Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

And it turns out the special grand jury recommended charges for a whole bunch more. Which is interesting.

Juries are comprised of people who don't have anything important enough to do to get themselves excused. Grand juries, which sit for exceedingly long periods of time, are comprised of people who truly, seriously, have nothing more important to do in their lives, if they have lives of any useful kind at all. I wouldn't be surprised at anything one of those juries does. Particularly a state one, in the south.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That protest held outside the match, on the grounds, would have been totally fine. To do it in the match is the height of narcissism and extreme fundamentalism. They did nothing but harm their cause.

I understand that climate-change activists feel that the danger of climate change is so great that they need to engage in civil disobedience to highlight it to an apathetic world. I respect that they are willing to suffer the consequences entailed by civil disobedience. But the apparent decision to focus on disrupting sporting events seems totally misguided and uphelpful to me, a calculated decision to piss people off with very little prospect of mobilizing public opinion in any kind of useful way, quite the opposite actually.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Juries are comprised of people who don't have anything important enough to do to get themselves excused. Grand juries, which sit for exceedingly long periods of time, are comprised of people who truly, seriously, have nothing more important to do in their lives, if they have lives of any useful kind at all. I wouldn't be surprised at anything one of those juries does. Particularly a state one, in the south.

When I have been in a jury pool I would have loved to have been seated. I'd sit back and watch. But yes, a Grand Jury, I don't get how anyone can do that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I used rights where I should have used interests, but I think it's because I was leapfrogging to effect. The interests are manifesting themselves as rights, or preclusion of the rights of others.

The interest, the impulse, to use your term, becomes the basis to assert a right to do something, or a right to stop someone else from doing something. The right wing and the progressives each power over-- well... everyone. Sometimes de jure, sometimes de facto. Where they can't acquire the former, they use the latter. Boycotts, book banning, cancellation, soft censorship of antagonistic views as mis/dis/mal-information.

You transitioned very quickly to focusing on speech.

The right and left are authoritarians, and that is not false equivalence.

This is nonsense, in two different ways. First, you're not really talking about "authoritarianism." You're talking about the tolerance for different views in the marketplace of ideas.

Second, equating the right and the left is nonsense on stilts. You can observe that there are people across the political spectrum who do not want to tolerate certain ideas. But there is such a vast, vast, vast difference between (a) the conservative states that are outsourcing public-school curriculum to PragerU, closing and banning books from libraries, and forbidding students from learning about historical racism; (b) centrists like the Washington Post editorial page that fetishize balanced budgets and entitlement cuts and will not discuss alternatives; and (c) lefties who shout down conservative speakers at universities, etc. Grouping them all together (as "authoritarians," no less) is just sloppy and obtuse, like equating elephants and mice as grey mammals.

They are engaged in a zero sum game and the impact of their authoritarian impulses is a preclusion of rights. Free speech? Sure, you have it. But not in Florida.

What zero-sum game? WTF? When DeSantis punishes Disney for disagreeing with him, he gains, corporations lose, and the left isn't involved.

And not if you want to keep your job at a corporation that has embraced the "correct politics" of the day.

Corporations are not "the left," duh. There are many of them and they aren't exactly known for tolerating leftist speech. Many corporate employers are quite conservative in important ways, to state the blindingly obvious.

What you're really beefing about is that the mainstream has accepted views ("correct politics") that are not yours. But you don't want to argue about the substance of that, in part because you know you're in a minority, so you'd rather foster a grievance that you are somehow that victim of "authoritarians."

The right is Orwell. The left is Huxley.

Not even sure what you're getting at here, but you said "Orwell" so I'm sure Hank will be on it.

They're both Trumpian. And they both want society to reflect what they think it ought to be. And they're pretty damn adamant about it.

When you find yourself explaining that the left is Trumpian, you ought to stop, take a few deep breaths, pour yourself a Negroni, and try to figure out where you took the wrong turn.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

When I have been in a jury pool I would have loved to have been seated. I'd sit back and watch. But yes, a Grand Jury, I don't get how anyone can do that.

When I was at DOJ, a colleague got seated for a four-month trial. It sounded pretty cool. I would love to be on a jury, but have never had the chance. I got called to voir dire once, but I had a connection to one of the firms that got me excused immediately.

I get another shot a week from Monday.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

When I was at DOJ, a colleague got seated for a four-month trial. It sounded pretty cool. I would love to be on a jury, but have never had the chance. I got called to voir dire once, but I had a connection to one of the firms that got me excused immediately.

I get another shot a week from Monday.

When I was a big law a young litigation associate told a Judge (from the box) "I am a litigator on major lawsuits. I cannot expend the time." The Judge did not excuse him, but one of the lawyers did. The Judge called the firms head of lit and Junior got yelled at.

