The Frankish Reich

I don't deny there are problems out there. Real wages, taking inflation into account, were still moving in the wrong direction over the last year+. And that is a serious issue. I think the economy is heading toward a new equilibrium where we'll see that reverse. So I am not intending to minimize anyone's personal situation. But I've lived through all the things I mentioned in my earlier post (runaway inflation, extremely deep recessions, etc.) in which no one with an ordinary job could even dream of buying a home, in which lots of able-bodied willing workers had no chance of finding a job, etc. And the economic problems we have today just aren't anywhere close to that.

https://www.axios.com/2023/06/29/biden-speech-chicago-bidenomics Republicans biggest fear: the economy will keep humming along, avoiding recession or another bout of inflation, straight through to election day 2024. There is a perfectly good chance this will happen ... [I still think a recession is inevitable, but I'm not so sure anymore that it'll hit before November 2024, and the various indicators like the bond markets show a similar confidence in the short term]

Why would you say it's the worst economy in the last 50 years when absolutely every objective measure says that's a LOL statement? Meanwhile, another poster who responded with an LOL is probably living in a van down by the river, posting on the free Burger King Wifi.

How so? Inflation is now running at approximately 4 percent. Unemployment is virtually nonexistent in most of the country. The stock market is up 14% YTD. Americans are going on vacation like they never have before, such that the problem is over-stressed airports. People are partying like it's 1999. And still ... the "worst economy" since 1973? You (as a little one, admittedly) lived through the two oil crises of the 1970s, inlfation running in the mid-teens in the late 70s, the deep recession of the early 80s, the Great Recession of 2008 (which took years to rebound fully from), the COVID shutdown, etc, etc. Really, people need to get a grip. Is this sustainable? I say no. I expect a recession, and the longer it goes without having one, the deeper the recession will be. But right now? Good times!

The article said it appeared to be a small flashlight, not a diazepam pen. At any rate, you're missing the point: with Hillary, the Republican fake news generators tried to drum up a story that she was so medically incapacitated that she would never be able to fulfill a 4 year presidential terms. That was 7 years ago .... so maybe a bit of skepticism about their current focus on Biden is in order? What would we do without the Hot Take Machine? So what is this "article" from the Republican press machine? Nothing more than some "reporter" googling the following: Sleep Apnea Dementia. And then "reporting" it as if it's, you know, actual journalism. Thank you, "Free Beacon," I am quite capable of googling things myself.

there's some things a dad - even a dad who is a leading politician - can't control. If Hunter wants to cash in on his name and perceived connections to the VP, well, all dad can do is tell him that he'd really wish that he'd keep away from lobbying/influence type activity. What the dad doesn't have to do is give his implicit assent to this kind of behavior, which is what I think Joe did do after the 2016 election. Joe thought that was it, his last act, he was going off to the private sector to write boring memoirs, give commencement speeches, and secure a really nice nest egg for his family. I don't know if he did anything illegal, but he certainly did some things that were at least unsavory and unbecoming a former Vice President.

A feeling of deja vu sweeps over me. But why? Oh, now I remember. Different "leading Fox News commenter." Different election. Same thing as the new former leading Fox News commenter. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/11/in-prime-time-sean-hannity-carries-out-a-clinton-medical-investigation/ Hannity brought another fishy analysis into the conversation by asking if a viral photo of Clinton and Secret Service agent Todd Madison revealed a diazepam pen, used to treat seizures. "What about this photo that the Gateway Pundit had up today?" Hannity asked. "Hillary's handler gets caught with a diazepam pen. What would that be for?" "Someone is carrying a pen that you'd use in case of a seizure, a Valium pen — that makes me wonder about that," Siegel said. In fact, as the fact-checking site Snopes later uncovered, the agent was holding what appeared to be a small flashlight That was 7 years ago. Hillary was either on her deathbed or soon would be incapacitated due to a Really Really Bad Seizure Disorder. Hillary Clinton is still alive today and seemingly well. And I have no doubt she would go all James Holzhauer on Biden and Trump in Presidential Candidate Jeopardy.

