs 49 years after they died, Babe Didrikson Zaharias had to wait 65 years, and Juliette Gordon Low received the award 85 years after she died. Plus the aforementioned Ruth, who had been dead for 70 years.

Meanwhile, Trump gave the award to Jim Jordan (!) and Devin Nunes (!!). Neither posthumously, even though the only thing those two would ever contribute to the country would be their deaths.

[John F. Carr]

It helps if you think if the medal like the Nobel Peace Prize, a reward for whoever is politically "in" this year.

[Don Nico]

John, it may have been given to someone who had not actually done anything, but at least it is not given to dead people.

[Sarcastr0]

Is there some fundamental issue with giving an award to a dead guy?

[David Nieporent]

John, it may have been given to someone who had not actually done anything, but at least it is not given to dead people.

You are completely mistaken. It has been awarded to many many dead people. Over 70 of them, at least.

[RedheadedPharoh]

With Trudeau resigning today, here's the updated list of Political Dynasties ended by President Awesome '45 & '47

Bush
Clinton
Cheney
Obama
Biden
Pelosi
and now
Castro

[Martinned2]

Nippon Steel and US Steel are taking the Biden Administration to court over the ridiculous national security ban on their merger.

https://www.bestdealforamericansteel.com/about-the-litigation

(Although I'm not entirely sure why it's necessary or good litigation strategy to bring up the USW everywhere.)

[ThePublius]

"Ridiculous?" De-industrialization of nations is their biggest national security threat. How are they going to make ships and tanks and weapons in general, if they don't have an industrial base?

The U.S. is currently in fourth place globally in steel production, at about 8% of China's output, and third in casting production, at about 18% of China's. Oh, in case you hadn't guessed, China is number one in both cases, and India number two.

Who's going to bail out England, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, et.al., in the next world war? (If it was up to me I wouldn't have the U.S. defend them, never mind bail them out. The only way they'll learn is under Chinese domination, in government, society, and so forth.

Dope!

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know the demand signal we have for steel these days, as compared to composites.
Without that information, the bare comparison to China's output is not a useful metric.

Who's going to bail out England, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, et.al., in the next world war?
I'm not sure supplying the free world with steel is part of our national security industrial strategy.

[ThePublius]

Supplying yourself with steel is an essential part of national security strategy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Composites are still a rounding error compared to steel, about half a percent as much.

[ThePublius]

I imagine Sarcastr0 would argue for battery powered composite tanks, battleships, and artillery. Oh, and composite gun barrels for small arms.

But then, all of those composites require lots of oil. Without petro independence, where's that going to come from?

[Sarcastr0]

I'd guess that, but I don't think our industrial strategy should be comparing bare production numbers with China.

I'm all for CFIUS killing mergers, to be clear.

I just don't like the reasoning here being fuzzy on our strategy as 'number be higher than China.'
And I REALLY don't like the notion that our goal should be to be the steel supplier for NATO.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Can you explain why you hold these particular judgments?

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps our goal is that the steel supplier for NATO should ideally be a member of NATO, and preferably not a likely adversary of NATO? And since nobody else is stepping up...

As I see it, the vast majority of countries can not be self-sufficient, being too small, and lacking a diversity of natural resources.

The US, by contrast, is easily large enough to capture all relevant economies of scale, and has all the resources. So self-sufficiency is at least a feasible goal for us.

Is it a desirable goal? It certainly has downsides, we're not going to be the cheapest supplier for a lot of things.

OTOH, it has upsides, too: Strategic security, because we would not be worried about disruption of overseas supply chains, due to natural disaster, pandemic, or hostile military action.

To a large extent, becoming self-sufficient in critical resources or industries is a military expenditure, not a GDP maximizing exercise.

[Commenter_XY]

How likely is Japan to be an adversary of America, or NATO?

This could have been handled differently, from the start. We (America) could have worked with Nippon Steel to keep manufacturing here, and have them pay for the upgrades needed at our foundries. But true to form, the Biden admin screwed it up from the start, by refusing to engage in a meaningful way.

This was a lost opportunity.

[Brett Bellmore]

Japan is not likely to become an adversary of America or NATO any time soon. Japan IS, however, uncomfortably close to China, which absolutely is such an adversary, and could any time they wanted make shipping steel to the US or NATO infeasible.

[David Nieporent]

Again: why do you think that Nippon Steel doesn't want to continue making steel here?

[Absaroka]

Yeah. I want us to have steel mills. I don't care who owns them. If a foreign buyer upgrades the mills, or builds new ones, yippee!

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, the entire Biden Admin mindset was wrong (what a surprise). The physical plant wasn't going anywhere. Nippon Steel would have invested in plant modernization right here in the US, and quite probably more. In return, a Japanese managerial approach to working with unions would have been adopted.

Not sure if the deal (or new form of it) can be resurrected in the next 4 years. We need more efficient steel-making, from a national security perspective.

[Mr. Bumble]

How much industrial capacity has been lost due to excessive and unnecessary regulation? Why does US Steel need a savior?

See this as an example:
https://freebeacon.com/biden-harris-administration/biden-bans-scores-of-natural-gas-water-heaters-driving-up-prices-with-lame-duck-regulations/
"Rinnai America, which is the nation’s only major manufacturer of tankless water heaters, stands to suffer from the regulations—the company recently constructed a $70 million 360,000-square-foot factory in Georgia to manufacture non-condensing gas water heaters for the American market. That facility employs hundreds of locals.

According to Windsor, the company unveiled its plans for the facility in 2020 after Trump’s efforts to boost American manufacturing. "When the rule goes into effect, all that manufacturing will basically be irrelevant," he added. "A lot of the major equipment that we've invested in will basically have to be scrapped."

[Don Nico]

"I REALLY don't like the notion that our goal should be to be the steel supplier for NATO."
Can you explain that opinion? (an honest question)

[Sarcastr0]

No country's national defense strategy has them tracking being a raw materials source for multiple presumed allies.
Think of the massively increased size of the requirement. And for doubly uncertain benefit since you don't know if there will be a conflict, and you don't know what the allies cited will require.

US supply chain independence is one thing. US supply chain having dependents is another.

[Don Nico]

Fair enough, but the US should be able to meet its own steel needs from domestic production, and Nippon steel would have made a substantial investment in US Steel not to mention in US workers.

[Sarcastr0]

Above I was told on no uncertain terms that the US is not be able to meet it's own steel needs from domestic production.

You seem very sure that US steel as a domestic concern would be strengthened by this without any cost to security. I don't share your confidence. I'm not on the other side either; I just see conflicting confident people none of which know what went into this decision.

I have helped do CFIUS evaluations on other stuff, and I can tell you that 1) there's info the public isn't privvy to involved, and 2) any other country having an owner's stake, ally or not, is a potential issue. It's another facet of potential attack.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Martinned is a foreign national interfering in our elections and democracy in support of foreign agendas and goals.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So?

Are you unaware of the American tradition of free speech?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Of course. Are you aware of the current hysteria of American citizens speaking out about politics and elections in other countries?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Whaddabout...

[Frank Drackman]

You're obviously unaware of the American tradition of a Bitch Slap

[apedad]

I would have thought the MAGA - America First people would applaud the ban on a foreign company buying a US steel company.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Martinned isn't MAGA, he's a foreigner, so like the Democrats his allegiances or to other countries.

[apedad]

I was responding to The Pubs and the situation in general, not the Martin thing.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Trump supports Biden's action.

Pompeo, that IC neocon piece of trash is most butthurt about it.

[Don Nico]

yes, he does, and he is wrong.

[ThePublius]

How is he wrong, Nico? I mean, you don't offer any argument here.

[Don Nico]

I would have through that MAGAs would applaud a deal that buit blue collar jobs in the rust belt, not oppose it and see US Steel get ever weaker.

[ThePublius]

I oppose the merger, FWIW, Perhaps I miscommunicated, or you misread me.

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside the fact that the U.S. has not remotely "deindustrialized" — our manufacturing output is consistently high — I don't know what you think this decision has to do with industrialization or deindustrialization anyway. You think Nippon Steel wants to shutter American steel manufacturing? Why would they want to buy the company in that case?

[Bob from Ohio]

" Why would they want to buy the company in that case?

I don't know Nippon Steel's intent but it not be unusual to buy a competitor in order to reduce competition.

[Mr. Bumble]

Too bad Paul Krugman isn't around to enlighten us.

[Martinned2]

Indeed. And there may well be a case to block the merger on competition grounds.

(Traditionally the steel market has been defined worldwide, but that may not be right anymore, or for all purposes. Then again, I'm not sure what Nippon Steel's current presence in the US steel market is, so the antitrust case might not work either way.)

[ThePublius]

David Nieporent :
"Setting aside the fact that the U.S. has not remotely "deindustrialized" —"

The number and output of foundries and steel mills is a good barometer of industrial strength.

"Since 2000, 80 steel foundries have closed in the United States, which is a third of the industry as a whole. This has led to a loss of over 8,000 jobs and a reduction in capacity of 500,000 to 1,400,000 tons.
The number of operating integrated steel mills in the United States has also decreased:
2000: 13 integrated steel mills were operating
2017: 9 integrated steel mills were operating, plus one was idled"

[David Nieporent]

I would think actual steel output, not the number of steel foundries, is an even better measure.

And, also, integrated steel mills is a really silly thing to look at, given the rise of mini mills.

[ThePublius]

Yes, steel output from U.S. foundries is down 25%, per the numbers I quoted, above.

David, deindustrialization of the West is a thing; just google it.

[David Nieporent]

No. You quoted "capacity," not output.

[Absaroka]

"integrated steel mills is a really silly thing to look at, given the rise of mini mills"

Can you explain your reasoning there? Minimills only recycle scrap steel; you need an integrated mill to make new steel from ore.

If the strategic objective is WW2 scale production, ISTM you are going to care about production from ore. I know they had scrap drives in WWII, but my sense is those didn't move the overall needle much.

Also, ISTM capacity matters. If you have a capacity of 2X but are only producing 1X, its a lot easier to surge production than if you only have a capacity of 1X and need to build another 1X.

