The Frankish Reich

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/tenant-vs-tenet-difference-usage#:~:text=Tenant usually refers to someone,one of the basic tenets

People who get all of their news from righty Twitter streams just love to say "if you only read the mainstream media, you'd never know this happened." Of course, they never read the mainstream media. Because if they did, they would know that it was covered all over the place. Here's a popular news aggregator showing at least a dozen links. Everything from CNN to LGBT publications. But I guess it's better to rely on what "Oilfield Rando" says. NBC News: Senate staffer alleged by conservative outlets to have had sex in a hearing room is no longer employed – Discussion: Paige Skinner / HuffPost: Senate Staffer Caught Having Sex And Filming It In Hearing Room Business Insider: Senate staffer fired after X-rated video appeared to show him having sex in famous Congress hearing room Andy Ngo / The Post Millennial: ANDY NGO REPORTS: Fired Democrat Senate staffer who made sex tape in iconic Senate room has long history of making porn Ryan King / New York Post: Ex-Senate staffer in alleged sex tape snafu may have exposed himself to legal trouble: expert CNN: Senate aide out of job after purported sex tape apparently filmed in Senate hearing room Matt Vespa / Townhall: Here Are the Reactions to a Dem Staffer Getting Caught Having Gay Sex in a Senate Hearing Room P.J. Gladnick / Newsbusters: Politico Handles Senate Gay Sex Tape Scandal Very, Very Delicately Brodigan / Louder With Crowder: NBC News blames “conservative outlets” for video of male senate staffer getting banged by some dude in senate hearing room Jim Hᴏft / The Gateway Pundit: Fired Aide to Democrat Sen. Ben Cardin Reportedly Under Investigation and May Face Criminal Charges for Filming Gay Sex Tape in Senate Building Sam J. / Twitchy: Jonathan Turley's STRAIGHT-Fire Thread Shows Just How Bad the Staffer Sex SNAFU REALLY is for Democrats Paul Bois / Breitbart: Fired Senate Staffer Who Filmed Gay Sex Tape in Hearing Room Cries Homophobia Caleb Howe / Mediaite: NBC News Blames Democrat Gay Porn Video Scandal On ‘Conservative Outlets’ Nick Arama / RedState: Liberal Media Take on ‘Sex in the Senate Hearing Room’ Is Everything You'd Expect, Including GOP Pouncing Daily Mail: Democrat congressional aide Aidan Maese-Czeropski is FIRED by Maryland Senator Ben Cardin after gay sex tape filmed in Senate swept the internet The National Pulse+: Senate ***** Staffer Fired, Calls Anal Sex in Capitol ‘Poor Judgment’. Abril Elfi / One America News Network: Senate Staffer Fired From Ben Cardin's Office After Allegedly Filming Video Of Sex Act In A Hearing Room TMZ.com: U.S. Senate Staffer Ousted After Sex Tape Filmed in Hearing Room Leaks Kerry Picket / Washington Times: Dem staffer out from Senate job after revelation of sex video shot in Capitol Hill hearing room Jason Cohen / Daily Caller News Foundation: Dem Senate Staffer Who Reportedly Filmed Gay Porn In Hearing Room Is Out Of A Job Jessica Schladebeck / New York Daily News: Congressional staffer fired after leaked sex tape filmed in Senate hearing room Justin Baragona / The Daily Beast: Staffer Accused of Filming Sex Tape in Senate Hearing Room Is Out of Job Misty Severi / Washington Examiner: Democratic senator's staffer accused of filming hearing room sex act ‘no longer employed’ Kayla Gallagher / The Messenger: Senate Staffer Ousted After Sex Tape in Hearing Room Collin Anderson / Washington Free Beacon: Was That Wrong? Cardin Staffer Fired Over Senate Smut Film Says He ‘Would Never Disrespect My Workplace’ Christopher Wiggins / Advocate: U.S. Capitol Police Investigating Video of 2 Men Having Sex in Senate Hearing Room Rachael Bade / Politico: Cardin staffer linked to sex tape leaves Senate

You are apparently unfamiliar with the intellectual capacity of most criminals.

Wisdom of the crowd.

Really good economic news. Has the Fed engineered that soft landing? The markets say "I think it has."

Bad news for Trump = More Stupid Memes from NC.