I was in the box once. The case was a murder trial. Prosecutor explained the evidence was heavily scientific, things like fibers. When he heard I was a patent attorney he looked at me curiously, like trying to figure out if I'd be good or bad. I'd have been bad. He was going to try and pitch "science=magic" and i have clients that make test equipment and put effort to invent ways to reduce errors.

D Counsel asked the pool, "Hypothetical, say we don't have the trial, we just ask you all now is my client guilty, what is your verdict." I told her it was sort of a silly question because Prosecution carries a heavy burden and we have not seen any evidence.

I can't remember which bounced me, and whether it was because I'd be a wildcard for their case, or just because I was an asshole.

Oh, but if looking at a 4 month trial I'd get myself bounced using the best trick I've ever seen- the Judge is doing the VD and asking some old guy questions, OG just kept saying "huh?" Got out right quick he did!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That "if" is what has to be proven. I thought he made the call before the litigation was over, but even being wrong about that, Trump never agrees he lost any court case. His asking for votes is consistent with his past refusal to accept defeat and a belief that the court didn't have adequate proof before it and he was seeking that proof.

Uh, no. The call happened on January 2. The court cases were over. Agree completely that he refuses to accept defeat, but don't get why you see that as some sort of justification.

I think roping in inner circle types like Giuliani is smart. But 18 people many of whom have never even heard of each other? And I'm not speaking to legitimacy. I'm handicapping based on practicalities.

You don't seem to be considering the additional leverage the State gets. Some of them have started to defend themselves by saying they were only following his orders, which tends to strengthen the case against him. Charging people incentivizes them to flip.

I didn't say they were. But when you start mixing non-criminal acts with criminal acts, you invite both confusion, doubt as to which is and isn't criminal, and the defense that the case is criminalizing politics.

Oh, come on now. Every single complaint I have ever read incudes facts that tell the story but are not elements of prima facie claims. It's necessary for context. The notion that doing this here is "criminalizing politics" is sophistry. Saying this belies an intentional ignorance of everything in the indictment that isn't a part of ordinary politics.

She has a rifle. There's enough to nail a tight crowd of inner circle types who have solid criminal exposure. I think using the shotgun is a strategy error. But that's just me. I've never been the sort to sue everybody one can just to be careful because it makes a messy case. I think the smarter approach is to do your due diligence and sue the people you're certain have liability.

You seem to think that she has sued people who she doesn't think have certain liability. Whom do you mean?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Sebby, the report today is that Fani Willis could have indicated double the number of people she did:

An Atlanta-area special grand jury that spent months investigating alleged 2020 election interference in Georgia by Donald Trump and his allies agreed that the former president should be indicted in the case and also recommended charging one of Trump’s closest associates, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), and 37 other people — a far larger group than a prosecutor ultimately charged.

WaPo

Wonder if this changes your view at all.

eta:

And now Meadows's bid to remove to federal court has been rejected, which undermines his defense. Doesn't that make Willis's decision to charge him look better?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You transitioned very quickly to focusing on speech.

It's the most lurid example of authoritarian behavior by the right and left. Abortion could be used just as well, but it's one sided, the right being the sole authoritarian. Speech involves the extremes of each of the parties.

This is nonsense, in two different ways. First, you're not really talking about "authoritarianism." You're talking about the tolerance for different views in the marketplace of ideas.

Intolerance, actually, manifesting itself as authoritarianism.

Second, equating the right and the left is nonsense on stilts. You can observe that there are people across the political spectrum who do not want to tolerate certain ideas. But there is such a vast, vast, vast difference between (a) the conservative states that are outsourcing public-school curriculum to PragerU, closing and banning books from libraries, and forbidding students from learning about historical racism; (b) centrists like the Washington Post editorial page that fetishize balanced budgets and entitlement cuts and will not discuss alternatives; and (c) lefties who shout down conservative speakers at universities, etc. Grouping them all together (as "authoritarians," no less) is just sloppy and obtuse, like equating elephants and mice as grey mammals.

Taking them apart and laddering them in regard to wrongness avoids the essential binding element - the problem: A desire by significant numbers of people to not be confronted with views that don't fit the way they insist the world is or should be. "I want the world to be what I want it to be and I'm done with having anyone challenge me!" The mindset is this warped belief, similar to the fabulist view that one can will himself to success, that if one simply shuts out inconvenient facts, they disappear.

Sorry. The math and data are: Trump lost. The math and science are: There are not 37 genders. Etc.

What zero-sum game? WTF? When DeSantis punishes Disney for disagreeing with him, he gains, corporations lose, and the left isn't involved.

The zero sum game is the effort, by the likes of DeSantis, to shut the mouths of those with whom one disagrees. Make them disappear. DeSantis passed that unconstitutional "don't say gay" bill and has banned LGBTQ books because he knows - a large voting bloc doesn't want to entertain views about sexuality or gender that deviate from their views. They instead want to shut down those views entirely. If that isn't Orwellian, what is?

