The Frankish Reich

Off topic, but Mueller really appeared to be losing it by the time of his testimony (and likely during the investigation itself). Let's stop entrusting key governmental functions to the elderly.

Don't tell that to our Q Anon devotees! Again: "I didn't know I had them in my garage" is different from "I have it right here, but I can't show it to you because it's still classified." Imagine the distinction between the ordinary defense of "I bought it from a pawn shop and the guy assured me it was legit" and "yeah, I bought it from a guy who told me he just boosted it from Walmart."

One other comment: this is why there's such a thing as White House Counsel! If you think you have the right to take any document with you (and thereby declassify it by operation of law), you ask your counsel whether that's a defensible position. But when you alienate everyone around you, including your Counsel, well, then you do stupid and illegal things.

That requires a legal conclusion. This hasn't been litigated in the courts, so right now we can only say "it depends on what the courts say." My points: - Trump (assuming the tapes are correctly characterized) himself thinks they REMAINED CLASSIFIED despite the fact that he (knowingly? we think so) took them out of the Office while still President. That is why he apparently said something like "I'd love to talk about this in greater detail, but the documents (and information therein) remain classified," coupled with regret that he DID NOT declassify them when he had the authority to do so - there is still an argument that it doesn't matter what Trump thought he was or wasn't doing, that even if he THOUGHT they remained classified, the ACT of knowingly taking them out of a secured classified facility and into his personal position while he was still President had the legal effect of declassifying them. My takeaways: - these tapes, if correctly characterized, change the legal landscape. It's an admission by Trump that he recognizes (as he understands it) that the document/information remained classified long after his departure from office. That takes away his public defense ("I was the President, I could and did declassify, no special magic words required") - it leaves him with two weaker defenses: (1) even though I believe I had the inherent right to declassify anything I wanted to, THESE particular documents (but maybe not others?) were removed through carelessness, not intentionally (remember, the prosecutor would have to prove a specific violation based on specific documents/information). This argument may be very weak on the facts, particularly since his public statements are fair game with respect to knowledge/intent. (2) even though he THOUGHT he may have removed still-classified information, that belief was incorrect as a matter of law, since his knowing removal of the document in question effectively declassified it as a matter of law. This puts his lawyers in a difficult position. Notice that Defense (1) is incompatible with Defense (2). Defense (1) is based on lack of actual knowledge that this document was removed while still classified. (the Hillary defense). Defense (2) REQUIRES his knowledge - his knowing decision - to remove the document while he was still President and thereby declassify it as a matter of law. So a fairly weak case just became a much stronger case. See my comment above. Comey was clear that the investigation did not show knowledge/intent to remove/post classified information and that the case therefore involved carelessness (in law, gross negligence) and that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a criminal case on those facts. Trump is now found to have been recognizing that he had still-classified documents in his possession as late as summer 2001 (at least 6 months after losing the job).

This is an argument Trump has lost repeatedly before the courts. It involves confusion between "the President" and "the Presidency." Trump invoked Executive Privilege in an attempt to kill discovery of various documents. The courts said Executive Privilege belongs to "the Executive," as in the current holder of the Executive power (the White House, acting through the duly-appointed President Biden). Since the Biden White House wasn't invoking the privilege, a former office-holder couldn't rely on it. So ... if the tapes really say what reports say they do, they're very interesting because Trump treats the information in the documents as STILL CLASSIFIED. In other words, he says something like "I'd love to go into detail about that, but I didn't declassify the documents when I was President, and I can't do that anymore now that I'm not President, so I just can't discuss the contents." [It is important to remember here that, as anyone who has had a clearance knows, it's not just the document itself that is classified. It is also the contents of the document. For example, if you look at or discuss classified information in a SCIF, you cannot take notes about the discussion; if you do, those notes are destroyed (e.g., shredded in a shredder qualified for classified that turns paper into something close to powder) in the SCIF. You also cannot talk to other people about what was in the document unless they too have the required clearance level and a need to know. EVERYONE who is given a clearance has to take the course, every year. NO ONE should have any doubt about what the restrictions are] So that's why I added an additional wrinkle to my proposed Trump defense that goes like this: - I THOUGHT the documents were still classified - But in reality, I had effectively declassified them by taking them out of the White House while I was still President For those of you wondering, "Is this really a defense that I was too dumb to realize what I was and wasn't doing?" The answer is: Yes. That is the defense. -

That's because the biblical purists/evolution deniers have a different explanation: that dinosaurs never existed. That a crafty, prank-prone God put "dinosaur" skeletons on the earth for some reason only a God can understand. Exactly. That's what they think, or pretend to think.

PFF check: - consistently at least mediocre (scores in the 60s), occasionally rated in the solid starter category (70s) - compare Spencer Brown: one of the worst-rated RTs last year. And Quessenberry, who showed a major decline last year. Sounds like a useful addition, possible contributor this season. YMMV.

