I guess what happened is that the Grand Jury indicated it had voted, narrowly, for two of the three counts, and Halligan assumed she could just replace the three-count indictment with a two-count one, without checking back with the whole Jury. If so, it's a procedural error rather than actual fraud. But still, I guess, sufficient to get the indictment thrown out.
It seems the indictment should fail also because Halligan misrepresented the law to the Jury. And, separately, because her appointment was invalid.
And, separately, the whole case is a crock.
There's a general sense that the Trump mob think they can do anything they want, and the far-right six on SCOTUS will make it work. Not, I think, this time.
Treating this as an open thread, because there always is one:
"the Court is finding that the government’s actions in this case – whether purposeful, reckless, or negligent – raise genuine issues of misconduct, are inextricably linked to the government’s grand jury presentation, and deserve to be fully explored by the defense."
This from the magistrate judge's findings in the Comey case. If it weren't a Trump-directed prosecution, my gob would be comprehensively smacked.
My observation is that charitable giving and good works are at least as common on the right as on the left. The R's are predominantly in favour of helping the unfortunate, so long as the get to do it of their own free will.
Their perspective is it's wrong for the government to take their money to give it to possibly undeserving poor people they've never met.
It's a different thing to support unpleasant politicians who share, or pretend to share, parts of one's world view. I thought it couldn't possible extend to someone as unremittingly vile as Trump: I was wrong.
I took up teaching maths part-time for the local university some time after I retired from full-time work. Sometimes I feel exploited, because the overseas students pay the universities very well, and the university pays me not much. But it is a joy to work with young people who take pleasure in learning.
This takes me back to 1977, the year of the queen's silver jubilee (the 25th year of her reign). There was much love shown for the monarchy, and a leftist reaction to it: I had a "Stuff the Jubilee" poster on my wall. The Sex Pistols released God Save the Queen, which would have been number 1 in the UK charts during the Jubilee week, had the charts not been blatantly fixed.
My impression is that there's now less strong feeling either way. Today's royal family is seen largely as a soap opera: naturally there's a black sheep in it.
The extent to which these folks seem to have mush for brains ... is astounding.
That was my first thought also. It's a Trump thing - to be willing to do what it takes to work for him you have to be stupid, in advanced cognitive decline, or hoping for get rich or powerful from it.
Io spero, e lo sperar cresce ‘l tormento:
io piango, e il pianger ciba il lasso core:
io rido, e el rider mio non passa drento:
io ardo, e l’arsion non par di fore.
This may be the oddest picture I've ever taken: it's the Spourne Parclose, containing the tomb of John Ponder, in St Peter and St Paul's Church, Lavenham.
People should be able to do their jobs without having their home addresses published.
People in a position of power should not be able to act anonymously. Anyone exercising the power of arrest should be readily identifiable, and the authorities should be ready to act on evidence that they have abused their powers.
In England, policemen have to carry ID numbers on their epaulettes. My understanding is that this is not the case in most US states: it should be.
As usual, both sides are in the wrong. But the first thing is to make ICE agents identifiable, for the limits of their powers to be clear, and for their employers to take disciplinary action against agents exceeding those limits.
One issue which may not be a vote-winner but remains vitally important is climate change.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are surging. The climate is warming. And the US president lectures the UN that the whole thing is a hoax, on the basis of exactly zero scientific understanding. He simple says what he and his voters want to believe. Perversely, he is going out of his way to increase emissions.
What we are doing to the planet really matters. What the US is doing matters a lot, because why should poorer countries restrain themselves if the US won't. It's horrible that the dangers of fascism are so acute that the threat to the climate is often not close to the forefront of our concerns.
I don't claim to know very much about illegal immigration to the USA, but it seems to me that if one genuinely wanted to attack the problem one would go after the employers, who have much more to lose than the illegal immigrants.
I'm going to guess that Trump hasn't done that. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Non-partisan discussion of Biden's border policies.
The summary is that Biden went back to policy before Trump, which hadn't much differed between Republican and Democratic administrations. Calling that an "open-border policy" is not factual.