[Martinned2]

If you want steel, pay Nippon Steel to make it. If you want to make sure steel is manufactured in the US, pay them to make it there. I'm sure they'd be happy to, if the price is high enough that they can earn a margin.

[ThePublius]

That's rather silly, Martin. Sure, you can do that in times of relative peace, but you can rest assured that if WWIII breaks out, led by China, among the first things China will do is take Taiwan and Japan - which they can easily do. Then no steel would flow to the U.S. from ANY Eastern source. And you cannot count on the U.K., Germany, France, Australia - as they have all deindustrialized, too.

As of March 16, 2023, China had 247 steel plants with blast furnaces. China also has 19 super-large blast furnaces that are larger than 4,000 meters.

"As of January 2024, the UK has two blast furnaces in operation at Scunthorpe Steelworks, and the last two blast furnaces at Port Talbot Steelworks in Wales are scheduled to close in September 2024."

Germany has gotten away from any energy source other than electricity for iron and steel production, but as we know, they have a big problem generating electricity lately, having decommissioned their nuclear powerplants.

"ArcelorMittal has five blast furnaces in France, located in Dunkirk and Fos-sur-Mer:
Dunkirk: Three blast furnaces with a combined annual production capacity of 7 million tons
Fos-sur-Mer: Two blast furnaces"

France is going electric, 'though they continue to maintain and invest in nuclear power.

"Australia has multiple blast furnaces, including:
LIBERTY Steel Australia
Has one blast furnace, in addition to two electric arc furnaces, four rod and bar mills, three wire mills, and two tube mills
Australian Iron and Steel Ltd.
Has a blast furnace plant that produces molten pig iron, a major raw material for steelmaking
Steelworks
Has a blast furnace that converts raw materials like iron ore and coke into liquid iron
Australia's blast oxygen furnace (BOF) capacity is 6,556,000 tonnes, which includes inactive or mothballed lines. "

Further on the steel making front, there are many mills in the U.S. that can process recycled steel, but fewer and fewer blast furnaces that can make steel from ore. "The number of blast furnaces in the United States has decreased from about 125 in the mid-1970s to 12 in the eight remaining integrated mills. No new facilities have been built in the U.S. since 1980." If you end up in a shooting war with China, you're going to need blast furnaces.

Wars are won via logistics and manufacturing might; ships, motor vehicles, and artillery. We are poised to lose against China.

[David Nieporent]

1) The U.S. is not going to be fighting WWIII like it did WWII, first entering a war and then ramping up military production at that point. If China "takes" Taiwan and Japan, we're not going to build ships and tanks and aircraft and then launch an amphibious invasion to retake these places, the way we did with the Philippines etc.

2) Just because a Japanese company owns the foundries in the U.S., China "taking" Japan would in no way give China control over those foundries. They could continue to produce steel for the U.S.

[Drewski]

I think you made a typo. You meant ". . . over the national security ban on their ridiculous merger," naturally. There's a reason both major parties' leadership has opposed the deal. But then, perhaps it wasn't a typo: I wouldn't expect a foreigner who agitates on social media all day to have US interests at heart.

[Martinned2]

Both political parties wanted to imitate the Trump strategy of winning rust belt votes by promising voters jobs. That doesn't make the legal arguments any less ridiculous.

[dwb68]

"election interference" has now come to mean "supporting the opposition"

Stop interfering, keep the elites in power!

[RedheadedPharoh]

Thats also what "protecting democracy" means to them too.

Do everything you can to keep the elites in power.

[ThePublius]

"Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has officially resigned."

Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!

https://x.com/TheCalvinCooli1/status/1876299534743306650?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1876299534743306650%7Ctwgr%5E4ad18331933014bbea695ba6e7403e92a72805ce%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F694467%2F

[Bob from Ohio]

Now is the time to invade the western provinces!

[ThePublius]

Nah, we already have California, we don't need another.

[Kazinski]

We at the least should liberate North Texas (Alberta), the rest are almost certainly more trouble than they are worth.

[Artifex]

Actually, you are getting ahead of yourself.

I am looking forward to Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, the Dakota's and parts of eastern Washington joining the Republic of Greater Alberta. The US federal government is only ever so slightly less silly than their Canadian counterparts. I am sure we can make them a better offer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Atlantic Provinces would likely join us.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nah, just worthless welfare cases.

Oil, uranium, and wheat is the goal. And a land bridge to Alaska

[Kazinski]

Canadian rye whiskey stocks too, and the rye fields.

Sure they like to blend it into an undrinkable swill but the Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye actually won Whiskey of the year once.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/crown-royal-northern-harvest-rye-is-the-2016-world-whisky-of-the-year-300182109.html

[Don Nico]

Bob,
We want the midwestern provinces. With global warming, those will be the new wheat and corn belt.

[Bob from Ohio]

I think by "western" and "midwestern" we are discussing the same 3 provinces. Plus we need the Yukon and Northwest territories to connect to Alaska

[ThePublius]

"Joe Biden: What Americans should remember about Jan. 6"

Op Ed in the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/01/05/president-biden-jan-6-democracy/

Does anyone believe that Joe Biden actually wrote this? That he authored it, that he has the mental acuity to sit down and compose a coherent op ed?

I don't. Someone else, or his staff collaborated on this ridiculous screed. "And we should commit to remembering Jan. 6, 2021, every year. To remember it as a day when our democracy was put to the test and prevailed. To remember that democracy — even in America — is never guaranteed." Oh, puh-lease! So, this was as bad as the holocaust, the U.S. Civil War, 9/11, and so on? What a bunch of phoney bullshit artists and cynical partisans.

[RedheadedPharoh]

They stole an election and got away with it. J6 2020 will go down in infamy, but not for the reasons the commies wish.

[ThePublius]

Agreed.

[Commenter_XY]

The likelihood that Joe Biden wrote that Op-Ed himself is less likely than his Uncle Bosie coming back from the dead, partially eaten.

[David Nieporent]

Does anyone believe that Joe Biden actually wrote this? That he authored it, that he has the mental acuity to sit down and compose a coherent op ed?

Of course Biden didn't write it; no politician writes his or her own op/eds. That's why politicians employ speechwriters. That has nothing to do with your claims about his "mental acuity."

Oh, puh-lease! So, this was as bad as the holocaust, the U.S. Civil War, 9/11, and so on?

Can you explain which of the words you quoted say anything like that?

[ThePublius]

"Can you explain which of the words you quoted say anything like that?"

No! I was referring to the broader context of the Democrat, progressive, and media take on this (in case you are befuddled).

I KNOW politicians employ speech writers, but when they take the product of speechwriters and apply their name to it as an author, that's fraudulent, plagiaristic. Get it?

[David Nieporent]

I KNOW politicians employ speech writers, but when they take the product of speechwriters and apply their name to it as an author, that's fraudulent, plagiaristic. Get it?

No. This is a new standard you invented never applied to a politician before now.

[Absaroka]

"no politician writes his or her own op/eds. That's why politicians employ speechwriters."

I think that's true, and unfortunate. Lincoln and Churchill wrote their own. Maybe if we went back to politicians writing their own we'd have better insight into who we were hiring for the job.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Kamala Harris made racial justice history today!
She became the first Woman of Color to certify her own election defeat!

Progress!

[Don Nico]

That's mean.

[Krayt]

The closer to actual meaningful excercises of power, the less tolerable those claims a faction can rub its chin and say, sorry, we're shifting power in this constitutional work-around. Uhhhh, to our benefit. But that's completely coincidental to our righteous temerity.

Ok this is not the sub thread I replied to. I am going to assume Reason lost that one while jumping up and down the page like a banshee as I rotated my phone, and then I accidentally hit reply here and thought it that one, and the body-so-far got helpfully forwarded.

I don't know if this is a function of the web site or the browser or html, but someone has some work to do.

Also, one of Reason's ad pushers is trying the lock your phone up game today. Please only deal with reputable advertisers.

[Commenter_XY]

VP Harris gets props for performing her role today with dignity and honor. It had to be gut wrenching for her. Perhaps what we saw today, with no performative theatrics (or riots), is a model for how we should behave going forward. It should be a boring ceremonial task.

[David Nieporent]

It had to be gut wrenching for her.

Nobody ever wants to lose anything, let alone election to the presidency. But it's the norm that an outgoing vice president certifies the election for the other party. (A norm that, to be clear, Mike Pence also followed. It is only Donald Trump that wants to cheat and steal elections.)

[Commenter_XY]

I cannot imagine how that must feel = losing the election for POTUS

[Dan Schiavetta]

As Senator Romney said four years ago today, as the Senate reassembled after fleeing from a violent crowd:

"We should be brave enough to tell the American people the truth. And the truth is, Joe Biden won the election. Donald Trump lost. I've had that experience myself. It's no fun."

[Dan Schiavetta]

The opposite of how Trump reacted to his loss. And he got rewarded for his lack of dignity and lack of honor.

You say it is a model for us going forward but it has never been a model for Trump and, having been rewarded for his behavior, I don't for one minute think he will change.

[ThePublius]

I am looking forward to President Trump pardoning the January 6th so-called insurrectionists.

[SRG2]

Including all those guilty of violent acts?

[ThePublius]

No, but they are few and far between.

[SRG2]

Liar

[Brett Bellmore]

The only person who died of violence was Ashley Babbitt, which fact is kind of hard to square with the idea that a large fraction of the J6 rioters were genuinely violent.

[SRG2]

It's irrelevant. St Ashlee was at the head of an invading mob and ar the time of her death was breaking through a window to get inside. WTFV.

The issue is not what proportion of the J6 rioters were genuinely violent, but what proportion of those convicted and hence "pardonable" were convicted of crimes of violence. ThePublius lied when he said few.

[Sarcastr0]

The only person who died of violence

What a shit metric to choose.

[Afrikaner]

And the nigger who shot her still thinks he did the right thing

[Frank Drackman]

Not kind or gentle.

[Zarniwoop]

I'm glad to hear that you support police, and think that people convicted of violent assault shouldn't be pardoned. It's a low bar, but at least you cleared it! Congrats.

