The Frankish Reich

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.

The walls aren't closing on the Biden Impeachment Inquiry. No. The door to the hearing room is closing. Comer: we demand testimony from Hunter right now! Hunter: bring it on. Comer: oops. We're not ready.

Yes, it will fail. But it's telling that libertarians like the Kochs (or is there really only one of them now?) have put their money behind Haley. I think her instincts are sound, and if the Republican Party is ever going to return to something other than a cult of personality, she would be a good person to start that.

Comer subpoenad Hunter. If he wasn't ready for Hunter's testimony, then he needed to get statements from all the other witnesses - "Hunter's financial manager" - first. I don't know if Comer is a lawyer (if he is, he's a bad one), but the committee staff has plenty of them, and they just got schooled.

You beat me to it. Steelers 3rd stringers beat us all over again.

It's over. The Biden Impeachment thing. I was in favor of the so-called impeachment inquiry. I thought there was enough smoke to investigate. Hunter and his attorney just called Comer's bluff. I can think of no reason why Comer's investigators wouldn't be salivating at the thought of grilling Hunter live on TV unless they simply don't have any true damning evidence to to confront him with. The Republicans will stall and let the clock run out on this so Trump will still be able to riff on the "Biden Crime Family" in his rallies without actually having to show that what they've got is ... nuthin.

Ouch. The truth, it hurts!

Yeah the Bears have been Uber Bearsy tonite.

Bring in Belichick! He's only 71.

So maybe Justin Fields isn't the next Josh Allen. But I still think the Bears will get one of the 2 top college QBs. And Fields will get his chance in another organization. He'll spend the offseason getting the footwork up to speed with Jordan Palmer. He'll get a competent OC. He'll get a competent O line. He'll get a weapon or two to throw to. And he'll be good.