The Frankish Reich

It's not that dissimilar. The suggestion - and it came from a WSJ report, not from AOC or something - is that the payments to Kushner, who has yet to come up with any actual investments in Israel, could be seen as a kind of payoff for his father-in-law's unprecedented level of support for the Saudi regime. So there's legitimate questions: was an advisor deal for Jared discussed during the course of the Trump admin? (Remember, Jared had an official post) What value is Jared providing in exchange for the extraordinarily lucrative deal? And then on the political side: if Trump is elected, what does he propose to do about his son in law, sometime business associate, and prior White House official being under retainer by the Saudi regime? Well that would be a bit selective, wouldn't it

That is nuts. And yet Irv questions the value of this board ....

I'm not a Cubs fan, but that 1992 season is a perfect example of why people considered them cursed. Future Hall of Famers: peak Greg Maddux, Ryne Sandberg, old (but still could hit) Andre Dawson. Other really talented (Dunston) or really productive (Grace) players. How many teams with 3 future Hall of Famers on the roster for 4 or 5 years (and in their peaks or still productive) have underperformed so badly?

Oh, there's a there there all right. This is not to excuse Hunter's shady deals and dad's possible role in them. But it's not like First Son In Law is all on the up and up. And we all know how his dad just loves the Saudi regime.

Not exactly. He was kind of a hanger-on who started schmoozing the Gettys when he was very young, then got one of them to invest money in some vanity things like a winery. I'm not sure exactly how he parlayed that into living so well. There's probably a really good biography in his future where we figure all of this out. To me, more of an empty suit than a stalking horse for the economic elite. He has always had plenty of ambition without ever really standing for anything policy-wise. Good hair and access to a lot of extremely wealthy people who can donate to his campaigns.

I remember him with the Twins - MLB debut at 21, and I saw him in spring training. One of those "good stuff, wait till he learns how to pitch a bit" guys. Still waiting.

The Steve Buechele of the 21st century. Or the Curse of the Angels.

I'm gonna play nice now. Yes, I have learned a thing or two from other posters. No, not all of them. (I haven't looked in the mirror and said, "so maybe I AM a commie.") But some people here have experience or knowledge about things I don't know much about. So occasionally a real discussion breaks out and I do learn something or get a new perspective on something. I have my own areas of expertise (outside of the general know-it-all tone) and I kind of hope certain people have benefited from that. At least from time to time. And it's a distraction from boring work. Particularly when I was "working" at home a lot.

I didn't know that ... goes in my Steve Buechele brain file. Thanks!

"Rotisserie League." Actually still the best way of doing it. Rated on your rank in the league on batting average (yeah, sucky real world stat, but it was easy to get every week in the USA Today), HR, RBI, SBs. And then Wins, Strikeouts, ERA, Saves. Despite the crude "counting stats" by today's analytical era, the winners generally reflected what worked in real-world baseball. Good fun. But the fool who said "Steve Buechele is ready to break out this season" never won it.

Someone's gotta run the scout team.

I think that's right. Steve Buechele was always that guy on the verge of a breakout. Solid third baseman, looked like he was gonna have an All Star quality season or two. But a long and successful career nonetheless. Covered a lot of ground at 3rd, so I'm sure he could pursue all day long and then not tackle. We're used to that.

Which is similar to AJ Klein. Low 50s is really bad on their system. Sorry, not seeing this as an upgrade over what we've got. And yes, we will miss Edmunds. A lot.

I won't hold it against him that his dad, former MLB third baseman, is the primary reason I didn't win my fantasy league in 1992.

I will gladly stop quoting Jack's idiotic tweet - enthusiastically posted here by you! - as soon as either he or you admit that it was stupid and offensive. Otherwise? Well, it is hurricane season, and Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina are right there. And God's aim is true.

Yeah, this is bad. When Biden was running and there were all those questions and memes about his cognitive ability or lack thereof, I remember saying there's two almost 80 year olds out there who seem to not have lost a step at all: McConnell and Pelosi. They were, to me, exactly the same as they were 20 years ago. Haven't seen Nancy lately, but we are, at best, down to one .... ... a cautionary tale about giving really old people really important jobs.