So if you like Trump, yes, you'll think Biden wasn't cruel enough. But you wouldn't switch from your previous support for Democratic candidates because Biden agreed with the presidents you'd previously supported.
bc:
1) Legal immigration was lower under Biden than Trump. As to the effects of Biden's "open border policy" on illegal immigration: there were none, because there was no such policy.
2) Trump was and is keen on deficit-funded tax cuts. Biden was keen on deficit-funded spending. Biden at least was spending the money to boost an economy which had been depressed by COVID (and it worked). Neither should be attractive to a deficit hawk.
7) Yes, the US is a net exporter of natural gas, a net importer of oil. But the oil imports are not because of reduced domestic production - it reached a record high in 2023 (the last year I've found data for).
6) (I left this out before because I didn't know about it). So far as I know, shoplifting is not a federal matter - it's nothing to do with the president.
I imagine we could get somewhere near a consensus on these things, if we discussed them for long enough. And that at most it would support Ackman's preference for some of Trump's policies where they favour the things Ackman likes, such as burning fossil fuels. And we could go through the whole list similarly.
The one thing I clearly agree with him about is his distaste for the Ds' nomination of Biden in 2024. That's a reason to vote for the obviously dementing Trump rather than Harris?
One more jab: (3) is ridiculous - he voted for Trump because Biden implemented the withdrawal from Afghanistan which Trump had committed to?
Ben Meiselas pops on on my youtube list quite a lot, while I'm watching chess or cycling videos. I must click on enough of his stuff for it to keep being suggested to me.
But he's not really my cup of tea. Ever since the primaries he's been announcing several times a week that Trump is failing. It's not sufficiently contemplative for me.
I understand the reasoning that the best vote-winning arguments are ones which appeal to voters' legitimate self-interest. But there are other things which must be said loud and often:
this Administration is not normal. Every other President in my lifetime has represented himself as serving in the interests of all Americans: this one is for his people only.
Troops are the streets should be there only to address an urgent crisis, not because the President has been confused by old videos.
Everyone who is not reasonably suspected of serious crime should be immune from being dragged from their bed by government agents.
corruption is rampant in this Administration.
election procedure should not be a partisan matter.
The Supreme Court has abandoned any shred of legitimacy. During the Biden administration it adopted a "major questions doctrine" to stop him doing things which the literal text of the law allowed. For Trump, the Court is using its emergency docket to allow him, without explanation, to do things which the literal text of the law and the Constitution disallow. The Court must be radically reformed.
1) Immigration. Immigration was higher in Trump's first term than in Bidens. Ackman is wrong.
2) Trump in his first term showed himself to be indifferent to the national debt. Ackman is wrong.
7) The USA has been a net fossil fuel exporter since 2019. Ackman is wrong.
I could go on - there are very few valid points. Yes, it's important to understand why people voted for Trump. But what this tells me about the other side is that influential people on it are unconcerned with reality. I hope that most of the electorate thinks otherwise.
We should call Trump and his collaborators what they are. I learn that he's been hosting an "anti-antifa roundtable". To support that the contention that "antifa" is an actual organization, one speaker announced that "Antifa is real. Antifa has been around in various iterations for almost a hundred years in some instances going back to the Weimar Republic in Germany."
So that's clear, they're proudly against the opponents of fascism. "Anti-antifascist" is a clumsy way of expressing what they actually are - pro-fascist.
These people are evil. But - I want to write that in big letters - half the voting population of the USA votes for them. I don't believe - I'm not willing to believe - that half the voters are evil. We need to talk to them respectfully and sympathetically. We've all been taken in at some time by liars: it's our side's job to point out the lies, not to judge the liars' victims.
Listening to Trump's babblings, it seems that he genuinely believes that Portland is burning (in so far as he believes anything at all). Apparently he thinks Fox reports which (maliciously) recycle video from 2020 are showing current events.
Like Biden, he's not all there after sunset. Unlike Biden, he's surrounded himself with people who are unwilling to put him right when he's confused.