But your sense of the overall numbers and the severity of the charges both appear to be a bit off. Per the DOJ, of the ~1583 people charged:

Approximately 608 charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement agents or officers or obstructing those officers during a civil disorder, including approximately 174 defendants charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer;
180 defendants charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon;

As proven in Court, the weapons used and carried on Capitol grounds include firearms; OC spray; tasers; edged weapons, including a sword, axes, hatchets, and knives; and makeshift weapons, such as destroyed office furniture, fencing, bike racks, stolen riot shields, baseball bats, hockey sticks, flagpoles, PVC piping, and reinforced knuckle gloves;

(emphasis added)
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/48-months-jan-6-attack-us-capitol

[Armchair]

I mean...you really have to dig into the charges to understand what's going on. The FBI is going to write these releases to look as bad as possible

Here's the actual cases. Flip through them, and look at the individuals and what ACTUALLY happened with most of them. Most of them don't have anything about deadly weapons.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

I did find one (Joshua Atwood). His deadly weapon was...a bottle he threw. Then a pole he found. Then another bottle. That of course is 3 separate items, so potentially 3 separate charges.

Remember to look at what really happened, and not rely on the summary.

[Roger S]

I think there was one guy who waived a flagpole at a cop. He might just get a commutation. I will be interested to see what happens to the guy who wasn't even there, but still got 20 years.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Including all those guilty of violent acts?"

Yes. No rioter killed anyone, unlike your side.

[SRG2]

Why are you lot so cripplingly dishonest? You know perfectly well that just because St Ashlee was killed doesn't mean that none of the rioters committed acts of violence.

You must think that the well over a hundred cops who were injured were all faking it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He does. He thinks any victim he doesn’t like is a liar.

[Zarniwoop]

So you support violent assaults on police officers, so long as no one is killed?

I bet you also claim you support "law and order".

[LawTalkingGuy]

Bob white knights for victims and “justice” until the minute he finds a victim inconvenient. Then suddenly they’re liars or the crime wasn’t that bad or in fact was justified. Rape, murder, you name it he’ll defend it if the perpetrator is someone he likes or the victim is someone he doesn’t.

He’s a truly truly despicable person. Just a soulless ghoul. The crazy part is? He knows it. He knows he’s a genuinely bad person but takes glee in that fact. You’ll never see him deny it because he knows he can’t.

[M L]

I don't, but from some of the footage it appears there were groups standing around peacefully when some officers started blasting innocent women in the face with rubber bullets and such with no apparent justification. So you have to consider the facts and circumstances.

[Armchair]

In 2017 violent rioters assaulted DC cops with a variety of deadly weapons, including bricks, trash cans, rocks, and more. More than 200 people were arrested.

Every single case was dropped. Every single one. No one served a day in prison for their crime.

What do you think about that?

[David Nieporent]

What do you think about that?

I think it's not true. What happened is that cops rounded people up without any individualized evidence, and prosecutors couldn't prosecute those cases.

[Armchair]

Which part isn't true David?

1) Were there or weren't there violent rioters in 2017 who assaulted cops with a variety of deadly weapons.

2) Were there or weren't there over 200 people arrested?

3) Were the cases dropped?

What part isn't true? Be specific.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Bob downplaying crime again and victim bashing. Can’t wait til the next Paul Cassell thread where you spill your crocodile tears as you white knight for justice when someone notes that defendants have rights. Don’t you feel the least bit of shame being like this? How do you look yourself in the mirror knowing that one day you can cry”JUSTICE” and the next day call rape victims liars and laugh about cop beaters getting pardoned? Like aren’t you disturbed at yourself for this level of cognitive dissonance? How are you not disgusted by what you are?

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2...Anyone with blood on their hands or who did property damage won't be getting anything in the initial round of pardons.

[SRG2]

And will you criticise Trump if they do?

[Mr. Bumble]

Would that make you feel better?

[Commenter_XY]

Hell yes.

[hobie]

They weren't insurrectionist, they were rioters. The insurrectionists were Trump, his lawyers, the fraudulent electors and Trump's 'my Republican congressmen'

[hobie]

So the ol' rascal Q-Shaman is gonna get a presidential pardon

[Mr. Bumble]

Wowie Zowie lots of posts to sort through today. Even Today In Supreme Court History is back.

[SRG2]

Kinzinger on profiles in cowardice:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/cowardice-spreads-like-wildfire-ex-gop-rep-trolls-republicans-with-their-own-j6-comments/ar-AA1x3HMj

[Roger S]

I thought that he dropped out of politics. What is he, a lobbyist now?

[SRG2]

That doesn't address his point, of course.

[RedheadedPharoh]

"This is getting scary beyond comprehension."

That's an actual reddit post on their frontpage re: Musk commenting on elections.

Can you imagine being a liberal these days? Day in day out their training you to be piss-your-pants afraid. Fear, fear, fear, fear.

Dr. Malone has a great book out on the ongoing PsyWar the Globalist Left and the MIC are conducting on us. Fear is one of their key levers.

Just imagine the health effects of living with existential fear & stress every day since 2016 at least. Dr. Michael Savage always claimed "liberalism is a mental disorder", maybe it isn't a mental disorder but causes one.

It kinda makes sense for the Liberal Elites. The more piss-your-pants afraid you are, the more likely you're going to concede power and control over to the elites, and also the less likely you'll hold them accountable. After all, you're trained to believe they're the only ones that can save you from death, or even extinction.

Just think about it. This makes perfect sense. Imagine how utterly stupid you have to believe and how utterly blind to reality, to think a global tax scheme on carbon managed by institutions that are utterly corrupt and inept is the only chance humans have for survival? You have to be nearly braindead and living in an alternate universe to think the US Government or the UN can do anything worth a shit. What was one of their first big schemes? Allow China to pollute for another several decades and then pay "climate reparations" from Western countries to African countries so they can develop into climate polluters too. How the f' does that save us from extinction? It doesn't. But not a single Liberal toady bats an eye at this obvious nonsense. In fact, they'll defend it.

Look at what they say about healthcare. One of their key arguments is the magical economies of scale we'd achieve if the US Government was the only healthcare payor. An economic effect that's not only absent from literally every other purchasing the US Government does, but turned on it's head. The US Government overpays for everything. Down to toilet paper and screws. But somehow the run-of-the-mill liberal believes this economies of scale fairytale?

They do. And they don't question it. That's brainwashing. That's what decades of being inculcated with constant fear allows the elites to do to the Liberal masses.

[David Nieporent]

Can you imagine being a liberal these days? Day in day out their training you to be piss-your-pants afraid. Fear, fear, fear, fear.

Uh huh. Tell us more about the immigrants and the groomers and the immigrant groomers. And the vaccines and the drug companies and the DEI.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Well, David, you can just look around and see all those things happening.

As they always say "this year's right-wing conspiracy is next year's headline." They don't say that about Left-wing craziness. If they did, it would be something along the lines of "this year's left-wing hysteria is next year's left-wing hoax".

[David Nieporent]

As they always say "this year's right-wing conspiracy is next year's headline."

Nobody actually says that.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Brave's AI:

The notion that “this year’s right-wing conspiracy is next year’s headline” suggests a pattern where conspiracy theories initially dismissed or ridiculed by the mainstream eventually become accepted as factual or gain significant traction. This phenomenon has been observed in various instances, including the Wuhan lab leak theory, the superiority of natural immunity, and the risks associated with over-vaccination during a pandemic.

Wuhan Lab Leak Theory: Initially considered a conspiracy theory, it has gained credibility as a potential origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, with many experts now considering it a plausible explanation.
Natural Immunity: The idea that natural immunity provides superior protection against COVID-19 has transitioned from being labeled as a conspiracy theory to being recognized by some in the scientific community as a significant factor in immunity.
Over-vaccination Risks: Concerns about the risks of over-vaccination, such as the potential for creating dangerous mutants, have also moved from the realm of conspiracy theories into more mainstream discussions about vaccine strategy and public health policy.
This shift from conspiracy theory to mainstream acceptance can be attributed to various factors, including the emergence of new evidence, changes in public perception, and the evolution of scientific understanding. The internet and social media have also played a significant role in the dissemination and eventual validation of these theories, often forcing mainstream media and institutions to reevaluate their stance on previously marginalized ideas.

As of 2025, it remains to be seen which current conspiracy theories will eventually become widely accepted facts. However, the pattern observed in recent years suggests that some ideas initially dismissed as conspiracy theories can indeed become part of the mainstream narrative over time, as more information becomes available and societal attitudes evolve.

---
I had forgotten you clowns were actually shitting on natural immunity. lmao retards

[SRG2]

Hahahaha!

You lot are scared of immigrants, vaccinations, liberals, Mooslims, people knocking on your door, Soros, antifa, Nancy Pelosi, etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you're afraid of Donald Trump.

[RedheadedPharoh]

If you compared how many people regret not getting a COVID vaccine vs. those that did, which group do you think is larger?

[David Nieporent]

I think that roughly zero people regret getting the vaccine. Which is pretty much the same number as those who regret not getting it, since the latter are all dead or deeply deeply stupid.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>I think that roughly zero people regret getting the vaccine.

Even all those kids with myocarditis?

> who regret not getting it, since the latter are all dead

You must've already forgotten the COVID years.

[ThePublius]

That's nonsense, David. Many who didn't get the vaccine are alive and well and healthy and happy. Many who did get the vaccine, myself included, have gotten covid anyway, and are suffering diminished health and vitality; 'though tough to pin on the vaccine, it's not at all unlikely. I regret getting the vaccine.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't strike me as a vaccine getter, but in the end you make a good point either way - DMN failed to account that some who got the vaccine could also be deeply deeply stupid.

[RedheadedPharoh]

You're calling him stupid because his lived experience includes suffering from vaccine side effects?

What a vile subhuman govie you are.

[David Nieporent]

There are no meaningful "vaccine side effects."