What I loved about Brady vs. Dorsey: Dorsey would've followed what he considered the conventional wisdom. "Hey, we've got the running game working; time to use a little play action and let Josh take some shots down field." What Brady and Josh did was more what Belichick used to do to us: "Their personnel is not equipped to stop the run; we'll double down on that until they show they can stop it." I remember those games where Belichick used a fullback and heavy set to do that to us, and to other teams. Tom Brady would get his 300 yards on some other Sunday. A refreshing change. A blowout victory with < 100 passing yards. The old "they've shown they can win in different ways."

It's really not hard to say something sensible if you're a halfway decent appellate lawyer. "Justice Gabriel, this is a case of first impression. It makes sense to look to the historical context in which the insurrection clause was ratified - the open rebellion against US authority by the southern states that brought on a horrific Civil War. What happened on January 6 simply does not compare." But that would be conceding that there was something wrong with what happened on January 6, which Trump will never admit. You do realize that this cuts the wrong way (from your perspective)?

Ouch. As someone who has practiced before appeal courts, this is just a cringe-worthy response.

As far as being convicted of "insurrection" - the only federal statute I see that makes "insurrection" a crime was created in 1946, after WWII. In other words, some three quarters of a century AFTER the 14th Amendment exclusion for participating in insurrection. So arguing that a conviction is necessary is clearly wrong.

As a starting point: I don't think it is a good idea to exclude Trump from the primary (and then, logically, the general election) ballot. So how did the Colorado Supreme Court get there? 1. By applying the Colorado state laws on ballot qualification. 2. By looking to the standard definitions of "insurrection" at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War. That's because the 14th Amendment itself did not define the term. Bigger picture: this is, weirdly, the logical endpoint of conservative "textualism" in interpreting the Constitution. We all know the historical background of the 14th Amendment: it was to prevent the rebellious southern states from electing their secessionist leaders all over again. But a textual approach says that historical context isn't important. We apply the plain language of the text, which in this case bars anyone who engaged in "insurrection." Not "anyone who was involved in or encouraged the efforts of the states that purported to secede from the United States of America." No. "Insurrection" in general. And so according to conservative legal doctrine the courts look to what "insurrection" in general was understood to mean in America at the time the Amendment was ratified by the states. That's why the Colorado Supreme Court cites 1860s American dictionary definitions of 'insurrection." This is the same approach that got us to an expansive definition of the Second Amendment. Forget about all that "militia" stuff and the historical context of state militias c. 1789. Instead, let's just read the words and decide what "right to bear arms" was understood to mean in 1789. Historical context is relevant only with respect to what we believe certain words meant to people of that era, not to why the Amendment was promulgated and then ratified. So here we are. I read the Colorado Supreme Court decision, including the three dissents that would have decided the case in the opposite way. I can't see any clear legal error in what the majority decision did. The trial level Court found that Trump had engaged in "insurrection." The Colorado Supreme Court said they review whether there was "substantial evidence" in support of that finding. (NOTE: the standard is not "clear and convincing evidence." It takes more to overturn an NFL call than a finding of a state trial court.) They said yes, there was. They review questions of law without deference to the trial court's findings. Therefore, they found that the President of the United States is an "officer" of the United States, which is a pretty damn reasonable decision, although the U.S. Supreme Court may decide otherwise. They said there was due process - a 5-day trial in which Trump and his proposed electors had a fair opportunity under Colorado law to challenge evidence and put on their own evidence. Applying Colorado evidence law, they said there was a clear exception to the rule barring hearsay and that allowing the January 6 committee report was therefore fair. The law was applied fairly, and the result is perfectly defensible. Should Presidential candidates have to answer to the separate ballot exclusion provisions in all 50 states (plus, I guess, Puerto Rico and DC)? In my opinion, no. Our electoral laws are antiquated and we need new ones. But based on the ones we have, it is the height of hypocrisy for Trump supporters to argue that the state legislatures had the authority to reject certified Biden electors and accept their own slates, and to now argue that the states cannot make their own decisions as to who qualifies for their own damn ballots and who does not. Hoist by their own petard. I think that's the expression.

Of course due process exists in civil cases. I don't even know where to begin to shoot down this fundamental misunderstanding.

I watched Maher's season-ending monologue. I think this mischaracterizes his point. He was saying that the "river to the sea" rhetoric is just not productive now. Israel will not cease to exist. The Jews in Israel will not move/be moved elsewhere. Israel will continue to exist. So the point was this: knowing that, acknowledging that, what can we do that is productive? He pointed out that Arafat shot down the Clinton brokered plan back in 2000, a plan that would have created a real Palestinian state with control over the vast majority of disputed territory. And that since that time there really hasn't been a viable two-state solution plan advanced by either side - not by the increasingly militant, West Bank settler-driven Israelis, nor by anything resembling leadership among the Palestinians. It wasn't "move on from your dream of having your own country." It was "move on from your fantasy of taking control of the entirety of the West Bank AND the entirety of Israel.

