It is clearer and clearer that the sociopath running for President on the Republican ticket is devoted not only to attacking the substantive legitimacy of Secretary Clinton (something I am obviously doing with regard to the sociopath), but also the legitimacy of any election that makes her President. (I suppose I am doing the same thing insofar as the only conceivable way that the sociopath could be elected is because of the operation of the electoral college in a multi-candidate race). I repeat what I said earlier: No sane person beeves that the sociopath will get more than roughly 40-45% of the total vote, and some polls suggest significantly less than that. The NYTimes is currently estimating the chances of a Clinton victory at 89%, so I think that a rational polity must be preparing for the high likelihood of a Clinton presidency.
This is where the sheer moral and political bankruptcy of purported Republican "leaders" is evident. It seems incumbent on such "leaders," if they are anything more than the most snivelling political opportunists, to begin preparing their constituencies for the prospect of a Clinton victory by doing something other than simply saying it is important to elect Republicans to Congress in order to stop the dreaded Hillary from achieving any of her program. That is "fair comment," whatever one might think of the prospects for continued gridlock if the Republicans do in fact maintain control of the House. As I've written repeatedly, perhaps ad nauseum, my beef is with our defective Constitution that in effect encourage gridlock and the alienation that accompanies it rather than with Republican members of Congress who oppose Democratic presidents. Mitch McConnell behaved entirely rationally in refusing to treat Judge Garland's nomination seriously, even if one believes that was unfortunate for the republic more generally.
The far more serious issue is whether people like Ryan, McConnell, Thune and others who still play to vote for the sociopath--or, more accurately, tell the public that they will be doing so, leaving us to guess about the actual vote in the secrecy of the voting booth--will state now that however much they lament the possibility of her presidency, she is fact thoroughly competent and does not, as the fascist former mayor of New York seems to suggest, represent a threat to the republic. If they are silent in the face of such incendiary comments by the sociopath and his enablers, then they are contributing directly to the view expressed by a woman in once of the Pence rallies a couple of days ago, i.e., she is ready for a "revolution" if Hillary wins. All Pence could say is that the "revolution" will happen with a Trump victory on November 8. Perhaps he believes that, but surely that view is not shared by most of the craven Republican "leaders" who are unwilling to say in public what they surely believe, that their candidate is indeed entirely unfit to hold any public office whatsoever, let alone the presidency.
Honorable Republicans like Jennifer Rubin, Michael Gerson, and Ross Douthat know that a political and moral accounting must take place in the Republican Party. (Let me note for the record that I have come deeply to admire Rubin and Gerson because of their unrelenting willingness to go after those who support or enable the sociopath.) This is also presumably true of honorable senators like Lindsay Graham, Ben Sasse, and Susan Collins (who did not need to hear "the tape" in order to know that her candidate was beneath contempt and did not deserve her support). And I continue to think that John Katich deserves our admiration in this regard. But, alas, they still represent a distinct minority of ostensible Republican "leaders." It is not only that purported "leaders" continue to enable the sociopath; it is that the only thing they are doing is professing outrage at his sexual predation, but doing nothing at all to suggest that Secretary Clinton is in fact not the devil. There are Republicans in the Senate who remember her as an effective senator, more than willing to work across the aisle. But they are terrified to say so because of the atmosphere created by the sociopath and his truly deplorable enablers. Should my fears of our collective future turn out to be at all realistic, the purported "leaders" who are absolutely afraid even to concede the basic competence of Secretary and former Senator Clinton will deserve at least as much blame as the sociopath.
Incidentally, the seeming acquiescence of Republican "leaders" in the demonization of Hillary Clinton has serious consequences of the future of the Supreme Court. Assume she wins and the Republicans keep the Senate. Will they confirm any of her nominees to the Court, given that the principal reason that Ted Cruz, for example, gives for his support for the sociopath is the necessity to prevent the Court from going Democratic. So assume that the Democrats get control of the Senate. First, they will have to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments. But then, and perhaps more seriously, the country would have to accept the legitimacy of any appointments made under such circumstances. Would the GOP be willing to do that, i.e., to admit that "elections have consequences" and that Hillary and the Democrats won fairly and squarely and get to do what winners do? Or would they, on the other hand, simply continue the language of demonization and delegitimization that threatens the stability of the entire political order?
A final point: Some discussants have taken issue with my reference to the Republican candidate as a "sociopath," on the basis of the altogether correct observation that I am not professionally qualified as a psychologist. I would take that criticism more seriously if the basis of the sociopath's campaign (as was true, incidentally, by and large for those who supported Brexit), was not a systematic repudiation of experts and expertise. These are, after all, people who proudly disdain what has come to be a scientific consensus about global warming and the threat it presents to all of us if we don't try to confront it seriously. (Note, incidentally, that the worst ravages of the recent hurricane were i two states, Florida and North Carolina, whose Republican governors and legislatures systematically refuse to fund any research that might even suggest that climate change is a reality and that state need to adjust accordingly. If one believed in providential history, a la Cotton Mather, one might say that my home state of North Carolina is getting what it has richly earned for putting the state in the hands of expertise-hating neanderthals. Fortunately, I don't believe in providential history, so I don't think that the actual victims of the flooding deserve their fate, but the political "leaders" of North Carolina certainly deserve to be thrown out of office as soon as possible.) Getting back to the main point, I note that those who support the sociopath simply are indifferent to the fact that no reputable economist supports him, and one could present much more evidence of the extent to which the sociopath prides himself on his disdain for anything that might be described as "evidence" or "expertise." Perhaps this still doesn't license me to call him a "sociopath" inasmuch as I do claim to take evidence--and expertise--seriously. Would it suffice to describe him simply as a man who gives no evidence whatsoever of thinking of anything other than satisfying his own insatiable desires, whether for money, fame, or the submission of vulnerable females? I.e., is he really anything other than the Holmesian "bad man" run riot?
The only two questions I'm interested in reading comments on are the following:
Are Republicans and/or supporters of Donald Trump willing to concede that Clinton is competent to be president and that the system that will very likely elect her is legitimate? If the former is true, then why aren't more Republican "leaders" saying that, even as they go on to say that they oppose her policies and think they would be bad for the country, which is certainly "fair comment"? But that's different from pronouncing her a threat to our very survival.
If it is fair to expect me to adhere to professional boundaries in making comments about Mr. Trump's psychological state, then should one expect equal respect for professional expertise on the part of him and his supporters.
One definition of a "sociopath" is "a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience." I don't think you are beyond the realm of fair comment at this point to use that term though given its weight and the negative nature of it, some will push back. But, using terms like "buffoon" or something doesn't do the job. Pick your adjective.
ReplyDeleteAs to the final questions. There will be some -- including one or two regulars here -- who will not "concede that Clinton is competent" on some level, including because she is allegedly a "felon" and this in itself violates the terms. Plus, other characteristics she allegedly has. Others deep down know she is competent but won't say it for political reasons. The idea the voting for her is so scary that supporting Trump is warranted is risible and deplorable but so it goes.
More, if forced to -- and with Trump bringing up the possibility of the election being a fraud more should be -- will admit "the system that will very likely elect her is legitimate." But, some core Trump voter class doesn't think that either. This is a serious civic problem but the historically knowledgeable would not deem it totally novel either.
But, whatever they think, it is politically useful to Republicans to speak of Clinton in terms more fit to the Apocalypse though people like Paul Ryan et. al. by now realize he is really a lost cause & they should just worry about House and Senate races. They are getting some pushback from Trump supporters though. They are in effect being hung by their own petards. Make the bed, lie in. etc.