As for your claim about kids, you're apparently unaware that (a) mild myocarditis that quickly resolved itself is not a serious problem that requires "regret"; and (b) myocarditis is a symptom of covid.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Lol wow you're still a dyed-in-the-wool Cobidian after all this time? Are you on the CDC or Pfizers payroll (not much difference really)

Or are you trying to harm the goyim as part of some wacko fanatical religion (mainstream in some countries though)

[Don Nico]

"There are no meaningful "vaccine side effects."
David that is just false.
Many side effects, including serious ones, were recorded and were easily publicly accessible. However, not all reports of moderately bad side effects were recorded by the physicians.
I know this personally because my son had an immediate bad neurological effect that Kaiser never reported although he was seen by a Kaiser neurologist.
It is true that he nonetheless did get subsequent boosters. He's an adult and it was his choice. But the physical impairment from shot 1 has increased with time and not diminished.

[Commenter_XY]

David, here is what Pfizer itself reports.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/pfizer-vaccine-for-covid-19-what-are-the-side-effects#Heart-health-side-effects

Difficulty breathing (listed as anaphylactic symptom) is not meaningful?

[Mr. Bumble]

1. David is ALWAYS right.
2. If David is wrong see rule #1.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That sure doesn't look like a Pfizer website or source.

More lies from C_Bitch.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"The U.S. military sent 11 Yemeni prisoners at Guantánamo Bay to Oman to restart their lives, the Pentagon said on Monday, leaving just 15 men in the prison in a bold push at end of the Biden administration that has left the prison population smaller than at any time in its more than 20-year history."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/06/us/politics/guantanamo-prisoners-oman.html

[Mr. Bumble]

How soon before they start attacking US troops?

[Martinned2]

After 20+ years of torture and detention without trial, I would be understanding if they did.

[Brett Bellmore]

Since the only real point of having a prison at Guantanamo bay is to supposedly circumvent due process and other constitutional requirements, (Which is a pretty slimy reason.) I can't say that I'd mind if the prison were emptied and shut down.

That said, when politicians wait until they're a lame duck to undertake some high minded exercise, this pretty much confirms that they were OK with being low minded to maintain power, that they're only interested in being high minded when it can't cost them anything.

So, not particularly impressed.

[John F. Carr]

I remember Rudolf Hess as the last remaining Nazi prisoner.

[Mr. Bumble]

The only prisoner in Spandau prison?

[Frank Drackman]

They have a great Ballet though

[Dan Schiavetta]

Why the Russians refused to agree to release Hess -- and how Hess, at age 93, somehow climbed up a tree to hang himself -- remain subjects of mystery.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hess would have said that the invasion of Russia was preemptive, that Stalin was going to invade Germany.

[Kazinski]

As anybody in the Midwest or east coast knows temperatures are plummeting.

And I am not just talking about local weather, the 2023-24 global temperature spike is reverting back to the norm. According to the global satellite temperature record the global temperature anomaly has dropped more than .3c from its record of +.95c to +.64c.

https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Its likely that the spike was due to the 2021 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai volcano eruption which was just below the oceans surface thus the explosive eruption blasted several.orders of magnitude more water vapor into the atmosphere than a normal sub sea volcano, or a volcano on land, from Wikipedia:

"The eruption was the largest explosion recorded in the atmosphere by modern instrumentation, far larger than any 20th-century volcanic event or nuclear bomb test. It is thought that in recent centuries, only the Krakatoa eruption of 1883 rivalled the atmospheric disturbance produced.[15][16]"

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe we should rethink taking over Canada.

[Sarcastr0]

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD041296
"The Hunga aerosols cause a solar flux reduction that dominates the net flux change over most of the 2 yrs period. Hunga induced temperature changes produce a decrease in downward long-wave flux. Hunga induced ozone reduction increases the short-wave downward flux creating small sub-tropical increase in total flux from mid-2022 to 2023. By the end of 2023, most of the Hunga induced radiative forcing changes have disappeared."

The volcano cooled things off, not heated them up.

That graph up front on the blog you link to doesn't tell the story of a spike abating. At least not yet.
It also shows a pretty pronounced trend upward with or without the recent swift increase.

And lay off the 'if winter why cold' It's been tired since a snowball was brought to the Senate floor.

[ThePublius]

End of snow. O.K. Still waiting....

It's 25º here in Massachusetts right now.

[Sarcastr0]

I see you wanted to get into the 'winter disproves global warming' fool's train.

[Don Nico]

Was that mind-reading really necessary?

[Sarcastr0]

His argument is that it's cold now, so global warming isn't a thing.

Yeah, he's a fool.

[ThePublius]

I said, specifically, that those predicting the end of snow were and are full of it. Check the snow totals in the mid Atlantic of yesterday.

[Sarcastr0]

So you brought in a thesis no one else had discussed and which I've not heard applied to 2025, so you could say it's wrong?

Pretty silly!

[Frank Drackman]

I've heard this crazy theory that's its due to the tilt of the Earth.

[MoreCurious]

So Rudy's been held in contempt. What's next?

[Sarcastr0]

Even bigger shorts.

[Commenter_XY]

Incarceration.

[Zarniwoop]

From what I've read (reports, not original source material), the contempt ruling restricts the arguments he can make to keep other property, such as his Florida condo:

[The ruling] comes less than two weeks before a scheduled trial where Giuliani will fight to keep ownership of a $3.5 million Palm Beach, Florida, condo he says he lives in. He was accused of failing to respond to requests for information from election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss as they prepare for the trial.
....
In his ruling Monday, the judge limited defense arguments and evidence Giuliani can use at trial – penalties that could make it more difficult for him to keep his Florida condo.

[MoreCurious]

Maybe he can share a room with Elon at Mar-a-Lago.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>the judge limited defense arguments and evidence Giuliani can use at trial

Same Banana Republic/Commie Shithole tactic they did in Trumps trials.

[David Nieporent]

Every judge in every case in the history of courts from Sumerian times to now has limited the arguments and evidence one can use in court. A trial is not a playground/blog commenter debate free-for-all. You can only make relevant arguments supported by facts and law, and you can't introduce evidence that you've refused to disclose.

[Life of Brian]

I dug a bit into the briefing on this a week or two ago. Rudy claimed the FL condo as his homestead, and the sisters' big smoking gun didn't seem to be anything more than an emphatic day-by-day accounting of him spending a lot of time on the road during election season. Seemed like pretty weak sauce, though it sounds like he's now complicated things a good deal. But on the other other hand, I can't say I've ever seen a situation where full production from all potential sources in response to RFPs was expected within 14 days of service....

[DixieTune]

I also can't say I've ever seen a situation where a no name person got a 9 figure defamation award, but here we are. With corrupt judges, all things are possible.

[David Nieporent]

If only Rudy had left these no name people alone instead of maliciously lying about them to turn them into public figures!

[tylertusta]

I'm pleasantly surprised that the electoral college certification went off without any shenanigans by Congressional Democrats. Despite the statement of some Dems prior to the election, despite the urging of some among the lawfare crowd they did not try anything stupid today as I thought they would.

Historical note: This is the first time since 1988 that Congressional Democrats have not challenged a Republican President-elect's electoral votes.

There's still plenty of opportunities for nonsense actions by the lawfare types in the future, however. CREW is certainly preparing a brand new emoluments lawsuit for as soon as Trump in inaugurated, and there's probably other attack avenues that they haven't telegraphed about using yet.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I was admittedly wrong, I expected at least SOME of the Democrats to make an attempt to disrupt things. But Democratic party discipline held in the end.

[tylertusta]

I think they didn't proceed because Trump handily won the popular vote. If Trump had won the EC again but lost the popular vote, things would have been different.

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty sad that counterfactuals are the only way you can equate Dem actions with actual things MAGA did.

[tylertusta]

If Democratic opposition to Trump after the 2016 election hadn't have happened, you would have a point.

Instead we have a historical trend of Democrats opposing Republican election wins so regularly that it's become routine.

[Armchair]

The great Jebus sent a major snowstorm to stop the attempt to disrupt things. Jebus really is on Trump's side.

(Seriously though, 8 inches of snow in DC has a habit of stopping protests).

[Commenter_XY]

I hope it stays this way for a few decades = no performative theatrics

We (America) could use a break from the bullshit.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I hope it stays this way for a few decades = no performative theatrics"
Not very likely. If past is prologue expect it to happen by Jan. 20.

[apedad]

The only performative theatrics we're going to see is the bullshit from your side - especially in the House.

Mike Johnson literally has a 2 - 3 votes margin and RECENT history shows us it's going to be a rollercoaster ride.

It's going to be real fun watching the debt ceiling folks go against Trump.

You guys are your worst enemies.

[Mr. Bumble]

"You guys are your worst enemies."
It's hard to argue with that but one can always hope.

[Commenter_XY]

I was talking about counting electoral votes, apedad. Baby steps, lol.

[tylertusta]

Trump has filed a notice with Merchan that he plans to appeal his New York case over Merchan's ruling on Trump's immunity motion. Trump argues that there should be an automatic stay of the case at the NY Supreme Court until the immunity question is decided on appeal.

Trump has also informed Merchan that Trump seeks to obtain a writ of prohibition which prohibits Merchan from proceeding with sentencing.

Merchan has denied Trump's request for a stay, which sets up a very interesting collision at the court of appeals.

In my view, Merchan and Bragg have played with fire on their handling of Presidential immunity and are going to get burned.

Link to Trump's notice

Merchan's denial

[David Nieporent]

I'm not even clear what that means. If Trump is immune, then he's immune, regardless of what Merchan or Bragg did, so in what way did they "play with fire"? And how would they be "burned"?

[tylertusta]

If you are not clear then I shall educate you.

Merchan, at Bragg's behest, denied any consideration of Presidential immunity in whether to restrict immune conduct as evidence before, during, and now after the trial. They treated Presidential immunity cavalierly even after the Supreme Court ruled on Trump v United States. As you may recall, the Supreme Court specifically said that protected conduct cannot be admitted as evidence of guilt by the prosecution in trial.

As a result of Merchan's rulings, blatantly immune conduct was put before a jury as evidence of guilt. Compounding the error, Merchan he refuses to fix it.

