The Frankish Reich

Except in those instances where you think there should be more. In other words: there should be more government restrictions on freedom when it fits your idea of the common good. Stop. I won this argument.

I don't even know what this means. People here seemed all hot and bothered about the general notion that governments restrict freedoms in service of the common good. I pointed out that that's what having a government is all about. It's the opposite of anarchy. You want to make it a crime for drag shows to allow teenagers to attend, even if it's with their parents express permission. In other words, you want to restrict the liberty of people to do what they damn well please in service of your idea of the common good.

There is nothing here about "lying." In fact, our commenters were shocked (shocked!) by the very concept of restricting freedoms for the common good. I'm just pointing out that that is the core of the idea of government. The devil is in the details of course - which freedoms, and in what way, and for what sense of the common good? Hobbes in the 17th century thought you needed an absolute monarch to restrict freedoms and impose order. Needless to say, he was not in favor of a dictatorship of the proletariat; he was no Marxist.

"Restricting freedom for the common good." What a radical notion. Radical when Thomas Hobbes thought of it in 1651, that is. Hobbes would be quite surprised to find that he is now a Marxist, at least according to some of the usual suspects right here.

I like Erin Burnett. I mean, her reporting and her ... style. Right now I am more focused on the women of CNBC.

I'll save my Carter comments for later, but suffice to say that I've reconsidered the general idea of a "failed presidency."

Greenwald posted this today? AFTER Hunter said he's willing and ready to testify in public? That seems to have gutted his second argument.

This photo in a Scholastic book apparently turned a pre teen girl into a pr0n addict. Yeah. This one photo. They want it banned for everyone up through 8th grade. https://popular.info/p/mysterious-woman-tells-school-board That is, if you believe the young woman now, apparently being promoted by a right-wing publisher trying to get its books (instead of Scholastic) into schools. Their titles include such classics as conservative shock jock Dana Loesch's "Paws Off My Cannon," in which a community of gorillas is attacked by a hyena with a coconut cannon; the community convinces the gorillas that the problem is evil hyenas, not coconut cannons. Soon to be a classic.

I haven't looked closely at the testimony, but my first impression is that this is correct. It was a stupid case to bring in the first instance, and the judge's decision that fraud was proved before trial was always going to be likely to be overturned on appeal.

Well, he's not having no circus, that's for sure. The guy who has Marjorie Taylor Greene on his committee and lets her display a poster of Hunter's *** pics in an open hearing room Yup. No circuses here! The dignity of this committee must be preserved!

Chief kid is not a racist. But he still sucks. Because Chiefs.

Whatever. In the real world, Hunter turned the tables and caught Comer with his pants down. Comer obviously didn't anticipate this, and he has no sensible response to why he wouldn't immediately schedule the public hearing. Just silliness like "Hunter doesn't control the process."

How dare Democrats beat Republicans at their own game! Remember the case I mentioned that opened the floodgates? Citizen's United? The one that said money = speech = protected by the 1st Amendment? Who the hell are "Citizen's United?" Answer: Citizens United's stated mission is to restore the United States government to "citizens' control, through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass-roots organization" seeking to "reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security."[2] Citizens United is a conservative political advocacy group organized under Section 501(c)4 of the federal tax code, meaning that donations are not tax deductible. To fulfill this mission, Citizens United produces television commercials, web advertisements, and documentary films.[3] CU films have won film festival awards, including Perfect Valor (Best Documentary at the GI Film Festival) and Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny (Remi Award at Houston Worldfest International Festival).[citation needed] David Bossie has been its president since 2000. In 2016 he took a leave of absence to be deputy campaign manager of Donald Trump's campaign for President of the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)

Right. Thanks for slandering Evan Gershkovich. Maybe Kim Dotcom has weighed (haha) in on that one too.

Quick google search: here's a prof who agrees with you. https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2014&context=lawfaculty The legal standard is flexible: as long as it doesn't compromise the right to a fair trial (a very high standard, since before trial potential jurors will be questioned about what they've heard/read), or it's a violation of a very specific order of the judge, most of these leaks aren't ethical violations. You nailed it!

Thanks. By the way, I've always tried to steer clear of jury trials. It's just not in my skill set. But I have been involved in lots of other litigation, and I've always had a grudging respect for the people who are great jury trial litigators - they have a way of making things clear to the lay men and women of a jury, getting them to respond emotionally, etc. I'm just not good at that part. Give me a good appeal brief any day!

😁 Agreed. The world of litigation would be cleaner if everyone kept a close hold on these things until the trial. But that perfect world has never existed and will never exist. The conflicts between free speech and the integrity of the judicial system are clear in the whole Trump gag order thing. There's always a tension.

You mean "while giving it's workers a huge increase in salary and benefits?" With individuals and others (pension funds, etc.) actually investing thru Black Rock, State St, Vanguard ....

Ooh, James Comer has the chance - in public! On TV! With video clips they can use in the election commercials!! - to pin Hunter down on this. Except he doesn't want to. Never mind.

Yeah, right. https://www.newsweek.com/sheldon-adelson-donald-trump-republicans-donations-1560883#:~:text=Sheldon Adelson Gave Trump and Republicans Over %24424 Million Since 2016,-Jan 12%2C 2021&text=The billionaire casino magnate Sheldon,key beneficiary of this largesse.

Hmm, I thought that the whole idea is that spending money on speech to influence voters the kind of thing the First Amendment protects. Money is speech and speech is money and the constitution doesn't let us get in the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC I mean, that's what your side has been arguing for a long time ....

Well, what I mean is this: it's a real issue! Here's what we'd expect Pence to testify to, and if you believe him, believe his memory and impressions of the event are true, complete, and correct, it's pretty damning: - "Trump told me I should refuse to certify the electoral slates. I told him the he already knows that I believe the slates are sufficient and that I would be violating my oath of office if I refused to certify them. He didn't seem to care." Let's say Trump testifies in his own defense. (His lawyers would have a conniption, so I can't think he would, but play along). He says: - "I told him some of my lawyers believe that those electoral slates are legally flawed because of clear evidence of voting fraud and that he can refuse to certify those and send them back to the states for clarification and recertification of what they believe is a valid slate. He then said, "You know, Mr. President, I think you [probably] did lose the election." If a jury were to believe Trump's version (and he would be subjected to very vigorous cross examination), they could find that Trump did not try to subvert the rule of law by encouraging his VP (who has a statutory duty to certify the slates of electors) to violate his oath of office. The jury could decide that Pence offered his personal opinion that Trump probably did lose those states, but that reasonable minds could differ. That's very different than encouraging someone to violate a solemn oath. That's what lawyers call a "triable issue of fact." And we don't know how a jury would decide ...

Laying the groundwork ...

Pence's testimony to Jack Smith's team includes one of those wonderful ambiguities that can make litigation fun. His book included this line: "You know, I believe you lost the election." His testimony is that the book's editors got it wrong by including the comma. It was really "You know I believe you lost the election." Why is this important? Because in the "no comma" formulation, Pence is commenting on what he believes Trump's state of mind was at the time - Trump was encouraging him not to certify the election, and Pence was saying "you already know I believe you lost and the results are sound, so doing that would violate my oath of office." In the "comma" formulation, it could be read as an offhand comment, telling Trump for the first time that Pence is tending toward certifying the election. Of such things are trials made.

If there were mods here, I'd hope they would be banning meme postings. I don't need any more Black Eyed Peas or Trump memes.