The "legitimate" point was touched by in the past thread but if we want to look on the bright side, there is this: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/republicans-rigged-election-claim-donald-trump-229630\
ReplyDeleteIt's not THAT reassuring, but as with some Republicans coming out for GLBTQ rights in various cases, credit where credit is due.
The new evidence that Trump has committed multiple sexual assaults confirms that he is a sociopath. Nevertheless, I do not think it wise to substitute "sociopath" for his name when referring to him. Unless one is a psychologist who is offering it as a formal diagnosis, it use amounts to name-calling. Its use reflects negatively on those who use it in this way, making them appear fanatical and closed-minded. It also serves no purpose; it will not persuade anyone not to vote for Trump.
ReplyDeleteIf I may add, referring to Trump as "the sociopath" resembles Trump's use of "Crooked Hillary." It reflects poorly on Trump, whether or not one believes that Hillary is crooked.
ReplyDeleteIs Henry suggesting with his:
ReplyDelete"Nevertheless, I do not think it wise to substitute 'sociopath' for his name when referring to him. Unless one is a psychologist who is offering it as a formal diagnosis, it [sic] use amounts to name-calling."
that referring to someone as as as**ole" should be limited to proctologists? And keep in mind that Sandy's "sociopath" campaigns on name calling.
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], in imagining Trump as president, keep in mind Tricky-Dick Nixon post 1968. Consider Nixon's paranoia. Laymen understand "sociopath, "paranoia," "pervert," and especially "as***ole." Of course voters have much more knowledge of Trump's personal past as he runs for president than did voters back in 1968 have on Nixon. While Nixon had a questionable political past going back to his Senate campaign against Ms. Douglas, his personal quirks were not transparent until Watergate. And keep in mind Nixon's Southern Strategy in the 1968 campaign to counter the civil rights movement that Trump engages in nationally.
That she's a felon does not mean she's not competent. She IS competent. I expect she'll prove more competent than Obama, as a matter of fact. It isn't her competence I worry about, it's her aims and motivations. That she'll competently work to advance them is part of what makes her dangerous! She'll be competently trying to do things I think should not be done.
ReplyDeleteTrump is also competent, despite the determination of his foes to deny him any virtues at all. You don't end up wealthy, married to a supermodel, and the nominee of a major party over the objections of most of its leadership, if you're not competent. It's just irrational to pretend Trump isn't a very smart, competent person. Which is not to say he doesn't have real problems, because he does. Just that lack of competence isn't among them.
Seriously, I don't understand this determination to deny that people you don't like have any merits. Some people seem to have elevated trash talk to an ethos.
"If the former is true, then why aren't more Republican "leaders" saying that, even as they go on to say that they oppose her policies and think they would be bad for the country, which is certainly "fair comment"? "
Why aren't you? It's an election campaign, and saying nice things about your opponent isn't a big part of election campaigns. But, as I occasionally admonish people, dispense the Koolaid, don't drink it yourself. You might think it useful to describe the other guy as a monster. Unless he's making lampshades out of somebody's skin, you'd better be aware it's just a useful lie. Everybody uses propaganda to some extent. Believing your own causes you to become disconnected from reality.
"Unless one is a psychologist who is offering it as a formal diagnosis, it use amounts to name-calling."
And it's worth adding that, unless you're a psychologist who has actually examined him, it's also professional malpractice. A violation of the Goldwater rule.
Shag, I understand "sociopath" as a clinical term, not comparable to "asshole." Psychologists use "sociopath" in their professional capacity; proctologists do not use "asshole" in their professional capacity. But you say that lay people find them comparable. Perhaps. We'd have to take a poll.
ReplyDeleteBrett's:
ReplyDelete"You don't end up wealthy, married to a supermodel, and the nominee of a major party over the objections of most of its leadership, if you're not competent."
suggests the incompetency of Brett in evaluating the competency of others, in particular The Donald. Starting off wealthy helps a tad. And the history of The Donald's three marriages. And his "locker room" talk when his supermodel current wife was in her 8th month. And of course there is the matter of the incompetency of the Republican Party in this campaign. To repeat from a comment at another blog, we know what ailes [sicko!] The Donald, and you can Roger that. Perhaps the sociopath's competency is as a perv.
I agree with Shag here, and add that Brett's apparent assumption that marrying a supermodel reflects competency is sexist. Supermodels do not necessarily have better judgment than other women in choosing their mates, and supermodels do not necessarily make for better spouses than other women. But Brett apparently thinks that a man who marries a supermodel has married a higher class of woman.
ReplyDeleteHenry, check this Seinfeld episode of The Fusilli Jerry:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0697702/
on proctologists.
And Henry, in this Trumpian politically incorrect era, you're a little up tight with political correctness.
If you wanted to call Trump an "asshole", I'd not disagree at all. That he's gotten as far as he has in spite of it only demonstrates his fundamental competence. I'd say the same about Hillary not being in jail; A remarkable accomplishment!
ReplyDeleteNOBODY reaches this level in politics without being a smart, competent person. NOBODY. You don't just luck into the nomination of a major party. Even being in a position to get it by luck requires competence. Even the primary losers are scarily competent people compared to the average person.
As I say, I don't understand people who deny this fundamental fact. Clinton and Trump are both very competent, very smart, very driven people, much more so than the average person. They've both also got major personality defects, which they've largely managed to succeed in spite of.
This isn't about who's competent, or who's damaged goods. They both are. This is about what you want the government doing, or refraining from.
It would be good if we could redesign our political system so that it didn't produce choices like the one we're faced with this year. I have no idea how we'd accomplish that, and you're never going to figure out a way while pretending that these are two idiots.
"Supermodels do not necessarily have better judgment than other women in choosing their mates, and supermodels do not necessarily make for better spouses than other women."
ReplyDeleteI'd agree with both points, and still think you lost the argument. Marrying a supermodel demonstrates competence, because there's a lot of competition for them, and he won that competition.
He succeeded at what he set out to do. That you think he should have set out to do something different doesn't render that not a sign of competence.
"But Brett apparently thinks that a man who marries a supermodel has married a higher class of woman."
Supermodel who speaks 5 languages fluently? Yeah, I suppose those grapes are sour.
And Brett did not even mention Melania's educational achievements. Brett having gone "international" himself, I can understand how he is influenced by The Donald's megalomelania. But The Donald winning the competition for the immigrant supermodel, presumably aided by his billionaire claims, demonstrates competence to be president? (I'd like to see the pre-nup.)
ReplyDeleteTrump is taking the shackles off. But his brand may lose shekels. Chapter 11?
ReplyDeleteNo, it merely demonstrates competence in a general sense. Neither major party candidate has had the opportunity to demonstrate competence at being President, yet. But, given that both have demonstrated competence at other very difficult things, I would expect either to be competent at being President, likely more so than Obama. Neither will have trouble mastering the mechanics of the job.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said, this election comes down to what you want the next President to be trying to do, not whether they'll be good at doing it.
I can understand, though, why somebody who doesn't think they could defend what they want the President to try to accomplish, would want to pretend this is about competence, not goals.
Sandy: The far more serious issue is whether people like Ryan, McConnell, Thune and others who still play to vote for the sociopath--or, more accurately, tell the public that they will be doing so, leaving us to guess about the actual vote in the secrecy of the voting booth--will state now that however much they lament the possibility of her presidency, she is fact thoroughly competent and does not, as the fascist former mayor of New York seems to suggest, represent a threat to the republic.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you asking them to lie?
Clinton offers a resume of nearly constant incompetence - Hillarycare, supporting and opposing the Iraq War, Russian reset, supporting the Arab Spring, Benghazi, unsecured email system, etc.
If Clinton continues Obama's rule by decree (or what Jack calls "presidential governance), she presents a clear and present threat to the Republic and the House should immediately impeach her.