One constitutional amendment which could conceivably get bipartisan support would be an upper age limit for presidents and vice-presidents. I suggest 66 at the scheduled inauguration date, with a sitting president being allowed regardless to run for re-election for a second term .
That’s because you are seeing Republicans as people who have a different worldview and position, and trying to understand them in order to live with them as a part of your community. That’s not the way that the core of the GOP thinks about Democrats. To them we are not Americans with a different point of view that must be negotiated. To them we are not really Americans, and their job is to protect America from us.
Trump is evil, and Republicans who enable his malevolence are evil-doers. There is no room for compromise on this.
When I speak of civility, I do not mean that we should not speak frankly about what is wrong. I mean that people who do wrong are people nonetheless.
I disagree profoundly with Anthony Kennedy when he says that the Supreme Court minority should be more respectful in dissenting against the fascist-enabling majority's patently wrong rulings. I think the minority has shown remarkable restraint, which I would wish to emulate, while stating plainly what is right.
...the base of the GOP has decided that Democrats, and Democratic voting states, are on the enemy side of the friend/enemy distinction.
I've decided that Trump-enabling Republicans, which is most of them, are the enemy of humanity in general, and the United States in particular. So you could "both sides" that one.
But I see no reason to be uncivil.
__
I am anti-fascist.
One can't profitably debate anything with Trumpists - they don't believe in facts, or reason. But one be civil when explaining that.
I welcome CharlesWT's presence here. It's helpful to have someone to show us the evidence of unlawful behaviour by protesters in Portland. Before his comments, I had a slight concern that there might be facts I was unaware of which could shift my view: now I am sure there are not. Still, I'd welcome it if he were to acknowledge that what he's reported is a long, long way away from Trump's "the radical left's reign of terror" in a "war-ravaged" city.
"Bought the farm" is certainly American. A British equivalent would be "gone for a Burton". It makes good sense for 'a Burton' there to be a beer, but other derivations have been suggested.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Your quest begins now!”
I guess what happened is that the Grand Jury indicated it had voted, narrowly, for two of the three counts, and Halligan assumed she could just replace the three-count indictment with a two-count one, without checking back with the whole Jury. If so, it's a procedural error rather than actual fraud. But still, I guess, sufficient to get the indictment thrown out.
It seems the indictment should fail also because Halligan misrepresented the law to the Jury. And, separately, because her appointment was invalid.
And, separately, the whole case is a crock.
There's a general sense that the Trump mob think they can do anything they want, and the far-right six on SCOTUS will make it work. Not, I think, this time.
"
Treating this as an open thread, because there always is one:
"the Court is finding that the government’s actions in this case – whether purposeful, reckless, or negligent – raise genuine issues of misconduct, are inextricably linked to the government’s grand jury presentation, and deserve to be fully explored by the defense."
This from the magistrate judge's findings in the Comey case. If it weren't a Trump-directed prosecution, my gob would be comprehensively smacked.
"
Does this mean Marjorie Taylor Greene is no longer a traitor? And is Cambodia no longer at war with Albania?
Any explanation which depends on Trump's having a cunning plan is unlikely to be right, unless he's hired Baldrick as his latest advisor.
On “People and poliltics”
My observation is that charitable giving and good works are at least as common on the right as on the left. The R's are predominantly in favour of helping the unfortunate, so long as the get to do it of their own free will.
Their perspective is it's wrong for the government to take their money to give it to possibly undeserving poor people they've never met.
It's a different thing to support unpleasant politicians who share, or pretend to share, parts of one's world view. I thought it couldn't possible extend to someone as unremittingly vile as Trump: I was wrong.
On “I got depressed so I bought hydrangeas”
I took up teaching maths part-time for the local university some time after I retired from full-time work. Sometimes I feel exploited, because the overseas students pay the universities very well, and the university pays me not much. But it is a joy to work with young people who take pleasure in learning.
On “Ramsayer, Korea and me”
Wu, as spoken in Shanghai, has five tones. Standard Mandarin has four. Cantonese has six. In each case there are dialects which differ.