Merchan and Bragg can be burned in having a superior court strip Merchan of jurisdiction while the appeal is ongoing (denying Bragg a sentence) and to have the conviction tossed due to the inclusion of immune evidence at trial (causing Bragg and perhaps Merchan to start the trial over again).

[David Nieporent]

Merchan, at Bragg's behest, denied any consideration of Presidential immunity in whether to restrict immune conduct as evidence before, during, and now after the trial. They treated Presidential immunity cavalierly even after the Supreme Court ruled on Trump v United States. As you may recall, the Supreme Court specifically said that protected conduct cannot be admitted as evidence of guilt by the prosecution in trial.

As you may recall, the Supreme Court's ludicrous immunity ruling — one with no basis in text, history, or precedent — was not handed down until a month after the verdict in the NY trial came in.

[tylertusta]

And your point is what exactly?

Trump still has a right under the completely correct immunity ruling to not have immune conduct used against him before a jury. Merchan's decisions pre-Trump turned out to be unsupported as he put himself out on a limb that ought to be sawed off.

[David Nieporent]

And your point is what exactly?

That time only flows in one direction.

[tylertusta]

I never said it didn't. I'm saying that it doesn't matter.

Perhaps you can explain to the class what happens when a superior court creates a precedent that calls into question/contradicts the prior decisions made by the trial court judge.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing happens to proper decisions. Appellate precedents are not retroactive unless they explicitly say so

[TwelveInchPianist]

Uh, they wouldn't be much good if they weren't retroactive. Appellate precedents are retroactive to cases on appeal, but they don't undo final rulings unless the court explicitly says so.

[TwelveInchPianist]

final cases, I should say.

[tylertusta]

This appeal on immunity is going to go in front of SCOTUS sooner or later.

Do you really think that this current Supreme Court will say that the opinion in Trump v United States will not be retroactive?

[David Nieporent]

Given that such an appeal would not present any substantive question of actual immunity,¹ but only the admissibility of evidence, you think that SCOTUS is going to hear an appeal involving an unconditional discharge?

In any case, this current Supreme Court will not have any occasion to say that the opinion in Trump v United States will not be retroactive, because that is not the basis of Bragg's argument or Merchan's ruling. Their arguments/rulings are that (a) this verdict did not rely on inadmissible evidence; (b) to the extent there was any, Trump failed to properly preserve that argument; and (c) even if he did, the admission was harmless error.

​
​
¹There's not even a colorable argument — not that it stops Trump's unethical lawyers from making it — that this prosecution involved official acts.

[tylertusta]

you think that SCOTUS is going to hear an appeal involving an unconditional discharge?

Absolutely.

because that is not the basis of Bragg's argument or Merchan's ruling

Do you seriously think that this Supreme Court will accept the prosecution's argument?

There's not even a colorable argument

"That proposal [of allowing immune acts into evidence to prove non-official conduct] threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly—invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge."

Seems pretty colorable to me.

[David Nieporent]

Seems pretty colorable to me.

Only because you misread what I wrote. What I said wasn't colorable was not whether this trial implicated the evidentiary portion of SCOTUS's ruling. What I said wasn't colorable was the claim that the subject of the prosecution itself — i.e., the thing that Bragg said was illegal — involved official presidential acts. Hiding and disguising payments to Stormy Daniels were not "acts for which a President is immune from prosecution."

[tylertusta]

My mistake. But Trump isn't arguing that he's immune for the act of recording the payments to Stormy Daniels. He's arguing that official acts can't be used as evidence in a criminal trial no matter how it's charged.

That's bread and butter from Trump v United States.

[David Nieporent]

Do you seriously think that this Supreme Court will accept the prosecution's argument?

No, because I don't think the Supreme Court would grant cert to Trump on these facts. The prosecution's argument is fact-intensive and a routine application of SCOTUS's ruling. For SCOTUS to rule in Trump's favor they would have to delve into (a) whether any aspects of Hicks' testimony implicated any official acts; (b) whether Trump had properly preserved objections to that specific testimony; and (c) whether any error in that regard was harmless. You think SCOTUS is going to delve into the trial transcript to decide those issues, for a case where the defendant was 'sentenced' to an unconditional discharge?

[tylertusta]

You think SCOTUS is going to delve into the trial transcript to decide those issues, for a case where the defendant was 'sentenced' to an unconditional discharge?

For a President that was convicted based on the inclusion of official acts as evidence during trial and sentenced hot on the heels of their Trump decision? You're damned right they're going to pick it up.

Your point (c) [about whether the error was harmless] isn't the only error analysis that the Court has available to it. Structural error eliminates the problems of (b). I wouldn't be surprised if the Court adopts it as it would disincentivize exactly the sort of prosecutorial acts that the Court was afraid of in Trump.

Bragg runs into problems under (c) even with harmless error analysis- he's talking out of both sides of his mouth on the weight of Hope Hick's testimony.

I dispute that (b) is much of a problem. After all, you're here arguing that Bragg doesn't have any obligation to follow the tea leaves on a ruling that hadn't happened yet, so why should Trump be held to a different standard? After all, Trump raised evidentiary objections before and during trial on immunity grounds, so it's not fair to turn around and say that Trump didn't preserve it for appeal when no ruling had been made.

Point (a) will have to be analyzed under Trump, and I'm confident that any unbiased judge would find that Hicks testimony included acts that are absolutely immune. Whether SCOTUS bothers to do it themselves as they did with the Jeff Clark matter as in Trump is a toss up, in my view.

[David Nieporent]

Bragg runs into problems under (c) even with harmless error analysis- he's talking out of both sides of his mouth on the weight of Hope Hick's testimony.

He is not. Once again: Hicks testified about several different things. Most of said testimony was entirely outside the scope of the evidentiary bar in Trump v. U.S. on testimony about official acts. SCOTUS did not say that former executive branch officials were exempt from testifying against the president. (And even highly damaging testimony can be cumulative anyway, such that its admission is harmless.)

[tylertusta]

Most of said testimony

We can dispute the exact contours of much much of Hope Hicks' testimony would have been barred under Trump.

SCOTUS did not say that former executive branch officials were exempt from testifying against the president

I didn't say that it was a categorical bar.

I'm saying that at the time the risk of contaminating any conviction was too high to be worth the squeeze. The prosecution would have been better off not calling her. The next best way of handling it would be to not elicit testimony that conceivably involved official acts.

But Bragg did neither. He called her to the stand (with Merchan's blessing) and he elicited testimony of Trump's official acts (again with Merchan's blessing).

[David Nieporent]

I'm saying that at the time the risk of contaminating any conviction was too high to be worth the squeeze.

But there was no basis for thinking there was any such risk. The evidentiary bar came out of nowhere.

[tylertusta]

As I explained, oral arguments should have been enough of a basis!

After argument it was clear that there were 4 solid votes in favor of immunity (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh), 1 kinda-sorta for limited immunity (Barrett), and one pissed-off Chief Justice.

A prudent prosecutor, after listening to arguments would have understood the risk and would have tried to mitigate it.

[David Nieporent]

As I explained, oral arguments should have been enough of a basis!

After argument it was clear that there were 4 solid votes in favor of immunity (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh), 1 kinda-sorta for limited immunity (Barrett), and one pissed-off Chief Justice.

And as I explained earlier today (but you denied), you are conflating immunity and the evidentiary issue we're discussing in this thread. Even if your reading of oral argument was right with respect to immunity, it certainly was not "clear" that there were any votes in favor of excluding testimony about immune acts. (If you disagree, which part of the transcript are you relying on?)

[tylertusta]

Several of the Justices spoke about evidentiary rules during oral arguments, but that's not the point.

You are mistakenly assuming that an evidentiary rule is somehow wholly separate from a decision that finds absolute immunity exists- that the Court somehow could both find that absolute immunity existed but would then implement rules that would then deprive immunity of its intended effects. That is an incorrect assumption.

An decision that finds absolute immunity but does not have an evidentiary rule like we got is a hollow construct akin to the DC Circuit panel decision below did with their so-called "immunity" (You have previously emphatically stated your preference for such an outcome, so your inability to see the obvious during the April 25th oral arguments is understandable). There was no way that this Court would create a loophole like that.

If there is going to be some kind of principle of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution- as oral arguments plainly telegraphed that there would be at least some absolute immunity- then the question becomes to how the Court would implement it. Fortunately for us we have an analogous SCOTUS precedent for immunity for constitutional actors and how evidentiary rules are crafted for them:

In US v Johnson a Congressman had evidence of his official legislative acts brought into trial. The conviction was tossed and the prosecution was instructed to exclude all evidence and testimony about official acts.

Sound familiar?

The reason in why a Johnson-like rule was naturally flows from a finding of absolute immunity is simple: If absolute immunity exists, then it has to protect the constitutional functions of a constitutional actor, including protection against intimidation by hostile prosecutors and a hostile judiciary from having to stand trial. This was a BIG part of the conservatives problems with the Special Counsel's position. They spent a LOT of time talking about it! That in turn means that a Presidents' motivations for their official acts cannot be questioned during trial. The result would be the creation of evidentiary rules in which official acts cannot be used at trial since they were absolutely immune.

If the leaning of the Court had gone the other way, then the resulting evidentiary rule would have naturally have followed it as well. If the Justices decided to accept the Special Counsel's position on post-conviction "as-applied Article II challenges", then it would be obvious that they would adopt rules to effectuate it, including allowing the motivations behind official acts to be examined in context.

It's no secret that a Johnson-like rule was in play. Trump asked for it in his briefs, and it was touched upon by multiple Justices during arguments. Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito indicated their approval of it while Barrett split from the conservatives. Kavanaugh did not talk about it, but his wariness of rogue prosecutions of Presidents was palpable, so it follows that he would go with the other three.

That gives us 4 Justices in favor of absolute immunity that would necessitate a Johnson-like rule, 3+1 against it, and a very angry Chief Justice Roberts. A prudent prosecutor would not roll the dice on which side of the political aisle that Roberts was waking up on.