If they are silent in the face of such incendiary comments by the sociopath and his enablers, then they are contributing directly to the view expressed by a woman in once of the Pence rallies a couple of days ago, i.e., she is ready for a "revolution" if Hillary wins.
The "ready for Revolution" woman cited voter fraud as her reason. Very likely, the woman saw the most recent O'Keefe undercover video where the Democrat NYC elections commissioner discussed how they bus voters from one precinct to another in minority neighborhoods to vote multiple times/ Or maybe the reports here in CO where the dead are voting by absentee ballot.
In any case, given the antipathy Trump supporters have for the establishments of both parties, the GOP congressional leadership coming out for Clinton is hardly likely to increase Clinton's legitimacy.
Let's turn the tables of this discussion.
Let's suppose you knew one of your students to be a probable felon and a constant liar who sold copies of exams for personal profit. Would you recommend that student to law firms or would you communicate your concerns to the state bar and recommend the bar not license the student to practice law?
If you would do the latter, why on Earth are you supporting Hillary Clinton for president?
Would not all of your accusations against the GOP leadership for enabling a sociopath apply equally to yourself?
I do not expect an answer. but I do ask you to look to your conscience.
Henry's name-calling concern is valid up to a point but I use that qualification since the guy crosses a line. It's understandable Sandy Levinson now basically sees 'sociopath' while others might see some other term. But, "sociopath" is not only a "clinical term." It also is a general adjective.
ReplyDeleteBrett says she is "competent" but the term has various aspects. I'm including a broad understanding that includes "acceptable and satisfactory" on a basic level to be POTUS (obviously people will disagree on policy etc.) and no, from his past comments, he does not think she has some minimal competency in that respect.
And, the fact someone is wealthy or has a pretty wife (often connected), moving past those born wealthy, doesn't make them "competent" in the relevant sense. You know, we aren't talking about his competence as a businessman, an actor (who can be rich and have a sexy spouse), but as PRESIDENT.
And, his winning the nomination was a result of various things. You can even point his competency at playing politics. This STILL doesn't get you to some basic competency, beyond bare minimums, to be the President. The basic competence of knowledge, ability to act like a POTUS should act and so on. Trump simply is not showing that, even if he is constitutionally eligible and while not groping etc. them, having the wherewithal of having a sexy wife. On that front, I'm sure many men will say they are "more competent" since they feel their wife was a harder get.
[This is not a dis on Melania, it's just that -- oh she's a supermodel! -- doesn't by itself show he is more competent than others. Others who with less money and business connections manage to get a great wife and maybe even hold on to her.]
This from SPAM I AM!, a cretin with no conscience:
ReplyDeleteI do not expect an answer. but I do ask you to look to your conscience.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:23 AM
who continues to defend the 19th century The Gilded Age as America's best days.
To paraphrase what KellyAnne Conway is said to have said about Republicans sliding away from Trump, Brett is "catfooting" around with his comments defensive of The Donald. Ah, the "paws" that refreshes.
ReplyDelete"Let's suppose you knew one of your students to be a probable felon and a constant liar who sold copies of exams for personal profit."
ReplyDeleteYour analogy is in apt because Hillary Clinton has not been shown to be such a felon.
Also, people like you blaming Clinton for Middle East problems is incredible, no one could have 'fixed' the disorders in that region stemming from the insane policies of the Bush administration that you supported. You broke it you bought it, but you're busy criticizing the subsequent store employee for not cleaning your mess well enough for you.
"That she's a felon"
ReplyDeleteWitness the legal conclusion of a layperson who, when challenged to provide an example of a successful prosecution of someone with the same relevant aspects of HRC's provided a case of a dismissal of a government employee, in other words *not even a prosecution.*
Mr. W:
ReplyDeleteBush left Clinton a victory and a stable nation in Iraq. Bush's liberation of Iraq caused Libya to surrender its WMD programs and Quadaffi had been a good boy ever since.
Clinton abandoned Iraq to ISIS and actively supported a revolution in Libya led by al Qaeda. The result has been an ISIS caliphate in Iraq and a failed state with al Qaeda warlords in Libya. Clinton then sent a diplomatic team into the failed Libyan state without any military protection, dependent entirely on security provided by local militias.
Utter incompetence.
I understand that Obama is hardly without fault for this incompetence. However, if Clinton actually supported different policies, she should have resigned.
Now, you are free to offer counter-examples of the mythical Clinton competence.
You're ridiculous. There was no victory, the invasion and subsequent destabilization rocked all neighboring nations, strengthened anti Western sentiment and essentially created/empowered groups like ISIS as national players. An utter disaster, so much so and so obvious that the current GOP nominee can't run away from it fast enough.
ReplyDeleteMr. W: the invasion and subsequent destabilization rocked all neighboring nations, strengthened anti Western sentiment and essentially created/empowered groups like ISIS as national players.
ReplyDeleteYou are so clueless.
The liberation of Iraq did not destabilize any neighboring nation. The Syrian civil war was a flareup of a decades old conflict between the Shia and Sunni. The Arab Spring occurred years later.
The Surge (which Clinton opposed) led by Gen. Petreas (who Sen. Clinton slandered as a liar) destroyed and drove out al Qaeda in Iraq. AQI later reformed as ISIS during Clinton's tenure as SecState and re-invaded the Iraq she abandoned.
Utter incompetence.
Yes Bart, the hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing Iraq into the neighboring countries like Syria when we broke it didn't have any destabilizing effect at all! And the sudden appearance of a failed state and prime new anti-Western cause in Iraq didn't lead to the creation/empowerment of jihadist groups right in Syria's border!
ReplyDeleteBush rode in there on a unicorn and saved the day, the strong country he left collapsed totally the day after he left, that's on Obama!
Bart, you really are an imbecile. The idea that the Iraq disaster is Obams's fault is laughable. You morons created that mess, you morons are going to own it for eternity.
ReplyDelete"At the beginning of 2007, the UNHCR estimated that the number of Iraqi refugees in Syria was over 1.2 million."
ReplyDeleteIn 2000 Syria had a population of 17 million.
Sure, Bart, a sudden rush of desperate, destitute refugees amounting to over 1/16th of the total population would never have a destabilizing effect on that nation!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_Iraq
ReplyDeleteMr. W: Yes Bart, the hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing Iraq into the neighboring countries like Syria when we broke it didn't have any destabilizing effect at all!
ReplyDeleteNot at all. Most returned or went to other countries after Bush won the Iraq War.
And the sudden appearance of a failed state and prime new anti-Western cause in Iraq didn't lead to the creation/empowerment of jihadist groups right in Syria's border!
Actually, Syria allowed its territory to be used as an al Qaeda route into Iraq during the war.
To recap, al Qaeda had been in Iraq for a couple years before the liberation under the name Ansar Islam, recruiting Iraqis to fight the Americans in Afghanistan. When we liberated Iraq, al Qaeda invaded in force in an attempt to do to the US what the Muj did to the USSR in Afghanistan. If Clinton had her way, they would have succeeded. Instead, Bush approved Gen. Petreas' Surge plan and the US Army allied with the Sunni tribes decimated and drove AQI to of Iraq. After Bush won the war and handed the reigns over the Obama and Clinton, AQI reformed into ISIS and re-invaded Syria and Iraq.
"Bush won the Iraq War."
ReplyDeleteYes Bart, he 'destroyed' the enemy, but it magically reformed when our troops left. Add 'destroyed' to words Bart has an idiosyncratic grasp of!
And your claim about the refugees is false, irrelevant and misleading.
BD" "Bush won the Iraq War."
ReplyDeleteMr. W: Yes Bart, he 'destroyed' the enemy, but it magically reformed when our troops left.
