The Frankish Reich

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.

It would be great if people would take this question seriously instead of trying to score silly political points. I'm on record here as being in favor of a constitutional amendment that would set a maximum age for Presidential (and probably VP) candidates. What that age would be (72 at the time of inauguration? Not more than 78 at the time your term in office would end? Younger? Even older?) is a good subject for debate. The original serious question here (ignoring for a moment the unserious poster) was "can you admit that Biden is showing signs of cognitive decline?" My answer is: Yes. He is. As is virtually every person over the age of 75. It is often mixed up with "is [name] showing signs of dementia?" That is a related but very different question since dementia is defined quite differently than normal decline. So here's what I mean by "normal decline": https://www.sciencealert.com/does-iq-decline-as-we-age-one-type-of-intelligence-peaks-in-your-twenties Of course, there are many kinds of intelligence. Classic "g," general intelligence, is just one, but one we often hear about since IQ is an attempt to measure that, and there are even subclasses of intelligence there. Here's what we know: "Global IQ is an amalgam of different kinds of intelligence, the most popularly studied being fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence which together – along with abilities called working memory and processing speed – are combined to yield global or Full Scale IQ," Kaufman says. "Fluid intelligence or fluid reasoning reflects the ability to solve novel problems, the kind that aren't taught in school," he explains, "whereas crystallized intelligence or crystallized knowledge measures learning and problem solving that are related to schooling and acculturation." These different types of intelligence show different patterns as you get older. Crystallized intelligence "averages 98 at ages 20–24, rises to 101 by ages 35–44, before declining to 100 (ages 45–54), then 98 (55–64), then 96 (65–69), then 93 (70–74), and 88 (75+)," says Kaufman. Fluid intelligence drops much more quickly. Kaufman reveals that it "peaks at ages 20–24 (100), drops gradually to 99 (25–34) and 96 (35–44) before starting a rollercoaster plunge to 91 (45–54), 86 (55–64), 83 (65–69), 79 (70–74), and 72 (75+)." It would be fair to say that "fluid intelligence" is the type of thing we value in engineers/inventors/many types of scientists. And it plummets from about one's mid-40s. But even "crystallized intelligence" -- probably the kind most valued in politicians/managers/administrators/Presidents -- also declines. Later and slower, but still declines. There's not so much a cliff as a steady decline that becomes a cause for concern in one's 70s, and certainly by 75. All people are individuals. These are averages. But it is normal and expected to see measurable cognitive decline of the types of intelligence that matter by the time one reaches his/her mid-70s. That's why I think that's a good place to set a cut-off for Presidents. What do I see in Biden? Exactly what is to be expected at his age. It's not good. I wish the Dems would put up someone else, or that he'd step aside. It's not dementia as far as I can tell. It's normal, typical old man decline. Does that mean I should never vote for him? Well, of course we have to keep in mind that voting in the USA is a binary choice, and if his challenger is also in that kind of decline phase, I have to decide based on other things. And I also have to decide based on the composition of the other branches of the government as a whole, and based on the types of people (and their competence) that a President or potential President surrounds him or herself with. But it doesn't do anyone any good to deny that we have a lot - way too many - of our government leaders and backbenchers who are well into their declines. Including but not limited to Biden, McConnell, Pelosi (no longer in leadership thankfully), Trump, some Supreme Court justices, etc., etc.

I checked, and this is correct. Thomas wrote the dissent, which focuses on what's called the mootness doctrine. In other words, the Supreme Court didn't need to resolve this issue at this time because the immediate issue was resolved on other grounds. So it is true that the sweeping independent state legislature theory didn't gain any traction at the Supreme Court. At least not this time around.

Insurance company actuaries do this kind of thing for a living. Life expectancy of a male born on November 20, 1942: 8.5 years. Chance that he will live until at least January 2029 (the end of the next presidential term): about 58 percent.

There's always some weird guy on the periphery of academic discourse who becomes, by default, the public intellectual of rightist nationalism. Back in the days of Early Trumpism, it was that crank Sebastian Gorka, before he descended into selling Magic Pills on Fox. Then it was Jordan Peterson, who descended into some kind of drug-addled irrelevance. Now it is this James Lindsay, apparently a mathematician by training, who is now a self-appointed scholar of Marxism and social theory. I haven't watched him (I guess I will, a bit, to see how he apparently gets it so wrong, unless the errors are the fault of his subscribers?).

I'll admit it. I thought Rob Johnson would be really good here.

I still think EJ needed more time and could have been above average.