I have spent a lot of time around 80-somethings in recent years (that has something to do with my own stage in life), and I can tell you that what I see with Biden is consistent with what I've seen with every single other one. But o.k., let's say his decline is unusually rapid. Many people (me included) thought Reagan was losing it at a very fast pace in his run-up to the 1980 presidential election. And then it became clear to many more people that he was losing it by the time of his second term, say in 1987. He was 76 in 1987. And while we don't know for sure (no one can) whether that was the early stages of Alzheimer's, given that he was later diagnosed with it I think it's a fair to assume that. Q. So how long did early-stage Alzheimer's Reagan live after beginning to show signs of that disease (being charitable, from 1987 on)? A. 17 years. My point: even if Biden's doddering behavior means the worst possible diagnosis - Alzheimer's - that's extraordinarily unlikely to kill him in the next few years. So that over/under of 8.5 years based on the actuarial tables? No reason to second guess it here. Now could it be that like Reagan he is (or soon will become) unable to handle the job of President without effectively turning it over to an armada of advisors? Sure. Reagan did that, and the impression of those advisors that he was checked out probably contributed to some really bad ideas like Iran-Contra. Did the Republic survive? Yep. My second point: when dealing with a cognitively challenged president, or one who exhibits extremely poor judgement, the best thing is to have a stable team of level-headed advisors in place. In fact, a stable team of level-headed advisors is often preferable to a high-functioning know-it-all who refuses to take advice from persons with expertise in a particular area.

It is not a talking point for Trump's defense team, or even a talking point for lawyers or those who've reasonably looked into the law as it pertains to this case. It is a talking point for partisan supporters who are looking for any basis to yell UNFAIR! Regardless of the merits of the talking point. Really, do you think this type of person reads beyond tweets from Julie Kelly or articles from right-wing media?

Yes, there is. But other than the medical records the White House releases (which may, of course, be somewhat selective) we have no reason to believe that Biden has any unusual condition that would cause us to deviate from the average. In other words, the over/under is 8.5 more years of life. Now if you know any insider information like "my cousin's wife is a nurse at Walter Reed, and she saw a report showing that Biden is being treated for chronic kidney disease," feel free to bet the under. Anecdotal stuff like "Biden sure seems to be slowing down physically and mentally" wouldn't change my assessment of the odds. It's akin to "Hillary stumbled badly trying to get into that limo, she probably has serious brain damage and won't be able to serve out her term." Or "why does Trump need to hold a water glass with two hands."

And of course people are free to vote based on their assessment of Biden's mental and physical state. My comment here was limited to the actual actuarial odds of Biden surviving until the end of a second term. And on that, it's basically 60/40 (survive/not survive).

And yes, it would need to be charged in New Jersey. Which raises the possibility of another prosecution in the District of New Jersey, I suppose. And yes, this Julie Kelly is the dumb conspiracist's idea of a smart person.

Good summary of the IRS agents (there's two) claim that their investigation was thwarted (it is important to note that the key events happened in the Trump/Barr administration!): https://www.wsj.com/articles/throw-hunters-plea-in-the-trash-irs-justice-sabotage-shapley-4ae9aef0?mod=trending_now_opn_2 I basically agree with this take (so the tired old partisan responses would be, umm, particularly idiotic here), which is from Bush 43's head of DOJ's Tax Division. Paywalled, so here's a key part: By June 2021, Mr. Weiss’s prosecution team had gathered enough evidence to understand that Delaware wasn’t the proper venue in which to prosecute Hunter Biden’s tax crimes. Crimes allegedly committed in 2014 and 2015 would have to be charged in the District of Columbia and those allegedly committed 2016-19 would have to be charged in the Central District of California. According to the whistleblowers’ testimony, the U.S. attorneys in the capital and Central California refused Mr. Weiss’s requests to charge Hunter Biden in their districts. Mr. Shapley testified that Mr. Weiss then asked “Main DOJ” to name him special counsel and was denied—possibly not for the first time. In March testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee the attorney general said that although he hadn’t made Mr. Weiss special counsel, he had given Mr. Weiss all the authority he needed to bring charges in any district he deemed appropriate. But on Oct. 7, 2022, Mr. Shapley claims, Mr. Weiss declared in a meeting of the prosecution team that in fact he wasn’t the final decision maker with respect to charges that might be brought against Hunter Biden. It was this statement that shocked and troubled Mr. Shapley such that he braved the consequences of becoming a whistleblower and sought legal counsel on how to do so.

True. It is the perfect gift to a prosecutor. It is so incredibly stupid of Trump to do this - at the time he had already been notified that the National Archives was demanding return of presidential records, and yet there he is, being recorded (by a journalist who almost certainly asked him "ok if we record this"), saying that he is knowingly retaining classified records. If he weren't running for President, his best defense would be that he's now so mentally compromised that he lacked the ability to understand what he was doing.