This is why you occupy defeated nations for some period of time. For example, if we pulled out of Germany and Japan in 1946, the fascists would have returned in short order.
Lessons of history of which mandarins like Clinton and Obama are oblivious.
Bart, I wish you luck in persuading your party to espouse that the problem in Iraq is that we should still have several hundred thousand of our troops there. I really hope you succeed.
ReplyDeleteBecause, as you well know, the war was not sold as entailing a long term, large force occupation, and wouldn't have been accepted if it were. So, either it was a lie or incompetent.
ReplyDeleteI also like to especially highlight when Bart makes a demonstrably incorrect statement.
ReplyDeleteBart: Most returned or went to other countries after Bush won the Iraq War.
Reality:
Iraqis in Syria are Syrian citizens of Iraqi origin or, more commonly today, Iraqis who are seeking refuge or better opportunities inside Syria. Though there is no consensus on the community's size, most estimates indicate that the number of displaced Iraqis in Syria remains well over 1,000,000 in 2010.[1]
Lessons of history of which mandarins like Clinton and Obama are oblivious.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 3:37 PM
Bush had no plans for a long term occupation of Iraq, you putz.
There has been some moments (including the title of a press release in response to the Trump Tapes etc. regarding his "Mowmen" problem) that did not make Gary Johnson ready for prime time, shall we say. But, can't say I have really been paying attention. How has he looked to you, Mr. Johnson supporter?
ReplyDeleteWhat is up with the way Levinson fetishizes disclaiming Trump to the extent he would respect a Jennifer Rubin?
ReplyDeleteIt's bizarre, really. She did every immoral thing an individual could do in pushing Mitt Romney: lies of omission, lies of commission, rank hypocrisy, vile racist innuendo... it goes on and on and on.
All you need to know about Levinson's analysis is that her public disagreeing with Trump is enough to erase all that.
Seriously, dude, are you on meth? Something weird is going on.
Joe
ReplyDeleteThe Aleppo and 'favorite foreign leaders' thing were certainly unfortunate (I'm less impressed by the latter because it's a bit of an odd question-I can name a lot of foreign leaders, and while I find some despicable and others not I can't say any foreign leader is a 'favorite' of mine).
To be frank though, I'm primarily concerned with domestic issues where Johnson strikes me as stronger. My main foreign policy position is 'don't start wars, generally' and I think Johnson would best represent that.
"Something weird is going on."
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to see imho. Trump represents the most uncouth, unprofessional major party nominee in my life time, and historically maybe matched only by Jackson. As a member of a highly professional class (that's not an insult btw, sad to say that had to be clarified) of course Sandy (and Rubin for that matter) are unusually repulsed by the prospect of him being President.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Levinson fetishizes disclaiming Trump to the extent he would respect a Jennifer Rubin"
ReplyDeletebecause it shows a certain honorable and these days unusual level of opposition for someone who is "on the team" ... cf. the average Republican elite types that have endorsed Trump or at most disdained him but seen it as necessary to take one for the team to the extent of not strongly opposing him. Since SL thinks Trump is particularly horrible, an exception to the rule particularly impresses him
You can also "respect" someone without thinking they are all forgiven for past actions. Prof. Levinson can also not have paid too much attention to Rubin's pro-Romney efforts and/or thought less of it since (contra some people's "this is just more of the same" meme) he saw Romney much less of a threat, "sociopath" etc.
He can of course answer for himself, but that's how it looks from here
Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThe basic image I'm getting from some is that he is not taking good advantage of his opportunity to provide a "third way," coming off as confused and unprepared in various cases. That's only an aspect of running, but it's an important one. To follow a theme, people are liking his running mate more.
I think the foreign policy area (and his marijuana position -- he did note in one C-SPAN aired interview that he isn't for general drug legalization, which is disappointing if pragmatic) is one likely to get a lot of crossover appeal. Sanders, e.g., is reminding people his domestic policy in various respects won't please them & you have others on the other side not thinking he's conservative enough on some social issues.
Brett has been channeling Tammy Wynette's "Stand by Your Man" with his continued defense of The Donald.
ReplyDeleteAs to Jennifer Rubin and Sandy's praise, keep in mind "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Over the years Rubin has not been a nice person in her role as a right wing hit lady. I don't feel that strongly about Sandy's praise of Michael Gerson, but it is tought forgetting that he was an enabler of George W. and the mess that Bush/Cheney left. But starting with Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968, Republicans have continuously challenged politically the civil rights movement that has attracted its base that strongly supports Trump. Assuming Hillary is elected, Rubin surely will quickly revert to her tried and untrue right wing vitriol that she displayed against Obama over his presidency. Keep in mind that Trump's tactics against JEB were attacks on George W. and those close to George W. have resented Trump for this.
Mr. W:
ReplyDeleteYou won't read the law, but you regularly cut and paste from Wikipedia without attribution.
BTW, your cut and paste Wiki passage claiming a 2010 population guess cites a 2008 press release. Your unknown Wiki author is a bright boy just like you.
Blankshot, how is that WMD search going?
ReplyDeleteBart
ReplyDeleteReading the law is likely irrelevant, because prosecutorial tradition, arising from a line of court cases displaying hostility to applying the law literally, is the issue. Federal prosecutors have not applied the law in the literal way you mentioned in it's history because if they did, courts would likely overturn the law. You can't cite a *single case* where there was a successful prosecution when the relevant aspects I've mentioned applying to the HRC case were present (when *repeatedly prompted* you offered a case under a different section of the statute where the defendant confessed and pled guilty, flatly distinguishable), but I can show examples of successful prosecutions when those aspects were present. This is *exactly what Comey said* was how the law has always been enforced. I mean really, put up or shut up: if you have *any* evidence or examples that the law has been enforced the way you say it should have against Clinton, supply it. You haven't, because you *can't.* Anyone with integrity would, not being able to put up, shut up.
As to the refugee item, mid-2008 is near the end of the surge. But more importantly, it wasn't the 'successful surge' that made many of the million + Iraqi refugees to Syria to 'move on,' it was the very violence of the Syrian civil war which was caused by the initial destabilization that made them flee (hence my charge of 'irrelevant'). It's crazy to think an influx of over a million refugees didn't exacerbate problems there.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlso, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies estimates over a million Iraqi refugees in Syria in 2010:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ifrc.org/docs/appeals/10/MDRSY002reab.pdf
Mr W: Reading the law is likely irrelevant, because prosecutorial tradition, arising from a line of court cases displaying hostility to applying the law literally, is the issue. Federal prosecutors have not applied the law in the literal way you mentioned in it's history because if they did, courts would likely overturn the law.
ReplyDeleteI doubt you will learn a damned thing, but let go through this for anyone who might be reading this thread.
On what legal grounds would a court find this statute to be unconstitutional?
As to the refugee item, mid-2008 is near the end of the surge. But more importantly, it wasn't the 'successful surge' that made many of the million + Iraqi refugees to Syria to 'move on,' it was the very violence of the Syrian civil war which was caused by the initial destabilization that made them flee (hence my charge of 'irrelevant').
ReplyDeleteTry reading some history.
Most of the Iraqi refugees fled during the middle of the Oughts before the Surge because al Qaeda turned their streets into a bombing zone and were slaughtering anyone they considered to be heretics. Syria shut down the general migration from Syria in 2007 when the Surge started. Your Wiki article noted that the Iraqs started returning en masse after the Iraq War victory and the number of Iraqis still in Syria fell to around 200,000 by 2012.