[David Nieporent]

You are mistakenly assuming that an evidentiary rule is somehow wholly separate from a decision that finds absolute immunity exists- that the Court somehow could both find that absolute immunity existed but would then implement rules that would then deprive immunity of its intended effects. That is a incorrect assumption.

I am not "mistakenly assuming" that. I am openly asserting it. There is no logical connection of any sort between immunity for an official act and an evidentiary rule barring testimony about that official act.

Bringing up congressional immunity is a red herring, because there's a constitutional provision that expressly provides for that, whereas there isn't anything at all in the constitution that even hints at presidential immunity. One can't use the testimony wrt a member of Congress not because there's a logical connection, but because the Speech & Debate clause says so.

And of course this isn't merely a personally idiosyncratic position on my part; Justice Barrett said the same thing: "The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable.

Yet excluding from trial any mention of the official act connected to the bribe would hamstring the prosecution. To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability."

They are entirely separate and distinct concepts, as Barrett recognized.

[tylertusta]

I am not "mistakenly assuming" that. I am openly asserting it.

I was trying to be charitable.

You’re just wrong. That’s all there is to it.

And of course this isn't merely a personally idiosyncratic position on my part; Justice Barrett said the same thing

Justice Barrett is wrong as well. Absolute immunity does not exist if a President’s official acts can be backdoored almost by definition.

I haven’t used adjectives to characterize or belittle the contrary positions. I didn’t call it “bizarre,” “spurious,” or “weak tea.” I did belittle those like Bragg and Merchan who couldn’t (and still can't!) understand the legal issues, as in my opinion they’re so wrapped up in their own emotions that they suddenly become blind to the obvious. It’s as if their brains leaked out of their ears whenever something about Trump comes up. The oft-discussed Trump Derangement Syndrome is truly a sight to behold.

One of the basic things that any lawyer should be able to do is recognize the merits of the other position, and unfortunately the brain seepage has affected their ability to do this.

I think it’s bad lawyering and bad advocacy to not take Trump’s positions seriously, especially with this Supreme Court. The end result is that Trump won, and they didn’t even see it coming!.

[David Nieporent]

Justice Barrett is wrong as well. Absolute immunity does not exist if a President’s official acts can be backdoored almost by definition.

But there's no backdooring and no such definition. You can't prosecute Donald Trump for pardoning Charles Kushner. But you can prosecute Donald Trump for accepting a bribe to pardon Charles Kushner. (I should make clear that while the pardon happened, the bribe is a hypothetical.) It's not even rational to say, "When prosecuting Trump for accepting the bribe to pardon Kushner, people can't testify that Trump pardoned Kushner." That does not "backdoor" anything. It's not a roundabout way to prosecute Trump for the pardon. It's a direct way to prosecute Trump for the bribery, which everyone agrees is permitted.

I did belittle those like Bragg and Merchan who couldn’t (and still can't!) understand the legal issues, as in my opinion they’re so wrapped up in their own emotions that they suddenly become blind to the obvious.

Not only is your argument wrong, but it doesn't even make sense with respect to Merchan. To say, "Bragg should have predicted that SCOTUS would invent an evidentiary bar and tailored his evidence accordingly" is one thing. It's wrong, but it's one thing. But to say that Merchan should have predicted it and acted accordingly completely misconstrues the role of judge. He can't exclude evidence that the law says is admissible because maybe one day the law will say it isn't.

I think it’s bad lawyering and bad advocacy to not take Trump’s positions seriously, especially with this Supreme Court. The end result is that Trump won, and they didn’t even see it coming!.

I'm not sure what this is directed at, because Trump lost in the NY case; he's a convicted criminal. You're taking a victory lap without a victory.

[David Nieporent]

I never said it didn't. I'm saying that it doesn't matter.

It matters to the claim that the judge or prosecutor did something foolish or wrong by not taking into account a ruling that didn't exist at the time they undertook the acts you're criticizing.

If your argument were simply, "This verdict is going to be overturned because it might have relied on inadmissible evidence," I would disagree with that prediction, but it's not an illogical claim to make. But that was not your argument. Your argument was that Bragg and Merchan made a mistake by using/admitting evidence that SCOTUS supposedly later ruled they couldn't use.

[tylertusta]

A ethical prosecutor and judge anticipates how an issue will be interpreted on appeal. An incompetent prosecutor sticks his fingers into his ears and pretends that the world outside his little bubble doesn't exist. Trump's pre-trial objections was Bragg's first warning that immunity was going to be a topic they'd have to address.

The second warning was on the third day of witness testimony of the New York trial (April 25th). That was the day of oral arguments in Trump v United States, and it was plainly obvious that the Court was going to find that Presidents enjoyed some level of immunity from criminal prosecution. Yet it was over a week later (May 3rd) Bragg put Hope Hicks on the stand over Trump's objections based on immunity.

A competent prosecutor would have realized that maybe the previous week's oral arguments were a big flashing hint that he should not call Hope Hicks to the stand, and that on appeal her testimony might be ruled as inadmissible. A competent prosecutor would hedge against their testimony being the cause for having any conviction tossed. That prosecutor would have changed his plan to exclude her testimony.

Bragg and Merchan pressed on and obtained their conviction. Then the immunity decision drops, and they pooh pooh it as if the decision doesn't apply to their case, and that harmless error applies.

It's blisteringly obvious that this Supreme Court will not agree with either of those conclusions, yet they persist with the charade.

[David Nieporent]

A ethical prosecutor and judge anticipates how an issue will be interpreted on appeal.

That has literally nothing to do with ethics; to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the law that exists, not the law you want. Moreover, for 235 years, not a single person before Donald Trump had ever thought such a criminal immunity existed, and the actual holding of U.S. v. Trump at the time this trial went on squarely rejected the idea of presidential criminal immunity.

And making your position even more wrong, I need to reiterate: this isn't about immunity. This prosecution didn't involve official acts. It's solely about the evidentiary rule invented by SCOTUS out of whole cloth — one that went too far even for Barrett.

I disagree with your characterization of the oral argument even wrt immunity, but even if you read it to think they were going to manufacture immunity, there was nothing in the oral argument that even hinted about the evidentiary rule that SCOTUS invented.

he should not call Hope Hicks to the stand,

Even if anyone could have guessed that SCOTUS would make up this evidentiary rule, the bulk of her testimony fell entirely outside its scope, so there was no reason not to call her to the stand.

[tylertusta]

It has everything to do with ethics! For Federal cases, Prosectors are not to bring a prosecution if they feel they cannot obtain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and that the conviction cannot be upheld on appeal (see Justice Manual 9-27.220). I'm not familiar with the specific New York state rules but their obligations would be roughly the same.

But it goes beyond ethics. It's also a question of competence. This was Bragg's prosecution, and he should have taken proactive steps to preserve it. He needlessly complicated his own case and his decisions may get the conviction tossed.

And making your position even more wrong, I need to reiterate: this isn't about immunity. This prosecution didn't involve official acts.

Not true at all. Bragg (with Merchan's blessing) included official acts (Trump's communications with his Communications Director) as evidence. By doing so, Bragg threw the immunity hand grenade into his prosecution. That he lacked the foresight to see what he was doing shows he's an incompetent buffoon.

there was nothing in the oral argument that even hinted about the evidentiary rule that SCOTUS invented.

I'm not holding pre-decision Bragg to the holding to the particulars of a decision that wasn't written yet. I'm saying that Bragg ran a risk by including Hope Hicks's testimony over Trump's objections. The risk was that the Supreme Court would pull the rug out from under him by finding immunity existed after conviction but before sentencing. And it did!

[David Nieporent]

The risk was that the Supreme Court would pull the rug out from under him by finding immunity existed after conviction but before sentencing. And it did!

Again: immunity doesn't exist here! There is no question that Trump could be prosecuted for forging business records. Trump was and is not immune for those crimes.

You are talking about something entirely different — whether a particular piece of evidence could be admitted to prove this crime. You fail to understand that these are entirely separate and distinct prongs of SCOTUS's holding.

[tylertusta]

You are talking about something entirely different — whether a particular piece of evidence could be admitted to prove this crime.

That's what I've been talking about this entire time!

"...blatantly immune conduct was put before a jury as evidence of guilt..."

You seem to want to argue against something I haven't said. I ultimately can't stop you from straw manning me, so you go right on ahead.

[David Nieporent]

It has everything to do with ethics! For Federal cases, Prosectors are not to bring a prosecution if they feel they cannot obtain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and that the conviction cannot be upheld on appeal

…based on existing law! Not based on guesses about possible changes to the law.

[tylertusta]

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have seen the risk of including official acts as evidence during a criminal trial after the April 25th oral argument.

Only the most stubborn, stick-in-the-mud, unethical, incompetent partisan prosecutor would pretend that there is no world outside of the trial courtroom. Bragg (or his successor) will have a mess they're going to have to clean up all because Bragg had horse blinders on.

[Sarcastr0]

Putting aside that you act like the SCOTUS opinion was obvious, do you have any examples of 'you should have known there would be a change in the law' as an ethics issue?

[tylertusta]

It's rare to find a case that is under trial yet a ruling may happen. But the principle here isn't hard to follow. Under Federal prosecutions, prosecutors have an ethical obligation to not bring cases that cannot obtain a conviction or cannot be sustained on appeal (see Justice Manual 9-27.220).

This is why the DOJ felt it could not prosecute the pro-abortion protestors that were protesting outside of Supreme Court when the Dobbs opinion leaked.

18 U.S. Code § 1507 says that it's a crime to picket or parade near the homes of SCOTUS Justices, but the DOJ felt that if they arrested the protestors they would face a 1st Amendment fight. Even if the DOJ obtained a conviction at the trial court, the case might get tossed on appeal.

Here are some basic explainers on the example I provided:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/may/13/it-legal-protest-outside-justices-homes-law-sugges/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/free-speech-federal-crime-protesters-are-still-marching-conservative-s-rcna78678

I'm not familiar with the fine details of NY state prosecution rules, but they should be similar.

[Commenter_XY]

Wow...I have to say I have enjoyed the back and forth with you and David. Good discussion. So that is how lawyers go back and forth with each other.