On “Monarchy in the UK”
This takes me back to 1977, the year of the queen's silver jubilee (the 25th year of her reign). There was much love shown for the monarchy, and a leftist reaction to it: I had a "Stuff the Jubilee" poster on my wall. The Sex Pistols released God Save the Queen, which would have been number 1 in the UK charts during the Jubilee week, had the charts not been blatantly fixed.
My impression is that there's now less strong feeling either way. Today's royal family is seen largely as a soap opera: naturally there's a black sheep in it.
On “Bal des Ardents”
GftNC: not usually.
On “There have to be clowns”
The extent to which these folks seem to have mush for brains ... is astounding.
That was my first thought also. It's a Trump thing - to be willing to do what it takes to work for him you have to be stupid, in advanced cognitive decline, or hoping for get rich or powerful from it.
On “Bal des Ardents”
Io spero, e lo sperar cresce ‘l tormento:
io piango, e il pianger ciba il lasso core:
io rido, e el rider mio non passa drento:
io ardo, e l’arsion non par di fore.
On “The Return of the Boat Hook”
This may be the oddest picture I've ever taken: it's the Spourne Parclose, containing the tomb of John Ponder, in St Peter and St Paul's Church, Lavenham.
On “What’s up, doxx?”
People should be able to do their jobs without having their home addresses published.
People in a position of power should not be able to act anonymously. Anyone exercising the power of arrest should be readily identifiable, and the authorities should be ready to act on evidence that they have abused their powers.
In England, policemen have to carry ID numbers on their epaulettes. My understanding is that this is not the case in most US states: it should be.
As usual, both sides are in the wrong. But the first thing is to make ICE agents identifiable, for the limits of their powers to be clear, and for their employers to take disciplinary action against agents exceeding those limits.
On “The Mother-in-law defense”
One issue which may not be a vote-winner but remains vitally important is climate change.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are surging. The climate is warming. And the US president lectures the UN that the whole thing is a hoax, on the basis of exactly zero scientific understanding. He simple says what he and his voters want to believe. Perversely, he is going out of his way to increase emissions.
What we are doing to the planet really matters. What the US is doing matters a lot, because why should poorer countries restrain themselves if the US won't. It's horrible that the dangers of fascism are so acute that the threat to the climate is often not close to the forefront of our concerns.
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
I don't claim to know very much about illegal immigration to the USA, but it seems to me that if one genuinely wanted to attack the problem one would go after the employers, who have much more to lose than the illegal immigrants.
I'm going to guess that Trump hasn't done that. Tell me if I'm wrong.
"
Non-partisan discussion of Biden's border policies.
The summary is that Biden went back to policy before Trump, which hadn't much differed between Republican and Democratic administrations. Calling that an "open-border policy" is not factual.
So if you like Trump, yes, you'll think Biden wasn't cruel enough. But you wouldn't switch from your previous support for Democratic candidates because Biden agreed with the presidents you'd previously supported.
"
bc:
1) Legal immigration was lower under Biden than Trump. As to the effects of Biden's "open border policy" on illegal immigration: there were none, because there was no such policy.
2) Trump was and is keen on deficit-funded tax cuts. Biden was keen on deficit-funded spending. Biden at least was spending the money to boost an economy which had been depressed by COVID (and it worked). Neither should be attractive to a deficit hawk.
7) Yes, the US is a net exporter of natural gas, a net importer of oil. But the oil imports are not because of reduced domestic production - it reached a record high in 2023 (the last year I've found data for).
6) (I left this out before because I didn't know about it). So far as I know, shoplifting is not a federal matter - it's nothing to do with the president.
I imagine we could get somewhere near a consensus on these things, if we discussed them for long enough. And that at most it would support Ackman's preference for some of Trump's policies where they favour the things Ackman likes, such as burning fossil fuels. And we could go through the whole list similarly.
The one thing I clearly agree with him about is his distaste for the Ds' nomination of Biden in 2024. That's a reason to vote for the obviously dementing Trump rather than Harris?
One more jab: (3) is ridiculous - he voted for Trump because Biden implemented the withdrawal from Afghanistan which Trump had committed to?