The Syrian Civil War between Syrian factions started years after the Iraq War victory. Here is an outline for you:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868
Over at TomDispatch:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176197/tomgram%3A_john_feffer%2C_slouching_toward_the_apocalypse/#more
Tom presents John Feffer's lengthy essay "Trump the Arsonist," which closes with an answer to Sandy's question. The essay includes extensive discussion of the role of the Revengelicals supporting Trump with several references to Armageddon.
SPAM I AM! seems to have a fetish about coming back for yet another ass-spanking. Maybe SPAM I AM! reads history but he has demonstrated he doesn't understand history and distorts history.
ReplyDeleteNats eliminated with Kershaw closing.
ReplyDelete"On what legal grounds would a court find this statute to be unconstitutional?"
ReplyDeleteTalk about not learning a damn thing, do you really not recall when I linked to several SCOTUS and appellate court cases about this? The statute is incredibly broad if read literally, (any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, Jesus, that could literally include my book of US fighter jets [it's a 'writing'...'relating to the national defense', or it could, as seems to be the case in Clinton's case, be you sending me an article about US drone use!), add to that the weaker-than-intentional mens rea and you've got a law that has long been looked at quite skeptically. It's incredible that a self styled 'libertarian' who caterwauls about government overreach can't see this right away, but I've long stopped taking your ostensible commitment against government seriously.
There was no Iraq War victory. The enemy was not 'destroyed' but then 'reformed.' You literally don't know what English words mean it seems.
ReplyDeleteIf you told me you finished building me a sturdy house and it collapsed the minute you took down your scaffolding it would be moronic to say your mission of building the house was accomplished.
Before your insane invasion Iraq was not a hotbed of jihadist movements. After the invasion it became that, and it still is that. The invasion sent over a million people into neighboring Syria, about 1 out 16 people in Syria for a time. Of course this had an incredible strain on the culture, infrastructure, etc. Add to this that suddenly they had a hotbed of Sunni jihadist activity on their border, and only a lunatic, or ideologue, could deny that this would exacerbate whatever tensions already existed in that nation. I mean, look, you and you're party are pants-crappingly afraid at the negative effect a relative *handful* of Iraqi (and now Syrian) refugees might have on this nation of 300 million, and yet you try to deny that over a million refugees in a nation of 16 million wouldn't have a huge effect on that nation? Incredible.
The very man who led this folly, Colin Powell, stated it correctly: your invasion broke Iraq and the neighboring areas (it really took a toll on Lebanon too, for example, it's just that they've always had a much healthier civil society there).
"Nats eliminated with Kershaw closing."
ReplyDeleteThat game was brutal, especially that one inning, and Scherzer looked so good right up to that point...While I feel for the Cubs, how about poor DC? DC will have to continue its drought of not even winning a playoff series (92 years!).
Mr. W.'s yeoman work hitting his head against a brick wall is appreciated. Really.
ReplyDeleteTrump's "prison for Hillary" talk is getting pushback including from Charles Krauthammer and John Dean. Dean included a link to classic speech by Robert Jackson on prosecutors. The speech is only eight pages and is very good.
https://verdict.justia.com/2016/10/14/prison-for-hillary
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/04-01-1940.pdf
I hope that Mr. W's repeated ass-spankings of SPAM I AM! do not result in carpal tunnel syndrome. But as to SPAM I AM!'s question:
ReplyDelete"On what legal grounds would a court find this statute to be unconstitutional?"
my answer would be on "as applied" bases because of the broadness of the statute as pointed out by Mr. W.
ReplyDeleteI doubt you will learn a damned thing, but let go through this for anyone who might be reading this thread.
On what legal grounds would a court find this statute to be unconstitutional?
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 9:04 AM
The people who read this thread are likely only more convinced that you are an imbecile.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMr. W: Jesus, that could literally include my book of US fighter jets [it's a 'writing'...'relating to the national defense', or it could, as seems to be the case in Clinton's case, be you sending me an article about US drone use!), add to that the weaker-than-intentional mens rea and you've got a law that has long been looked at quite skeptically.
ReplyDeleteOK, this was not the law I was expecting you to cite and is not the source of most of Clinton's criminal liability, but let's take a look.
When determining criminal liability, you always start by reading the actual law:
18 U.S. Code § 793(f(1)): Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed...
Then I start looking for jury instructions to determine what has been accepted by the courts and whether they properly describe the elements of the crime. In contradiction of your claim that Justice does not prosecute this crime out of fear of appeal, here are the Justice standard jury instructions:
§ 793(f)(1)
Title 18, United States Code, Section 793(f)(1) makes it a crime to allow defense information to be lost or stolen through gross negligence. For you to find the defendant guilty, the government must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that the defendant had been entrusted with or had lawful possession or control of;
Second, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information relating to the national defense;
Third, that the defendant permitted the above material to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of the defendant’s trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed; and
Fourth, that the defendant did so through gross negligence.
http://www.scd.uscourts.gov/pji/PatternJuryInstructions.pdf
Finally, I apply the facts of the case to the law.
Obviously, your book of US Fighter Jets does not fall under the materials protected by this statute. However, Clinton's reported emails discussing current DoD drone operations almost certainly does. Furthermore, Clinton provided these emails to people uncleared to receive the information and then attempted to destroy them.
The Constitution does not prohibit felony crimes from requiring lesser mens rea than intent. See the mens rea for the hierarchy of homicide crimes from capital murder to negligent homicide. There are also a handful of strict liability felonies.
Joe, thanks for the link to Dean's comments. Perhaps we can expect a critique by SPAM I AM! of Jackson's speech. While Dean pointed to the irony of Chris Christie's recent Bridge events on being formally investigated, he did not reference that perhaps the Christie's goal in supporting Trump is to obtain a "pardon me."
ReplyDeleteMr. W's concern with the curse of the DC Nats may serve as a cue to conspiracy theory gnats (aka the Trump campaign) to blame Hillary and Bill for contributing to the DC Nats curse. For a concise history of major league baseball in DC, check out Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Washington,_D.C._professional_baseball
And a reminder that the old Washington Senators were once managed by superstar and Mexican American Ted Williams. There were many years of "Diamond-lock" in DC before the Nats came along (although such gnats have long been there).
Bart,
ReplyDelete§ 793 f is the section that the FBI explored in Clinton's case.
"Obviously, your book of US Fighter Jets does not fall under the materials protected by this statute."
Why? Is it not a document or writing relating to the national defense? US fighter jets are a big part of our national defense. My book is about it. It certainly relates to that. And it's a document/writing.
See? The law is insanely broad. And the Courts have recognized that, and they've tended to interpret it with a delimiting interpretation which often requires 'bad faith' knowledge that the information you're disseminating could have an injurious effect on the US national defense.
Now, let's be clear: you haven't seen the emails in question. Comey and his team have. Reports are that the drone ones were a discussion of news articles about drones, and under the administration's bizarrely overbroad classification scheme any mention of drones gets classified (because we don't officially acknowledge their use in other countries iirc). Now, I know you're a committed ideologue, and by committed I mean committed to warping reality to please your partisan nature, but you really can't see how difficult if would be to prove that Clinton had a 'bad faith' knowledge that emailing someone a discussion about a news story about drones would actually injure the US national defense?
And that's just the start of the law's problems. Here's security law professor Steve Vladeck's account of other problems it has:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/07/the_hillary_clinton_email_scandal_shows_the_espionage_act_is_outdated.html
You're approaching this in such a layperson's abstract way that I again honestly wonder if you are as you claim to be a practicing lawyer. Things are more complex than just looking up the jury instructions and trying to shoehorn a real case, the facts of which you're ignorant of, into them.
Beyond her crimes, lies and corruption, apparently voters also have to consider whether Clinton is suffering from a serious traumatic brain injury dating back to the 1990s.