From a poster ostensibly in North Carolina, tagging me (amongst others): "Care to weigh in?" How many times has this particular poster performatively "ignored" me while tagging me in his/her posts? I am living in their (gen neut) mind rent free!

Oops, I forgot about that other new right-wind "thought leader," Kanye. Seriously, all you new-style Republicans: who are your thought leaders now? Is there any serious person, or is it all crackpot celebrities? Is it Peter Thiel? Because we can have a good talk about that. Not the Koch brothers anymore; they're so 2012.

I actually had to do a few searches to determine whether RFK Jr. actually suggested this. He did. Loony Tunes. And this is one of the right wing "thought leaders" today, Joe Rogan. A guy who became semi-famous on a reality show where he made people eat bugs. Along with, from what I'm hearing, Russell Brand. An obnoxious drug addict comic who had to refashion himself as a political commentator to salvage a career. That's what the party of William F. Buckley has become ...

Well, I was a little kid in the 60s. But somehow I remember lining up at school to get jabbed with the polio vaccine, with the brand new German Measles/Rubella vaccine, etc. And hearing about how the original liberals of the 60s (including RFK Jr.'s uncle) were some of the hardest-ass cold warriors America has ever known. RFK Jr. bears little resemblance to his uncle or even his father. They were tough-minded American patriots, not wackos.

Not that there’d be anything wrong with that. I mean, if that’s what you’re into

I am not Billstime, and I am not a Marxist, but I invited you and yours to actually read Marx (it’s not that hard to do) and then to discuss to what extent his ideas inform various other modern-day -isms.

Well, I don't know about those spelling obsessed responders. I usually limit myself to correcting grammar. that's all I do. But let's take a step back, shall we? In the last two days, right here on this forum I have seen the following jaw-droppingly stupid mischaracterizations of Poli Sci 101, Introduction to Political Philosophy: - That Marx thought you were either a communist or a fascist, and that there's no in between. Which would make sense if "capitalist" = "fascist," which of course it doesn't. And of course Marx was long dead before anything like fascism existed. - That the core of conservative philosophy has been a focus on the individual and individual liberty, which probably comes as quite a surprise to Edmund Burke to William F. Buckley. Read Marx (at least a little). Read Burke (a little more). Read Buckley (a little less). Then come back and discuss like an intelligent human being instead of some kind of Twitterbot twit.

Go back to your S&M videos. Then wash your hands. Then tag me.

Which is very interesting indeed, given that Marx died some 36 years before Mussolini created (and coined the term) fascism. (where's that facepalm emoji when you need it?)

Mike Pence - MIKE PENCE - is starting to sound very reasonable and sane to me. I disagree with him on abortion rights, but the rest? Maybe I'm more of a Pence Republican than I thought. https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-may-ditch-conservatives-pence-vp-2024-republican-primary-ukraine-abortion-b2983352?mod=WTRN_pos8&cx_testId=3&cx_testVariant=cx_171&cx_artPos=7#cxrecs_s “Donald Trump promised to govern as a conservative, and we did for four years,” Mr. Pence says. “He makes no such promise today. I mean, with regard to a whole range of issues, he and a few others in this field are moving away from a traditional conservative agenda.” During a visit to the Journal this week, Mr. Pence cites three of those defections. First, Mr. Trump’s “ambiguous” stance on aiding “Ukraine’s fight for freedom.” Second, Social Security and Medicare: “Donald Trump’s policy is identical to Joe Biden’s on entitlement reform.” Third, abortion. Mr. Trump blames the end of Roe v. Wade for the GOP’s 2022 doldrums. “I believe,” Mr. Pence says, “that the cause of life has been the animating core of our movement for 50 years, and that the American people and Republicans long to see leadership that remains dedicated to the principle of restoring the sanctity of life to the center of American law.” **** "He supports ideas like slowly phasing in a higher retirement age but also—and here he agreed with President Bush—letting workers invest some of their payroll taxes, via the Thrift Savings Plan that government workers use for retirement. Even a modest return could “double what you’re getting right now in Social Security.” On world affairs, Mr. Pence cites the Reagan Doctrine, America’s history of “forward-leaning policy” to support anticommunist forces, and its role as “the arsenal of democracy.” Amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, both parties seem to be winging it. “My former running mate said he couldn’t say who should win,” Mr. Pence laments, citing Mr. Trump’s comments recently at a CNN town hall. “We’ve got other people that have said it’s not in our national interest to be there.” That’s an apparent knock on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis..."