Hey B-Man, you follow Jack Posobiec on Twitter X. Jack seems to have his finger on God's pulse. To what offense against God do the people of the ultra-conservative Big Bend area of Florida owe this carnage? Surely he's weighed in on that pressing issue by now. NOTE: Trump "beat" Biden 77 to 22 percent in Taylor County, below. I put it in quotes because Taylor County suspiciously had a "machine glitch" the night of the election that "required" them to run the ballots on a different scanner. Hmm ...

Except that some of the states that ratified the 2nd Amendment prohibited slaves (or sometimes even free blacks) from bearing arms. Was that because slaves couldn't be part of the state militias? Because they weren't "the people?" Because the right to bear arms was completely connected to the states' right to raise up a militia of free men? I can't recall what the Supreme Court did in Heller and the other 2nd Amendment cases to explain all of this away.

You know what it is? It's a turnabout is fair play scheme. Trump's "throw the election back to the states, nothing in the constitution expressly precludes the VP from rejecting a slate of electors" theory was the same type of thing. "That which is not expressly prohibited is therefore allowed." So if a state with a Democratic Secretary of State and/or legislature and/or governor says "Trump supported an insurrection, hence he cannot be on our ballot and cannot receive our electoral votes" well, who is John Eastman to complain?

The January 6 impeachment did not put Trump in "jeopardy of life or limb." He wasn't going to executed or have his probing fingers lopped off. The only legal effect would have been to disqualify him from serving as president again. Exactly. Which is why a sitting president can't be criminally charged UNTIL he is removed from office by impeachment. This is Trump's primary "legal" defense now (the scare quotes because it is more practical than legal): if I am reelected/inaugurated, all criminal charges must be dropped immediately or at a minimum be held in abeyance unless/until I am removed from office, die, or complete my term. He announced his candidacy just as it became obvious that criminal charges were coming.

I think that's right. The old Moneyball Billy Beane quote: "My [crap] doesn't work in the playoffs." Playing Zach Wilson and Mac Jones 4 times a year? Make them beat you by sustaining those long drives without a mistake (penalty, bad throw, drop, etc.) Playing Patrick Mahomes in the playoffs? He'll say "Thank you, I'll have some more."

You do have a point there. The words, standing alone, wouldn't support a reading that this clause was limited to those who engaged in or aided/abetted the rebellion of the insurrection in the southern states that led to the Civil War. What I see from the Supreme Court lately is this: the conservative faction says that we should rely on the words themselves and avoid contextual analysis. Unless, of course, the words themselves would lead to a conclusion they'd rather not reach ...

And that's why the Kanye associate is charged too. They (so the indictment charges) sent her, a black woman, out to similarly intimidate a black election worker wrongly accused of counting fabricated ballots. Again, subject to proof at trial, but this was the mafia style intimidation used by the campaign to use the power of the president's control of the Justice Department to try to make state officials engage in corrupt acts.

I don't agree with this approach, trying to disqualify him from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment. The proper constitutional approach was to impeach him, which happened, but did not succeed. (All you Ron DeSantis types out there - bet you wish that had succeeded) This is unlike the prosecutions, which I believe are valid and of varying strength/merit. Bragg NY prosecution: stupid, and a shaky legal theory Smith classified docs prosecution: solid and proper Smith Jan 6 prosecution: meritorious and necessary, but far from a slam dunk Willis GA prosecution: the best thought-out, but very complex and will depend on proof

Yeah, I'm gonna give him a pass on the drafting then cutting Zappe. If you're just not seeing it, then it's best to eat the sunk cost and move on. Zappe kind of reminds me of a Matt Flynn as Rodgers' backup. Gets in a few games and has great results. The Seahawks paid him to come in and be their QB after that. And then they drafted Russell Wilson in the 4th round, and Wilson thoroughly outplayed Flynn in camp and preseason. Pete Carroll made the right call. A less confident coach would've started Flynn ... ... we'll know when we see how much interest Zappe gets from other teams.