On “The Mother-in-law defense”
Ben Meiselas pops on on my youtube list quite a lot, while I'm watching chess or cycling videos. I must click on enough of his stuff for it to keep being suggested to me.
But he's not really my cup of tea. Ever since the primaries he's been announcing several times a week that Trump is failing. It's not sufficiently contemplative for me.
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
I understand the reasoning that the best vote-winning arguments are ones which appeal to voters' legitimate self-interest. But there are other things which must be said loud and often:
"
1) Immigration. Immigration was higher in Trump's first term than in Bidens. Ackman is wrong.
2) Trump in his first term showed himself to be indifferent to the national debt. Ackman is wrong.
7) The USA has been a net fossil fuel exporter since 2019. Ackman is wrong.
I could go on - there are very few valid points. Yes, it's important to understand why people voted for Trump. But what this tells me about the other side is that influential people on it are unconcerned with reality. I hope that most of the electorate thinks otherwise.
"
We should call Trump and his collaborators what they are. I learn that he's been hosting an "anti-antifa roundtable". To support that the contention that "antifa" is an actual organization, one speaker announced that "Antifa is real. Antifa has been around in various iterations for almost a hundred years in some instances going back to the Weimar Republic in Germany."
So that's clear, they're proudly against the opponents of fascism. "Anti-antifascist" is a clumsy way of expressing what they actually are - pro-fascist.
These people are evil. But - I want to write that in big letters - half the voting population of the USA votes for them. I don't believe - I'm not willing to believe - that half the voters are evil. We need to talk to them respectfully and sympathetically. We've all been taken in at some time by liars: it's our side's job to point out the lies, not to judge the liars' victims.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
Listening to Trump's babblings, it seems that he genuinely believes that Portland is burning (in so far as he believes anything at all). Apparently he thinks Fox reports which (maliciously) recycle video from 2020 are showing current events.
Like Biden, he's not all there after sunset. Unlike Biden, he's surrounded himself with people who are unwilling to put him right when he's confused.
One constitutional amendment which could conceivably get bipartisan support would be an upper age limit for presidents and vice-presidents. I suggest 66 at the scheduled inauguration date, with a sitting president being allowed regardless to run for re-election for a second term .
"
That’s because you are seeing Republicans as people who have a different worldview and position, and trying to understand them in order to live with them as a part of your community. That’s not the way that the core of the GOP thinks about Democrats. To them we are not Americans with a different point of view that must be negotiated. To them we are not really Americans, and their job is to protect America from us.
Trump is evil, and Republicans who enable his malevolence are evil-doers. There is no room for compromise on this.
When I speak of civility, I do not mean that we should not speak frankly about what is wrong. I mean that people who do wrong are people nonetheless.
I disagree profoundly with Anthony Kennedy when he says that the Supreme Court minority should be more respectful in dissenting against the fascist-enabling majority's patently wrong rulings. I think the minority has shown remarkable restraint, which I would wish to emulate, while stating plainly what is right.
"
...the base of the GOP has decided that Democrats, and Democratic voting states, are on the enemy side of the friend/enemy distinction.
I've decided that Trump-enabling Republicans, which is most of them, are the enemy of humanity in general, and the United States in particular. So you could "both sides" that one.
But I see no reason to be uncivil.
__
I am anti-fascist.
"
One can't profitably debate anything with Trumpists - they don't believe in facts, or reason. But one be civil when explaining that.
I welcome CharlesWT's presence here. It's helpful to have someone to show us the evidence of unlawful behaviour by protesters in Portland. Before his comments, I had a slight concern that there might be facts I was unaware of which could shift my view: now I am sure there are not. Still, I'd welcome it if he were to acknowledge that what he's reported is a long, long way away from Trump's "the radical left's reign of terror" in a "war-ravaged" city.
On “WTF moments at cultural borders”
"Bought the farm" is certainly American. A British equivalent would be "gone for a Burton". It makes good sense for 'a Burton' there to be a beer, but other derivations have been suggested.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.