Exactly.

Here's what I don't understand: Clarence Thomas is 75. He has been earning a Supreme Court Justice's salary (currently $285,400) for over three decades. His wife is younger, works as a political consultant, and apparently makes plenty of money doing so. I know it's expensive to live in DC. But not that expensive. He has his lavish vacations largely paid for. He got some kind of sweetheart deal on that deluxe RV. Why on earth is he broke?

He's become his brother in his prime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iiTCYpwZZw

I asked my daughter (who seems to know about all these TikTok things) and the consensus is what you thought: she has Tourette’s, but definitely seems to be embellishing now. Apparently there is some history of documented fake Tourette’s in other TikTokkers. Weird world we live in … Ouch.

From Vivek’s lips to Rama’s ear.

Tourette girl is funny, whether voluntary or not. But I'm calling bs. The references to "Chris" specifically seem fake. As does flipping him off at the end.

FAILING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ENCOURAGES RELIGIOUS HATE CRIME

Personally, I will take my common sense from whatever unlikely source it emerges from. Go Lurch!

WR aging patterns: - traditional wisdom (which went on right up to about 5 years ago) was that WRs have much greater longevity than RBs - new analysis shows that 30 is kind of an inflection point. A lot of this has been done with respect to fantasy, which is not real life. But a lot of it is applicable to real life. I don't have time to provide links now, but maybe if I'm bored around Christmas I'll start a "WR Aging Patterns" thread that everyone can ignore ... Diggs just turned 30. Drops? I don't think that has anything to do with aging. As a long time receiver, that's statistical noise. His drop rate going forward will very likely be what his historic drop rate has been over the course of his career. That's a blip. But separation (earlier, page 8 somewhere, there was a comment showing Next Gen stats on separation by year) is probably a real effect, and one that is related to aging. Bottom line: he's likely into his decline phase, but I see no reason for worry for the rest of the season. But when the decline hits it often hits hard, which doesn't bode well for next season and beyond. Interesting point: big WRs, who tend to be possession receiver types, generally age better. That would apply to Gabe, except that Gabe has never really been used as a possession type receiver ...

Good one. But ... there's a lag time between an improving economy and the perception that the economy is, in fact, improving. Worrying for Biden supporters that we're now 11 months from the election and public opinion isn't showing any signs of shifting yet. But if we avoid recession (an the "soft landing" scenario is now the majority opinion of economists) there's a good chance that opinion does shift by summer. As with everything, we shall see.

Sometimes a player turns out to be exactly what he was projected to be. See Scouting Report, Davis, Gabriel. https://www.nfl.com/prospects/gabriel-davis/32004441-5632-9675-38f5-3e009da4e98e Big target with outstanding 2019 production in an offense that created favorable big play opportunities. Davis is a sideline threat with a good feel for creating space short and long through hand fighting. His build-up speed, ball-tracking and high-point talent can alter the success rate of deep throws for quarterbacks, but sluggish release quickness and predictable route usage are concerning. His size and downfield talent could push him up the board, but he won't get easy looks in the pros and may need more work and development than the 2019 production might indicate Strengths Had multiple touchdowns five times in 2019 Consistently catches with extended hands away from frame Expert hand fighter short and deep Creates space for outside press release with stiff jab Stacks cornerback and gives gentle push-offs for vertical separation Wins over the top with timing and high-point extension Catch radius to turn overthrows into catches underneath Size and strength for all blocking duties Smooth burst at stem to gain ground on post routes Skilled ball tracker deep Double moves feature fluid stop-start Weaknesses Excessive stutter-steps against soft press positioning Doesn't have threatening initial surge into routes Tight hips limit quickness into breaks Could struggle to find operating room as a pro Schemed into multiple one-on-one looks downfield Needs to get shoulders squared to throws to protect catch space Below-average talent after the catch Ran limited route tree Takes plays off when he's not primary target Projection: Average starter. Actual NFL history: Average starter.

I don't condemn hummus either. I like the spicy kind, smoky paprika. With pine nuts. And obviously the Up With People shite is always, well, shite. Jill wins!