ReplyDeleteIn her court compelled interrogatory answers the Judicial Watch FOIA case, Clinton said she dd not recall in response to 21 of 25 questions covering some of the most basic operations of her illegal email system. This spell of amnesia is similar to the one she had when questioned about the Clinton Whitewater scam.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/14/hillary-serious-memory-problem-cant-recall-much-anything-emails/
BD: "Obviously, your book of US Fighter Jets does not fall under the materials protected by this statute."
ReplyDeleteMr. W: Why? Is it not a document or writing relating to the national defense?
When you attended law school, did you take the basic criminal law course? Did you pass it?
The reason I ask is the very first element of the jury instructions which you obviously did not read answers your question. The government did not entrust the book of US Fighter Jets to your care.
If you are going to claim that the courts hold otherwise, please provide case citations. I strongly advise that you put in more time reading any cases you are thinking about citing than you did reading the law. Nearly every case you have offered in past discussions did not address the substantive subject at hand or came to a different conclusion than you believed.
Your last paragraph is your usual projection. You've cited no case where I'm wrong here. And you of course only address one point of my multiple point argument. Which I'll respond to:
ReplyDelete"The government did not entrust the book of US Fighter Jets to your care."
Yes it did. I ordered it from the U.S. Printing office. Another one I've got on loan from the Naval Academy library.
See?
MW, you're blowing off the key element of the offense here: You would not be "in violation of your trust" by transferring that book to somebody else, because you have not voluntarily taken on any obligation to exercise special discretion in who it is transferred to.
ReplyDeleteUnlike anybody who has a security clearance, which is who this law applies to, not you or me.
People who have security clearances have special obligations in regards to such things, and they must acknowledge in writing that they know it. Note the first line: "Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information."
That, right there, with her signature on it, is why she's subject to this law, and you aren't. She has voluntarily forfeited any right to deny she's bound by it.
Now, this isn't a game of dodgeball so I'm not letting you dodge my main point and question:
ReplyDeleteNow, let's be clear: you haven't seen the emails in question. Comey and his team have. Reports are that the drone ones were a discussion of news articles about drones, and under the administration's bizarrely overbroad classification scheme any mention of drones gets classified (because we don't officially acknowledge their use in other countries iirc). Now, I know you're a committed ideologue, and by committed I mean committed to warping reality to please your partisan nature, but you really can't see how difficult if would be to prove that Clinton had a 'bad faith' knowledge that emailing someone a discussion about a news story about drones would actually injure the US national defense?
Securities law prof Vladeck provides another useful point:
ReplyDeleteDid Clinton’s carelessness, however extreme, “[permit] ... [classified information] to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of [her] trust”? What does that even mean in the context of intangible information discussed over email? The short answer is nobody knows: This provision has virtually never been used at least partly because no one is really sure what it prohibits.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMr. W: Here's security law professor Steve Vladeck's account of other problems it has: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/07/the_hillary_clinton_email_scandal_shows_the_espionage_act_is_outdated.html
ReplyDeleteVladeck poses a number of questions at the end of his op-ed which are easily answered by a lay juror applying the jury instructions:
Obviously, it’s easy to equate Clinton’s “extreme carelessness” with the statute’s “gross negligence.”
Yes. "Extreme carelessness" is merely another way of saying "gross negligence." The court will provide a jury instruction defining gross negligence.
But look closer: Did Clinton’s carelessness, however extreme, “[permit] ... [classified information] to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of [her] trust”?
Yes to both. Clinton placed this information in her private server and backed it up at a private IT company. Then she provided it to her uncleared attorneys for destruction.
What does that even mean in the context of intangible information discussed over email?
Intangible? The emails were discussing ongoing drone operations.
Brett: People who have security clearances have special obligations in regards to such things, and they must acknowledge in writing that they know it. Note the first line: "Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information."
ReplyDeleteGood point.
When she entered service as SecState, Clinton signed a detailed non-disclosure statement which explained her legal obligations under the classified materials laws.
And let's not lose fact of this: Bart insists, contra Comey, that aspects of the case such as confession, intent and delivery to a foreign power are no barriers to successful prosecution under this law. But after being repeatedly pressed he *still can provide no example of a successful prosecution under this law lacking those aspects.* Not a single one, even with his immersion into alt right media armies who've of course been scouring the earth to find such a case. Not one.
ReplyDeleteWhat stronger proof that Bart is wrong here could there be?
MW, you're blowing off the key element of the offense here: You would not be "in violation of your trust" by transferring that book to somebody else, because you have not voluntarily taken on any obligation to exercise special discretion in who it is transferred to.
ReplyDeleteUnlike anybody who has a security clearance, which is who this law applies to, not you or me.
You're missing MW's point. Everyone agrees that people in classified positions need to refrain from disseminating material "relating to the national defense". The problem with the statute is that the phrase "relating to the national defense" is overbroad and therefore unenforceable. Receipt of a security clearance doesn't and can't solve that problem.
Good lord Bart the word intangible refers to the emails themselves not the subject of them.
ReplyDeleteAnd you've offered nothing but ipse dixit 'a juror would know it when they see it' responses to the questions.
Mr. W: And let's not lose fact of this: Bart insists, contra Comey, that aspects of the case such as confession, intent and delivery to a foreign power are no barriers to successful prosecution under this law.
ReplyDeleteNone at all.
Do you see any requirement in the law or the Justice Department's own jury instructions for Clinton to confess, the mens rea element of intent or delivery of the information to a foreign power? (FYI, other parts of this law deal with the delivery of information to foreign powers)
Can you frigging read?
Given that the answer to all three questions is clearly no, this begs the further question of why an experienced prosecutor like Comey would make such factually erroneous arguments?
Stop deferring to authority and question everything.
Give that the
Brett
ReplyDeleteAs Mark has said. The concept is so potentially broad it's construed to have de limiting meaning which includes a showing that the person had 'bad faith'-knowledge that the info they were putting out there would/could be injurious to US defense. Now o ask you the question Bart is tap dancing around: if the emails in question were discussions of a news article about drones, do you really think it'd be easy to show that Clinton had a knowledge that that would injure US defense? Come on.
Mr. W: Good lord Bart the word intangible refers to the emails themselves not the subject of them.
ReplyDeleteThis is not clear, but your reading makes sense. Vladeck obviously has not worked in intelligence or in law for a very long time.
Electronic data is very tangible. Wikileaks deals in nothing but electronic data.
Under the law, emails are very tangible evidence, are discoverable and I use them as evidence at trial continuously in both their electronic form on my iPad or in their paper form for trial exhibits, which are then converted back to electronic form for ease of storage in the cloud.
Bart
ReplyDeleteThere's more to cases than the jury instructions. There's case law. You're being obtusely literal clinging to your instructions, but if the case law didn't require what I and Comey say then why can't you find one case demonstrating that? Why? The only explanation is that there are no successful prosecutions lacking such aspects. Your continued pointing to the literal reading of jury instructions doesn't eliminate that *fact.*
Mark: Everyone agrees that people in classified positions need to refrain from disseminating material "relating to the national defense". The problem with the statute is that the phrase "relating to the national defense" is overbroad and therefore unenforceable.
ReplyDeleteYou read this phrase in para material with the other elements of the law.
First, that the defendant had been entrusted with or had lawful possession or control of;
Second, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information relating to the national defense;
In sum, this law protects information relating to the national defense which the government entrusted to you.
How is this definition overboard? In other words, how is it likely to include unprotected information?
We can have a policy argument over whether all defense information the government provides its employees should b protected, but the phrase itself is not overbroad.
Mr. W: There's more to cases than the jury instructions. There's case law.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you are free to offer citations to cases which hold the Justice Department's jury instructions are unlawful.