And for me the true shocker: on the key, publicized points - slowing the growth of spending a bit, adding some work requirements for certain continuing benefits - the contents of the deal actually seem reasonable. Will wonders never cease?

Now that I've had a few (more) months to reflect on the Leslie Frazier Defense Era: - He is a fantastic defensive coordinator. He built an excellent defense, and did it in a way that adapts to changes in offensive philosophies/personnel. - Remember that old Billy Beane/Moneyball line? "My [crap] doesn't work in the playoffs." That's the self-realization that Frazier hasn't had yet. In other words: first you gotta win the regular season to make the playoffs, and (ideally) get a bye week or even home field. We all know that points allowed correlates strongly (but imperfectly) with wins. And Frazier built a deep, well-disciplined defense that was able to deliver the regular season wins despite injuries that would have destroyed many teams: losing your best (arguably elite) CB in White, losing your elite S in Hyde, losing Von, watching as several key draft picks (AJ, Boogie) failed to develop as hoped, etc, etc. That's a real accomplishment. A lot of defenses would have collapsed in the regular season under those circumstances. - But what gets you to 12 or 13 wins in the regular season against teams both good and bad (Jets, Pats, Dolphins 6 times a year for the last couple years doesn't hurt your record) doesn't necessarily work against elite teams (Chiefs, Bengals) in a one-game playoff. So maybe defenses built to bend but not break, or built for depth rather than around a couple true star performers just aren't the best thing for the latter situation. Maybe his crap doesn't work in the playoffs? Is that fixable? For Billy Beane, it wasn't. Having really good/deep starting pitching (the early 2000s super rotation of Hudson-Mulder-Zito) was great in the regular season. They all provided huge numbers of way above average innings. But none of them was Peak Roger Clemens or John Smoltz - the guys who will absolutely shut down the other team's lineup 2 or 3 times in a short playoff series. They were built to win the Best Record, Regular-Season Division. Not a one-game playoff. The Von Miller acquisition was in recognition of that fact. It almost worked until it didn't.

A very well-reasoned and nice comment, Deek, until the last line ... ... Agreed. I don't like the guy who did it. And I don't think the legal theory I outlined will (or should) prevail. From what I know so far, he violated the law (and damaged national security for selfish, self-aggrandizing reasons). I'm trying to be fair, saying that there is a legal theory (look up "Unitary Executive") under which a prosecution could be found unconstitutional. I think that's a misreading of the constitution as it would apply to the facts as I understand them in this case. But it is a plausible defense. I'm just very skeptical of the legal merits of that defense.

I'll bite. Any classified docs prosecution had one critical hole: intent. Remember Hillary and James Comey's press conference about why he recommended against prosecuting her? He said that it was a case of carelessness - something that could (under the law) support a prosecution, but something that, under the totality of the circumstances, shouldn't be prosecuted. And up till now that was really Trump's best defense too. Thousands of classified documents flow into the White House, there's always confusion (in Trump's case, self-inflicted chaos) when one president leaves and another comes in, mistakes are made, etc. IF (as reported) the audio tapes contain some admission/understanding by Trump that he took (and held onto) an extremely sensitive classified doc about Iran, and IF they also (as reported) contain something on the order of "I wish I had declassified that while I was still President because I can't do that anymore now that I'm not," well, there goes the simple carelessness/negligence defense. He'd still be left with something legalistic like this: "The authority to classify and, in turn, declassify documents is inherent in the President's Article II authorities. By taking (or ordering that the documents be taken) out of the White House and into his personally held papers, the President necessarily declassified that document (and the information contained therein); the law does not require any specific action/declaration of declassification. Therefore, even though Trump expressed regret about not issuing a formal declassification memo at the time he was president, this is of no legal effect; as a matter of constitutional law, the declassification occurred when he took the document into his personal possession. To hold otherwise would violate the Article II clause the the full executive power is vested in the President." Note that this is what Trump was already briefed on by his lawyers - it's the origin of the "if I even think to declassify it, it's declassified" comment. Which is stupid on its face because, well, Trump is not the brightest bulb who ever illuminated the Oval Office. But it's stupid in that it's a corruption of the untested, but not laugh-you-out-of-the-courtroom theory that I just outlined above. If Smith recommends prosecution, and if Garland brings a prosecution, it's hard to imagine a federal trial court judge buying that argument. But an appeals court? The Supreme Court? Who knows. Separate and apart from that: how reckless can you be with national security? Is this the guy anyone should ever want back in the position of ultimate responsibility for the national security of Americans?

Arugula is not to be equated with the loathsome kale. It adds a nice peppery fresh note to many dishes.