Maybe Ukraine is in just a slightly different situation now than the one Russia was in when it "allowed" Putin to stay in charge? Maybe one country is the subject of an active invasion and daily bombings of its population centers while the other is actually conducting the invasion/bombings? But no. To Glenn Greenwald - the absolutely favorite gay expatriate socialist of Carlsonian "Conservative" White Nationalists - sees no difference whatsoever.

The Republicans control the House. They promised investigations. If Hunter plea deal is accepted by the judge, that part is over. Let the congressional investigation begin. Really. I'm not being facetious here. There is enough out there for a serious, well organized hearing (not this Boebert premature impeachment resolution silliness). Hunter clearly benefited materially by at least implying that by retaining him, his father's clout would be part of the deal. And I suspect that Joe Biden DID profit, directly or indirectly, from Hunter's sleazy dealings, but that's all it is: a suspicion.

It is mentioned in the indictment. It is only "not evidence" in the sense that nothing is evidence yet, but that's because there is a charging document, a plea, and no formal offering of evidence yet. That will come at trial. Someone would have to be called as a witness to authenticate the tape, the defense may object to its admission on various grounds, and then the judge will decide whether it will be entered into the record as evidence. There is a lot of confusion out there because a lot of non-lawyer bloggers are trying to analyze legal issues.

You mean our friend opens a new tab to live stream Tucker, keeping those S&M parade videos going in the background?

You mean New Jersey law? This all happened in New Jersey. And it was a recorded interview with some kind of writer working on Mark Meadows' memoirs - otherwise probably the most boring book that would have been released this year. So presumably the reporter asked if he/she could record it, and everyone knew it was being recorded. That's how these things work. But ... try again. Trump is on his 3rd layman's defense now, so maybe he should crowd-source Theory Number 4.

I don't know if this is the influence of non-lawyer Julie Kelly or where it's coming from, but: Of course it's evidence! It is mentioned in the indictment. Trump's half-baked maybe-I-should-just-keep-my-mouth-shut-and-hire-good-lawyers defense was "everything I took out of the White House was declassified by standing order or by operation of law." And now we have him on audio stating something completely different. It shows that he knew the classified documents he took remained classified. In other words, a "knowing" violation of the laws, which is critically important evidence.

It is possible there isn't one I suppose. So ... Trump just made up a specific document, going so far as to describe its contents and identifying its author, and even pulling it out and waving it in front of observers? But again: so what? The statement that matters is this: "I could have declassified it as President; I can't do that anymore; it's secret." In other words, I understand that classified documents remain classified even though they were taken out of the White House by me (or at my direction) while I was still President." Remember: this was in July 2021. The National Archives had already (in May 2021) sent Trump and his lawyers a demand letter asking for the return of presidential documents. Presumably he was aware of that request. And yet he's bragging (lying? that's his defense??) about retaining not just some ordinary presidential record, but an extremely sensitive, still-classified presidential record.

Oh, it's evidence all right. Even if the particular Iran memo is not charged, Trump's idiotic comments (idiotic in the sense of "only an idiot would say that out loud") are evidence because they refute his prior idiotic comment that as President he could declassify anything simply by thinking about it, or that he had some kind of unwritten standing order declassifying everything he'd had boxed up to be sent out of the White House. Since this particular Iran document was ostensibly still classified (Trump said so) and was at Bedminster NJ, if it is charged it probably needs to be venued in the District of New Jersey. Hence Trump's latest idiotic comment that this was just him bloviating/blustering and that he had no such document. We will see what the people who were in the room where it happened have a different take. This is a profoundly stupid man. EDIT: If Biden did something (actually several somethings) this stupid, everyone would say it's evidence of dementia. Well if the shoe fits ...

Well, it wouldn't have happened if Joe had just conceded. So it kind of is, right?

I don't know about you, but I really would feel in the dark about my team's prospects in the 2023 seasons if I didn't have a weekly update about what Colin Cowherd just said and why he's so very wrong. I dunno, maybe stop listening to him? Just a crazy idea ....

That's all correct. And you've basically confirmed my take: we don't know anything specific (for example, recent cancer, heart disease, obesity, etc.) that would lead us to believe that he's less likely to survive to 86 than most men his age. So there's your 58% chance. Which means a 42% chance that Kamala Harris becomes President if Biden is reelected. (Maybe that should be your campaign messaging, Republicans? But it's a messaging that gets easier to pull off if your candidate is in his/her 40s, 50s, or even 60s as opposed to his late 70s ...) Of course, he may be unusually fit, at least physically, for a man his age such that his life expectancy would be greater than the average. But again, we just don't know. So if an insurance company were selling him an annuity, they'd be betting on him living 8.5 more years, on average.