If you cannot, all the jury is going to see when they retire to decide Mrs. Clinton's guilt are the jury instructions.
Electronic data is very tangible.
ReplyDeleteGood Lord, is English your second or third language? Emails are the very definition of intangible, you can't touch them!
Your second reference is an equivocation. Yes emails exist and the law takes cognizance of them, but that's not Vladeck's point. His point is the law was written at a time when it would have referred to recklessly leaving a sack of secret documents in the park. It's not obvious how this applies to the electronic sending of information, because all such transfers involve putting the information 'out there' into the inter tubes.
"Once again, you are free to offer citations to cases which hold the Justice Department's jury instructions are unlawful."
ReplyDeleteAnd then whatever the jury decides the appellate court tosses. Seriously, are you really a practicing lawyer?
The law as a whole is rather broad:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
For instance, Justice White cited a section in his concurring opinion in the Pentagon Paper Cases as a possible grounds to prosecute the newspapers, even if the material wasn't published. The specific section (f) also doesn't just covers "entrusted" though it's easier in this case, but as Mark Field notes, there is another problem. And, not just one,a s Mr. W.'s analysis over the last few months suggests.
As usual, the "there are many things wrong" rule kicks in here.
The emails may well have been 'intangible' in some sense. The hard drive they were stored upon was not.
ReplyDeleteShe, knowing she dealt in classified information, handed her email server over to lawyers who lacked any security clearance, to sort the work from the private.
For a period of time, her server was in the physical possession of a hosting company, also lacking clearance.
These are both very clear violations of the relevant statute, and not in any sense just because it was 'over-broad'.
Further, they were deliberate violations, because in both cases the easier course of action would have been compliance with the law. Not having a private server in the first place. Letting government lawyers with the appropriate clearances do the sorting.
She went out of her way to do things the way she did, so that she'd be able to do what she did: Delete a bunch of work related emails without anybody who wasn't personally loyal to her ever seeing them.
The whole purpose of having the private server was so that she could evade the FOIA, and fail to comply with subpoenas. It had no other purpose.
Joe
ReplyDeleteJustice Harlan referred to the law as a "singularly opaque statute.' But Bart assures us laypersons will easily apply it!
"These are both very clear violations of the relevant statute"
ReplyDeleteIs it? You haven't answered my rather direct question.
This is playing a game of whack a mole with the Black Knight. Short of Hillary confessing, Joe and Mista Whiskas are never going to admit she could be guilty of anything. To have a D after your name is to be innocent in their world. Reality must give way in the face of that.
ReplyDelete"The whole purpose of having the private server was so that she could evade the FOIA, and fail to comply with subpoenas. It had no other purpose."
ReplyDeletePeople repeatedly unnecessarily speak in extreme tones even when qualifications (e.g., personal convenience might be ONE purpose) are reasonably possible, don't stop you from making your case & even (by showing reasonableness) can help it.
For instance, those who supported Bush43's broad executive power arguments at times were upset he expressed them so extremely. See, e.g., Jack Goldsmith.
OTOH, if your case is your opponent is the spawn of Satan etc., might be necessary.
"To have a D after your name is to be innocent in their world"
ReplyDeleteMr. W.'s special concern for Democrats is strange given his voting history. Ditto the various conservatives who disagree with your analysis. Or, you just might be wrong.
Brett your projection is as astounding as your lack of self awareness.
ReplyDeleteYou're a man that is so convinced Hillary committed this felony and who is so ignorant of the law and misled by partisan press that when I asked you to provide a single example of a successful federal prosecution lacking the aspects existing in Clinton's case you actually supplied a case of the federal government dismissing an employee! It was not only not an analogous prosecution, it *wasn't even a prosecution at all!* You literally don't know what the bell you're talking about, yet you're absolutely convinced. What does that show?
Mr. W:
ReplyDeleteThe law covers information in general and contains no limitations on its physical form.
FWIW, you can physically touch and carry information recorded on variois types of drives. This us how those entrusted with this information generally remove it "from its proper place of custody."
Arguing that the law does not reach information in this form because the technology dud not exist at the time the law was written is as nonsensical as arguing that the 1A does not reach speech recorded electronically.
"How is this definition overboard?"
ReplyDeleteThis very case suggests how! If the law makes a felony from one government employee emailing another a discussion of a freaking *news article* on drones then the law is insanely broad. That two ostensible libertarians are trying to stretch the law to cover such behavior demonstrated the triumph of base partisanship of the moment over even a semblance of ideological principle.
You don't understand Vladeck's point.
ReplyDeleteEvery transmission of electronic information involves putting it 'out' into the inter tubes in a way quite different than handling physical documents would involve.
When you check you and your wife's bank account online, or send your wife an email with your banking information via your Yahoo account,with the same computer you use to watch porn, are you being careless or reckless with your banking information in the same way as if you'd left your checkbook in the park? That's what he's getting at.
"
ReplyDeleteMr. W.'s special concern for Democrats is strange given his voting history."
Yeah. I don't like her. I can state unequivocally I'll not be voting for her. I think she violated at the least the spirit of the FOIA laws. But our resident conservatives can't just say 'she's a fishy woman whose policies I think will be terrible for this nation'" they have to make it a federal case. Literally!
I think the fact that no case exists of a successful prosecution under this law lacking the aspects I've mentioned pretty clearly demonstrates that Comey's expressed view that such prosecutions are not done because of the conclusion that appeals courts might overturn them or the law itself is the right one. But at the very least it certainly drives a stake through the heart of Brett's tired line that Clinton got special treatment re prosecution under the Espionage act that less powerful people did. There are no examples of less powerful people who didn't confess, transfer info to a foreign power or have an intent shown being successfully prosecuted. None.
ReplyDeleteBD: "How is this definition overboard?"
ReplyDeleteMr. W: This very case suggests how! If the law makes a felony from one government employee emailing another a discussion of a freaking *news article* on drones then the law is insanely broad.
1) These emails reportedly did not merely include a discussion of a news article. The defense to which I believe you are referring was that the email discussion of drone strikes was also reported in the news and should not be covered under the statute. This is not a legal defense because part of the purposes of the classified materials laws is to prevent the confirmation of news stories concerning military operations. In that way, the enemy cannot be sure the news story was not deliberate misinformation.
2) Any emails discussing a news story does not involve information the government entrusted to Clinton.
I think the fact that no case exists of a successful prosecution under this law lacking the aspects I've mentioned pretty clearly demonstrates that Comey's expressed view that such prosecutions are not done because of the conclusion that appeals courts might overturn them or the law itself is the right one.
You keep repeating this claim. Do you have access to the prosecution history under this statute? Did Comey provide one?
But at the very least it certainly drives a stake through the heart of Brett's tired line that Clinton got special treatment re prosecution under the Espionage act that less powerful people did. There are no examples of less powerful people who didn't confess, transfer info to a foreign power or have an intent shown being successfully prosecuted.
This is a straw man argument.
Everyone who enters into plea bargains by necessity pleads guilty to the charge. If everyone is entering plea bargains, there are no cases to try. If these cases were unprovable or the law facially unconstitutional, then no one would agree to plea bargains sending them to prison.
1. You don't know what was in the emails. I don't either, but I'm not concluding anyone is guilty based on what may or may not be in an email you haven't seen. Comey has seen the emails, and he thought a case couldn't be made.
ReplyDeleteThere was a leaked report the emails were about a news article on drones.
2. The law does not just say 'entrusted' it says that *or* lawfully possessed or controlled. Another aspect of how potentially overbroad the law is.
3. Comey said there were no like prosecutions in the past fifty years iirc. And no conservative, including you and Brett, has been able to point to any contrary examples. Not even one. On the other hand successful prosecutions when those aspects are present abound and are easy to find.