[tylertusta]

Thank you for the kind words, but I'm not a lawyer.

[Zarniwoop]

I took a very, very quick skim through Trump's "notice of automatic stay" and I am .. less than convinced. It reads like a desperate attempt to throw spaghetti at a wall and see what sticks. There's very tenuous cites to S.Ct. opinions, whacky conflation of pre-trial rules vs reasons to delay a sentencing after conviction. (From my own personal exp in Federal court: defendants get sentenced after trial, and are sent to Club Fed while their appeals percolate. Sentencing happens before the appeal to the Circuit court and almost-inevitable denial of S.Ct. cert. Duh.)

So I'll put down my marker: no stay. Merchan will hold a sentencing hearing, and appeals will happen in their due course. Trump will whinge a lot.

I welcome commenters to minimize partisan wankery, and pick a realistic legal outcome. We'll see who's right in just a few days.

[tylertusta]

Merchan clearly believes that in this case a stay isn't automatic and that he has discretion to deny it. Whether an appeals court issues a writ is going to be the big question this week, IMHO.

Also, thanks for giving your opinion on this! (I mean it genuinely!)

[DixieTune]

I want to see Merchan and Engoron's rulings both reversed and Dems whine.

[tylertusta]

For Engoron's case, it you might actually get your wish. The appellate court seems very unreceptive to Attorney General James' interpretation of the civil fraud statute.

[tylertusta]

Trump has now filed a 500+ page Article 78 petition with the NY Supreme Court Appellate Division arguing that Merchan's immunity decision was incorrect. He makes a lot of arguments and it's going to be a hefty read.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EVD1uLvi-zvW3PEczSHHVZmkBEgFxeQB/view

[David Nieporent]

I think we can safely say it's bullshit. From Page 1:

President Trump’s undisputed absolute immunity from criminal process as the sitting President, which extends into the brief, crucial transitional period under which President Trump is President-elect and is conducting the work necessary to assume the Executive power of the United States (“sitting-President immunity”).

But this is all fabrication. There is no "undisputed absolute immunity from criminal process as the sitting President." This comes from OLC, not a court, and is about federal prosecution, not state. (OLC opinions are binding on the executive branch unless reversed or countermanded by the president, but that does not make them "undisputed.")

And "president-elect immunity" doesn't even pass the laugh test. The president elect is a private citizen with no governmental role or powers.

If they had good arguments, they wouldn't need to resort to bad ones.

[tylertusta]

The NY Supreme Court Appellate Division has denied Trump's request for an interim stay.

[Commenter_XY]

Next step....An appeal to NY Court of Appeals?

[tylertusta]

Yup. Maybe even SCOTUS, but I'm not so sure about that.

[tylertusta]

Trump has now filed for an emergency stay with SCOTUS.

If the Court picks up the emergency petition with the case in this posture, it's a bad sign for Bragg.

The Court may also decline to handle it on this basis and instead wait until the case is final and after Trump has exhausted his NY state appeals.

Link to stay application

[tylertusta]

Trump's co-defendants in the Florida case are asking Judge Cannon to halt Jack Smith and the Special Counsel's office from writing his report. They allege that it violates their right to a fair trial as their matter is still before the 11th Circuit on appeal.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25479569/nauta.pdf

[tylertusta]

Jack Smith filed a late night reply stating that Garland will not release the report volume concerning Nauta and De Oliveira no earlier than January 10th.

He will file a reply later today (January 7th).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.680.0_1.pdf

[David Nieporent]

It is not clear to me how the remedy for "This report may impact their ability to get a fair trial" is not the usual one of voir dire — and if that proves impossible, then dismissal on due process grounds — rather than enjoining the report. And it is very not clear to me what jurisdiction Cannon would even have at this point. And of course their position is nutty on the merits; it's one thing to argue that the report shouldn't be released, but to argue that Smith can't write the report? But we already know that Cannon doesn't care about trivial things like whether she has the authority to hear a case or whether there's binding precedent against her positions, so who knows?

[tylertusta]

They argue that that Smith- who Cannon ruled was not constitutionally appointed- cannot have access to Grand Jury materials in order to write the report. They argue that Cannon has authority in how those materials are used.

[not guilty]

I don't see how the filing of the Government's notice of appeal did not divest the District Court of jurisdiction. Not that that will matter to Judge Loose Cannon.

And these Defendants' purported concern about any impact upon their receiving a fair trial is chimerical. Does anyone fancy that Donald Trump will not issue a preemptive pardon before a trial occurs?

[tylertusta]

Apparently they filed with the 11th Circuit as well.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Well she's gone and overstepped her bounds yet again.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25480421-aileen-cannon/

The case isn't hers to hear anymore, and she certainly has no authority over the other cases brought in the other districts.

Cannon is a lawless cunt that needs addressing.

[tylertusta]

Judge Cannon has temporarily blocked the release of the report. It appears she wants to preserve the status quo until the 11th Circuit rules on their motion.

This is quite an interesting jurisdictional position.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.682.0.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

Is the 11th Circuit going to decide on the motion before 1/20?

[not guilty]

I hope the Eleventh Circuit decides the merits of the underlying appeal before January 20 and orders reassignment to a different district judge upon remand.

Briefing is completed, and oral argument should add nothing to the decisional process.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thankfully you're not and hopefully never will be on the bench. Except the bench in a park.

[tylertusta]

I see some reporting that the 11th Circuit has given Smith until tomorrow to respond to Nauta & Co's emergency motion. No link to any order.

[tylertusta]

The government has responded to Nauta and De Oliveira's motion at the 11th Circuit. Jack Smith is not on the document.

The government has conceded that it will not publicly publish the volume of the report about Nauta or De Oliveira while their case remains live but asks that it be allowed to publish the rest of the Special Counsel's report.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.90.0.pdf

[tylertusta]

This response (and the government's concession) is what happens when hotheads like Jay Bratt are no longer running the show. The government gave ground to avoid needlessly wade into foreseeable thorny constitutional problems.

There's no maximalist position being taken on novel questions. This is good advocacy and not the piss poor stuff I've seen from Smith's office before. The USA is thinking about what could happen four years from now and not what happens in two weeks.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think it has anything to do with maximalism; it has to do with the fact that — as I pointed out yesterday — if the defendants are correct that release of the report would prejudice their ability to receive a fair trial, then it's not in DOJ's interests to release the report because the remedy for that could be dismissal of the case against them.

[tylertusta]

I agree with you, but that wasn't the point I was making.

My point is that someone like Jay Bratt would have fought the motion on all of its terms, including whether it would be prejudicial to the defendants. He would not have offered to withhold the release of the relevant portions and would have rolled the dice on the constitutional question at the 11th Circuit.

In case you were wondering, Jay Bratt headed the Florida case against Trump. He's the guy who sandbagged Trump's attorneys with last minute filings, was unprofessional, and had his head stuck so far up his own ass that he forgot how to file proper motions in SDFL court. In other words, he was the quintessential Jack Smith prosecutor.

[Brett Bellmore]

Currently making the rounds:

GOP Senator's Husband Snubs Harris' Handshake During Swearing-In Ceremony

"The husband of a Republican senator refused to shake Vice President Kamala Harris’ hand during his wife’s swearing-in ceremony on Friday, as seen in a now-viral video that captured the awkward exchange."

Spoiler: He's handicapped. His one hand was holding the Bible for her to be sworn in on, and his other the cane that kept him from falling. And people don't normally shake hands with their off hand.

[Frank Drackman]

I remember how George Wallace always refused to stand for the National Anthem, what a Commie!

[Sarcastr0]

Making the rounds?

[Martinned2]

What he means is that he read on Twitter that libs are outraged about this.

[Mr. Bumble]

The linked story was from the Huffpost.

[David Nieporent]

And the truth is that this started on twitter as a celebration by MAGA of the fact that this guy snubbed Harris.

In any case, there's video from 6 years ago of him shaking Pence's hand, so I'm not sure the "cane" argument holds water.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's pretty common for conditions that require a cane to deteriorate, you know.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It seems like it started several places at once, with everybody trying make their side look good, or bad.

But this seems like a huge breach of protocol on Deb Fischer's part, since Senate rules assume that her husband acts at her direction.

[Riva]

B f'ing shit crazy Dave. This was yet another shameless attempt by the left to fabricate a "racist" moment to smear their political opponents. You truly are a repulsive lot.

[John F. Carr]

I remember a movie scene, probably 9 to 5, where a feminist refuses to help a coworker get coffee only to learn he asked for help because he has a cast on his leg, not because that's women's work.

[Michael P]

This is where the mentality of the Sarcastr0s, Martinneds, etc. of the world gets you: a five-month investigation into a mistaken click, resulting in mandatory groveling. "[O]n the balance of probabilities it was deemed that this was an accidental follow."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/tommy-robinson-solicitor-general-ceo-southport-high-court-b2675036.html

[Sarcastr0]

Not quite sure when I called for anything like this silliness.

But keep defending Tommy Robinson. Did you read his wiki?

[Michael P]

I have not read Tommy Robinson's wiki. Is it more reliable than Wikipedia?

[Martinned2]

Your argument is that an organisation like the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists isn't allowed to investigate whether it unknowingly hired a far right sympathiser on its board? Or perhaps even that the RCSLT has some sort of obligation to have an ideologically diverse board that includes the far right?

Let me be clearer, to avoid any further ridiculous back and forth with Tylertusa, what exactly is your objection here?

[Michael P]

My argument is that you are a terrible person in the same vein as those gormless and mindless cowards, who jumped to put someone under a months-long ordeal for no further reason than a single "follow", and then compelled him to apologize for accidentally following someone controversial. Thanks for demonstrating its truth.

[Michael P]

I mean, the explicit standard that Martinned set is "hired a far right sympathiser" rather than anything the corporate officer has actually said or done. That's not even "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" That's just asking whether they've maybe been somewhat sympathetic to any points made by the disfavored faction.

Then, when it turned out that it was all a mistake, they required an apology from the CEO rather than apologizing to him for wasting five months and who knows how many corporate resources on an ideological witch hunt.