Jokic is an acquired taste. You watch him over the course of a season or even a playoff series, and you see exactly how dominant he is. Jimmy Butler is just a winner, plain and simple. I'd never count his team out. Spoelstra will be a HOF coach. Malone is a breath of fresh air in this era of bland, say-nothing-quotable coaches. I'm looking forward to it. I know the NBA bosses and the pundit class just loves to talk Lebron/Stef/Celtics, but these are two really disciplined and complete teams. But then again, I'm a guy who watches replays of how well Jokic sets a screen ...

Absolutely. Policy-wise (and competent governance-wise), in recent history I'd probably best be described as residing somewhere in between a (Bill) Clinton Democrat and a Mitt Romney Republican. Competence-wise, I think we had a very fortunate two-decade run of successful administrations from 1981 (Reagan) through 2000 (Clinton), followed by two decades of The Great Ineptitude from Bush 43 through Biden (so far).

I still can't understand why: 1. If I want to limit federal government spending, I must also support legislation requiring a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. 2. If I want strong immigration enforcement, I must also accept that Putin should be allowed to prevail in his little "border dispute" with Ukraine. 3. If I want a lower overall tax burden on workers and corporations, I must also accept a weakened IRS that allows people and corporations more leeway to cheat. I could do a list of about 100. And yes, I could do the same with the Democrats and their equally inconsistent basket of policies. American politics is broken. I'm an optimist by nature, and I don't think these crazy coalitions that give us these politics will last forever. But they will last at least for at least one more presidential election cycle ...

Just wait till Hailee Steinfeld puts the rainbow trucker cap on Josh. Then maybe all the wingnuts will finally abandon the Bills too.

And I think we have the answer now!

I FIND TRUMP'S MESSAGE FAR MORE PERSUASIVE. DESANTIS DOESN'T SEEM TO KNOW HOW TO USE THE CAPS LOCK. BUT IT COULD USE A LARGER FONT AND SOME ADDITIONAL EXCLAMATION MARKS. PROBABLY SOME "UNNECESSARY" QUOTATION MARKS TOO.

The case for Biden is not all that compelling. OK, we got that. But one of the main criticisms of Biden is the one we see in these threads. He's old! Who is really running this country? And at least when compared to Trump, the answer is: someone with at least a modicum of sound judgement and policy experience. In other words, if he's a bit too hands-off, that's a feature, not a bug. With Trump, we had a chaotic administration. Remember "my generals?" All fired or departed in frustration. Including one who called his boss "an idiot." Remember Rex Tillerson, Exxon CEO turned Secretary of State? Departed, calling his boss "a moron." (If I remember correctly, the offensive old scale had "idiot" below "moron," so I guess that was actually praise. Relative praise.) Honestly, we can go on and on. Just awful, dysfunctional, chaos. If the Republican primaries somehow magically give me Tim Scott or Nikki Haley, well, then we'll have a real choice.

And what I'm saying is this: your personal experience doesn't matter. Neither does mine. Or anyone else's. We do not assess public health measures based on anecdote.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-05-25/flight-of-affluent-taxpayers-catches-up-with-new-york?sref=htOHjx5Y tl;dr Federal tax revenues up about 15% in the last couple years. NY State tax revenues down 17% People do vote with their feet. (Not sure if this belongs here or in one of the NYS threads, but there was some discussion here about New Yorkers leaving for Florida ...)

Anecdata rules!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wagner-chiefs-feud-with-russian-military-cracks-putins-image-of-control-488ac37 This is a dangerous time for Putin, and a dangerous time for the world. Given the ineptitude and lack of morale in the regular Russian military, Putin outsourced the hard work to a thoroughly corrupt mercenary group, Wagner. He's created a monster that he can't control now. Is Prigozhin gunning for his job as dictator of Russia? Or just trying to make Putin his puppet? It doesn't seem to be a feud orchestrated for foreign observers since there would be no apparent benefit to Putin by exposing him as weak and ineffective. And what does Prigozhin think the remedy is? About 4 years of a North Korea style dictatorship. Can't make this crap up. The attack on Ukraine has accomplished two things: - it has revealed (just like the events of the collapse of the Soviet Union 32 years ago) how dysfunctional the Russian state really is, including their much-feared military prowess. Finland, Poland, the Baltics: all of them may rest assured that the chances of being overrun by Russian land forces are basically nil. - it has also revealed that Putin's stranglehold on Russian institutions may not be as strong as we thought. That's paradoxically dangerous in the short term: he could be willing to escalate with nuclear weapons in a desperate attempt to hold onto power, or some even more corrupt and insane Prigozhin type could either take over or begin to exert political as well as military power.

Demanding a trade to the Rams in 3, 2, 1 ...

Hey, they're called optional OTAs, and Dion decided to come even though he'd be showing off his bad offseason body. He doesn't have a history of being a Marcel Dareus or Kelvin Benjamin. Again, it's May, and I have no reason to doubt he'll be in good football shape in 100 days.