4. Not everyone pleads guilty. Additionally, there are cases where there are confessions and then pleas (the one you cited for example). These cases are of course not analogous.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMr W: 1. You don't know what was in the emails. I don't either, but I'm not concluding anyone is guilty based on what may or may not be in an email you haven't seen. Comey has seen the emails, and he thought a case couldn't be made.
ReplyDeleteWe know several hundred of the emails contain classified information (which State redacted before releasing. Apart from leaks to new reports, we do not know the contents of the classified information.
This is why I noted above that the defense information statute is not the source of most of Clinton's liability. There are two other provisions of the Espionage Act concerning the storage (a misdemeanor) and provision (a felony) of classified information in general. There is far more evidence in the public domain proving those crimes.
2. The law does not just say 'entrusted' it says that *or* lawfully possessed or controlled. Another aspect of how potentially overbroad the law is.
What?
Try reading again for content:
18 U.S. Code § 793(f(1)): Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed...
Comey said there were no like prosecutions in the past fifty years iirc. And no conservative, including you and Brett, has been able to point to any contrary examples.
Comey did not release a prosecution history since 1917 and neither Brett nor I otherwise have access to this information. This information is buried in Justice Department files.
4. Not everyone pleads guilty. Additionally, there are cases where there are confessions and then pleas (the one you cited for example). These cases are of course not analogous.
Everyone accepting a plea offer pleads guilty. A plea offer consists of a plea of guilty to an agreed upon offense, setting the terms of the sentence an/or allowing the court to sentence the defendant within the statutory guidelines.
Let me elaborate on 4.
ReplyDeleteThe courts have not ruled the Espionage Act unconstitutional. What they have done is say that we're it read literally and broadly it would be so, and so they have construed it to, among other things, have a delimiting requirement of bad faith-knowledge that the information would be injurious to the national defense in the wrong hands.
In addition, court opinions, both majority, concurring and dissenting, have, while not directly overruling the law, criticized it as susceptible to be read and applied impermissibly broadly. Federal prosecutors know this and so they try to use the law only in situations where they've got more obviously nefarious cases.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMr. W:
ReplyDeleteOnce again, if you are going to discuss case law, please provide cites.
I am not particularly concerned with dicta unless the dicta from the majority, is addressing a case which is factually similar to Clinton, and the same majority would be ruling on her appeal from prison.
Alito [wary about invading the jury room] continued to press the defendant’s lawyer on the limits of the proposed exception.
ReplyDeleteIf “it came out the jurors said this person is a Democrat, send him to jail, that would be a different result?” Alito asked. “You will not tell us whether the rule would apply” in that situation.
http://www.bna.com/scotus-debates-breaking-b57982078582/
He just doesn't want any one with a "D" next to their names to be let off.
or having lawful possession or control of
ReplyDeleteIs it your argument that the later mention of trust makes these words surplusage?
"Comey did not release a prosecution history since 1917 and neither Brett nor I otherwise have access to this information. "
ReplyDeleteYou're being ridiculous. We live in the Internet age. We can find numerous cases of successful prosecutions where the aspects I speak of are present, we don't need Comey to provide a prosecution history. If cases where the aspects were lacking existed you'd have produced one by now.
They don't exist, just as Comey said.
"
ReplyDeleteI am not particularly concerned with dicta unless the dicta from the majority"
That's because you appear to be a fool. But non fool lawyers play careful attention to dicta from opinions suggesting that in a different case they might rule a different way regarding a law. Those who want to preserve such a law would then be careful not to bring such a case.
Btw-the first case with the line about delimiting language was Gorin v US. I've brought this case up numerous times before, in addition to subsequent circuit and district court rulings citing it, but you of course are intent on not learning a damn thing here.
Before this thread goes into moderation, I've been impressed with The Donald's adaptations of Alec Baldwin's SNL impersonations of The Donald.
ReplyDeleteMr. W: "or having lawful possession or control of" Is it your argument that the later mention of trust makes these words surplusage?
ReplyDeleteThe word "or" makes lawful possession an alternative to "entrustment." Entrustment applies to Clinton, who received his information as SecState with the highest security clearance.
BD: "Comey did not release a prosecution history since 1917 and neither Brett nor I otherwise have access to this information. "
Mr. W: You're being ridiculous. We live in the Internet age.
Would you be so kind as to provide us all with the link to the prosecution history of this provision of the Espionage Act since 1917?
I am not particularly concerned with dicta unless the dicta from the majority"
ReplyDeleteThat's because you appear to be a fool. But non fool lawyers play careful attention to dicta from opinions suggesting that in a different case they might rule a different way regarding a law.
The dicta of individual justices in dissent is not much of a clue to anything apart from the fact that the justice may dissent again in the future on similar grounds.
I pay attention to dicta from majority opinions unless the rest of the majority is rejecting the dicta in concurrences.
Query: Was there a concurring opinion in Heller (5-4)? If not, then SPAM I AM! "paid attention" to Justice Scalia's dicta?
ReplyDeleteShag:
ReplyDeleteA concurring opinion rejecting what dicta?
In any case, if Clinton wins, she will appoint a progressive who will not only ignore the late Scalia's dicta, but also the substantive rulings.
"The word "or" makes lawful possession an alternative to "entrustment." "
ReplyDeleteRight, but we were talking about concerns that the law in general was overbroad.
"
Would you be so kind as to provide us all with the link to the prosecution history of this provision of the Espionage Act since 1917?"
Again, you're being silly.
Comey said they reviewed and found no analogous prosecutions. And you and the right wing research brigades have found none to prove him wrong, and boy have you been looking (even to the point of offering unanalogous ones and being made to look silly). It's easy to find cases with the aspects, if cases existed without, which would verify your reading and counter Comey's, you could provide one.
But.
You.
Can't.
Not one.
"The dicta of individual justices in dissent is not much of a clue to anything apart from the fact that the justice may dissent again in the future on similar grounds."
ReplyDeleteReally, all the more the fool then are you. Many dissents become tomorrow's majority.
And often a dissent will say 'here's what he court didn't say today' and at times it indicates the justice's knowledge that a slight distinguishing factor would have caused a justice in a narrow decision to rule otherwise. The smart lawyer sees that as an invitation to or a warning not to bring such a case depending on what side they're on,
But that's ultimately irrelevant because there's examples of majorities warning of reading the Espionage Act too broadly.
Justice Goldberg's dissent in Rudolph v Alabama provides one of many possible examples of this common phenomena that poor Bart is oblivious of. In that dissent Goldberg argued the death penalty may be unconstitutional. Afterwards, many lawyers started to argue that very thing. Not too many years later the Court decided Furman v Georgia, ruling most death penalties unconstituonal. A few years after that, they ruled on Coker v Georgia that the death penalty for rape was out. Non fool anti death penalty lawyers read Goldberg's opinion and took the hint.
ReplyDeleteGoldberg writes about that here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V15/I1/Goldberg.pdf
I could not locate a concurring opinion in Heller (5-4). The majority opinion by Justice Scalia included dicta. Does SPAM I AM! ignore that dicta? There was no suggestion in my comment that he was referring that about any concurring opinion rejecting dicta in a majority opinion. I was merely testing his earlier statements on dicta in this thread. SPAM I AM! often sounds like a 2nd A absolutist. That Glock in his jock might end up neutering him.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a big SNL fan, but he does do a good Trump.
ReplyDeleteKate McKinnon is the clear star here -- she handles multiple roles well, the "day off" sketch regarding Trump's spokeswoman particularly amusing. And on point.
Mr. W:
ReplyDeleteYou are confusing an on topic dissent from a denial of cert with off topic dicta.
Two very different things.