[Commenter_XY]

MP...What did you realistically expect from the jackboot wearing eurotrash, and his fellow travelers?

Hopefully that bullshit stays on that side of the pond.

[tylertusta]

I am proud to have had a deterrence effect!

And thank you for being clear on what your question is.

[M L]

Is this tweet accurate?

In the UK, the birthplace of the Magna Carta, English Common Law, and the cradle nation of the USA…

If you’re a white English-born citizen, you’ll be sent to jail for posting unapproved opinions on social media

But if you’re Pakistani and rape young girls, the authorities will help cover it up

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1876465578422227337

[ThePublius]

Yes, unfortunately.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

As discussed at length above: No.

Any other bullshit you need to post before your daily quota is tallied?

[M L]

This Michael Byrd guy sounds legit. Story from The Blaze:

https://www.theblaze.com/news/exclusive-officer-who-killed-ashli-babbitt-abandoned-us-capitol-post-for-card-game-lied-to-investigators-about-it-source-says

Summarized in this tweet: https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1867635026680238550

-Byrd has decades of investigations and punishments for bad conduct. In 2001, he abandoned his post guarding the Speaker's Office to play a card game, then lied about it even after being caught on camera. Investigators recommended firing Byrd, but he was inexplicably retained.

-Byrd was paid out $36,000 from a fund to cover injuries for J6 police. This was ten times as much as other officers received, but Byrd still whined and tried to shake the government down for more money.

-Democrats sought to give Byrd a cushy do-nothing job at a site away from D.C., but he had too many disciplinary, financial, and mental health issues to qualify.

-Byrd has blown off paying tens of thousands of dollars in taxes. He also amassed more than $1.2 million in debt which he was able to settle for just $14,000.

-Byrd has shot at passing vehicles near his home, then lied, claiming the vehicles were trying to run him over.

-Byrd was suspended a week in 2015 for screaming at a Montgomery County police officer working security at a high school football game, calling him a "piece of sh*t" and "racist a**hole."

-Byrd was suspended 33 days for leaving a loaded gun in a Capitol Vistor Center bathroom. The gun was found an hour later by someone else.

[Mr. Bumble]

DEI hire and retained and Ashli Babbit is dead. Hope Babbit's family's civil suit proceeds.

[apedad]

Judge says Ashli Babbitt family’s suit over Jan. 6 death must go to trial before end of 2025

A wrongful death lawsuit filed by Jan. 6 rioter Ashli Babbitt’s family against the U.S. government must go to trial before the end of 2025, a judge ruled Friday.

In a terse order, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said that a multiyear pretrial schedule proposed by Babbitt’s family and the government in the $30 million suit is “unacceptable.”

In court filings Friday, lawyers for Babbitt’s family and the government jointly proposed a pretrial schedule that would stretch into 2027 before heading to trial around October or November of that year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4879449-ashli-babbitt-wrongful-death-lawsuit/

I wonder how Trump's DOJ is going to handle this?

Just roll over and give up? Or actively defend the US.

[Mr. Bumble]

Would that be so unusual (rolling over and giving up)? Government at all levels seems to do this regularly with settlements of all kinds.
Curious as to why you think Babbitt's lawyers are agreeable to such a long delay?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Do you really wonder?

Just today he tried saying that she was holding the crowd back, which is a really weird way of saying 'she was the first person to try climbing through a broken window of a barricaded doorway with guns pointed at her from the other side and commands to stop.'

She deserved to die.

[ThePublius]

Peter Yarrow has died.

Not a word in the NY Times obit of his conviction for child sexual abuse.

[tylertusta]

Not as bad as WaPo's 'Austere Religious Scholar' debacle.

[Commenter_XY]

Of course, the Old Grey Hag covers for a child molester.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well he was pardoned by none other than Jimmy Carter for the conviction but a new case was filed in 2021. Will Biden give him a posthumous pardon; maybe a Presidential medal?

[ThePublius]

The headline obit in Rolling Stone Magazine:
"Peter Yarrow, Folk Music Great and Convicted Child Sex Offender, Dead at 86
Peter, Paul and Mary star wrote "Puff, the Magic Dragon" and received a presidential pardon after he abused a 14-year-old"

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/peter-yarrow-paul-mary-folk-singer-dead-1235193134/

[ThePublius]

Trump says he plans to change Gulf of Mexico's name to "Gulf of America"

Ha, ha! Love it!

[Sarcastr0]

Did you also love freedom fries?

[Commenter_XY]

I swear, sometimes The Donald just says shit to tweak the MSM and start a new faux controversy. I just have to shake my head, and laugh. They go for it every single time. It is the same as 'pull my finger'. 🙂

And they (MSM) wonder why he won the election, lmao.

[ThePublius]

Ha! Oldest trick in the book!

https://youtu.be/qnH5BGfrV7o?si=H72W2df48r2rX0mq&t=11

[ThePublius]

Mexico could counter by renaming the Gulf of California - which is entirely on Mexico - to the Gulf of Mexico.

[ThePublius]

President Trump announces plans to push for all votes to be fully counted by 10:00 PM on future Election Nights.

Yes, more like this, please.

https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1876669982286946533?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1876669982286946533%7Ctwgr%5Eb8c8a6dba211d3a1b2a572efc7843d9b1e1e3da8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F694711%2F

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Another example of you dumb fucks not understanding or caring about the law.

[ThePublius]

Oh, you mean like the extra-legal changes in election procedures and rules in swing states in 2020?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

More lies from Publius.

*yawn*

It's remarkable how Trump supporters all share retardation and dishonesty as their two most-prominent traits.

[Mr. Bumble]

You'd better stock up on Valium Jason. It's going to be a long four years for you.

[ThePublius]

"EU Leaders to Musk: How Dare You Interfere With Our Interference!"

"According to BBC Newsnight, Britain's socialist government are considering ending their security partnership with the U.S. unless Donald Trump distances himself from Elon Musk's views on grooming gangs."

Holy Cow!

"So let’s get this straight. British national security is more dependent on keeping silent about the Pakistani rape gangs than it is on a military alliance with the United States? Is that what Starmer seriously wants to argue? Is that what voters in the UK believe, too? Because we can take our ball and go home any time, and leave Starmer and Macron to deal with Vladimir Putin on their own. Have fun storming that castle."

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2025/01/07/eu-leaders-to-musk-how-dare-you-interfere-with-our-interference-n3798562

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess they're going to freak out now that Fbook is doing away with third party "fact checkers" and adopting community notes.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm amazed that you're able to breathe on your own as stupid and gullible as you are.

Perhaps you should check some primary sources on that claim.

[ThePublius]

I don't know, Jason, you must have PhD's in denial and deflection. If you actually checked the linked article you would have come upon a video of PM Starmer saying in a television interview that he is considering "ending their security partnership with the U.S. unless Donald Trump distances himself from Elon Musk's views on grooming gangs."

What more primary is there than that? And what have you to refute it, other than your typical obscene trolling?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You mean the twitter link where he doesn't say that?

You quoted a quote that doesn't exist in the video you're trying to claim as a source you fucking idiot. That isn't even beginning to address that the context of what he did say was deliberately cut out to fool dipshits like you who can't think for themselves.

[ThePublius]

What quote? I didn't quote Starmer, I quoted the news article. Yet, Starmer DID SAY he would consider ending our security partnership unless Trump distances himself from Musk.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Yet, Starmer DID SAY he would consider ending our security partnership unless Trump distances himself from Musk."

Not in that video. You're caught in a bald-faced lie and think the best option is for you to double-down?

I have no interest in being kind or polite to you and your fellow lying idiots.

[ThePublius]

Go to 0:24 in the video.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Quote the fucking words you goddamn liar.

I watched the video, and THEN (two hours ago) I came here to tell you that you're a gullible, lying idiot because, and I cannot stress this enough, that is not what he said.

[ThePublius]

Also, it would help your cause if you could refrain from using foul language and insulting people. Despite what you may feel, you are not always absolutely correct in your views on all issues.

[ThePublius]

By the way, for leftist, elitist regimes, i.e., governments, disagreeing with them and expressing one's views on the topic is election interference. How is it that Elon Musk has no right to express his views on any topic he chooses? Just because he has a big megaphone doesn't disqualify him. If he was echoing their sentiments do you think they'd so vehemently brand him an election interferer? Ha, ha. They can all go to hell.

[David Nieporent]

Look, this is just you being a putz. No, not for "leftist, elitist regimes." Donald Trump claimed that reporting a poll he didn't like was "election interference."

[ThePublius]

It's different, David. Trump's argument is that Selzer intentionally misreported her poll to skew the election. I am referring to regimes trying to silence an individual.

[Absaroka]

I dunno about the difference you see. Inauguration is close enough that I think it's fair to call Trump 'the regime'.

To be clear, I wouldn't approve of Biden suing pollsters either - frankly, even if they totally fabricated a poll. If you can't MTFU don't run for president.

[ThePublius]

This, from the Babylon Bee, but it's so true!

"PALO ALTO, CA — Social media users rejoiced today as in an initiative to fight back against censorship, the guy who said Facebook was not suppressing free speech announced that Facebook would stop suppressing free speech.

Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg released a video statement outlining the upcoming changes that would be made to content restriction policies on Facebook and Instagram, revealing that Facebook would stop suppressing all the free speech he had previously insisted wasn't being suppressed on Facebook."

https://babylonbee.com/news/guy-who-said-facebook-was-not-suppressing-free-speech-announces-facebook-will-stop-suppressing-free-speech

[Mr. Bumble]

Real news you can trust.

[ThePublius]

And now for something completely different.

What's the most you ever paid for a book? I have a few valuable books, only because they are on obscure topics and out of print, not classics or anything. Books on specific firearms, like "Collector's Guide To Colt .45 Service Pistols Models of 1911 and 1911A1" by
CLAWSON Charles W. It's worth a lot more now than I paid 12 or so years ago. And a Blue Book of Pool Cue Values. Some books on classical guitars. And, I just bought "Anvils in America," by Richard Postman; I was lucky to find a copy for $200.

So, just curious. Anyone else here engaged in profligate spending on books?