Corporations are not "the left," duh. There are many of them and they aren't exactly known for tolerating leftist speech. Many corporate employers are quite conservative in important ways, to state the blindingly obvious.

You know what I'm talking about. We all know it. We've all got friends in the C Suite or on boards. You can bust them about the extreme DEI and ESG pieties and they'll in very, very private confines admit to thinking it's moral panic, a religion, or a bullshit scam for consultants to make money. But they sure as fuck aren't going to say that out loud to any friends. To even challenge it is to put one's career at risk.

What you're really beefing about is that the mainstream has accepted views ("correct politics") that are not yours. But you don't want to argue about the substance of that, in part because you know you're in a minority, so you'd rather foster a grievance that you are somehow that victim of "authoritarians."

You have me exactly backwards. I want people to stop telling other people that they may not challenge certain things, that they may not credibly critique certain things without being pilloried or professionally ruined. CRT in schools? By all means. Expose kids to every imaginable idea and let them see if they buy it. Vaccine denialism? Let it rip. There is no greater rebuttal to RFK Jr. than to hear the man's incoherent lunacy on vaccines. Hunter's laptop? Jordan Peterson's shtick? 1619 Project? Transitioning children? All totally fine with me. My view is let it all rip, and - and - let everyone who wants to call bullshit on any of these things rip them to fucking shreds. And any sorts who want to buy into them? Do so. Good for you!

All of these are, btw, fringe ideas/idea peddlers.

Extreme ESG/DEI is not a thing among the 60% of businesses in the US that are small businesses. And a huge percentage of those who work in large corporations don't give a fuck about these things.

The majority of the country is in the middle. They'd prefer people stop telling each other what they can and cannot read and fighting about trans people, who make up .0005% of society.

We don't give a fuck about people's strong emotions about their pet issues, or those people, even. But we very much don't like twits telling us we can't drink Bud Light (I wouldn't anyway) because a cross dresser did an ad for it. And we don't want to be told we have to listen to claptrap about inclusion if we don't feel like it.

Not even sure what you're getting at here, but you said "Orwell" so I'm sure Hank will be on it.

The authoritarianism from the left is Huxley - subtle, nudging. From the right, it's Orwell. Statutory, enforced.

When you find yourself explaining that the left is Trumpian, you ought to stop, take a few deep breaths, pour yourself a Negroni, and try to figure out where you took the wrong turn.

A venn diagram of the mindset those kids at the US Open and Trump would be a circle in this essential regard... Both live in their own realities. And they insist the rest of us do so as well.

Any sane person concerned with climate would understand the very best thing he could do is organize lobbying to get more nuclear plants built and encourage conversion of coal and oil plants to natural gas. That's the necessary next step. And that's non-negotiable. There is no fantasyland where solar and wind are the next conversion.

But no. Instead, they're going to disrupt a tennis match. Throw a tantrum. Like Trump. "I get to live in my world and everything around me must adhere to it!"

[sebastian_dangerfield]

[QUOTE=Tyrone Slothrop;533896]

Uh, no. The call happened on January 2. The court cases were over. Agree completely that he refuses to accept defeat, but don't get why you see that as some sort of justification.

I'd make the case he is organically deranged, if not insane. And I think he clearly is. I'd argue this guy is so fucked up, obviously, he really cannot believe it when he loses at anything. And I'd have forty years of media clippings to prove that case.

But he won't use that angle. He'll instead seek to prove the election was actually stolen. Which is probably a better angle as it eats the argument that he believed it was stolen.

You don't seem to be considering the additional leverage the State gets. Some of them have started to defend themselves by saying they were only following his orders, which tends to strengthen the case against him. Charging people incentivizes them to flip.

Orders from who? Trump's m.o. thru life has been to never explicitly give an order to anyone. Just let it be known what he desires and have lieutenants give the orders. Unless she's flips Rudy, how's she get the big dog? Maybe Meadows. Maybe. I see your point.

Oh, come on now. Every single complaint I have ever read incudes facts that tell the story but are not elements of prima facie claims. It's necessary for context. The notion that doing this here is "criminalizing politics" is sophistry. Saying this belies an intentional ignorance of everything in the indictment that isn't a part of ordinary politics.

Again, I'd use a rifle. The more ambitious and broad the case, the more potential black swans it invites.

You seem to think that she has sued people who she doesn't think have certain liability. Whom do you mean?

I think the low level operators like that young female lawyer they charged are not liable. And the other local counsel who were merely lobbying officials. That shit happens in elections all the time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby, the report today is that Fani Willis could have indicated double the number of people she did:

An Atlanta-area special grand jury that spent months investigating alleged 2020 election interference in Georgia by Donald Trump and his allies agreed that the former president should be indicted in the case and also recommended charging one of Trump’s closest associates, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), and 37 other people — a far larger group than a prosecutor ultimately charged.

WaPo

Wonder if this changes your view at all.

eta:

And now Meadows's bid to remove to federal court has been rejected, which undermines his defense. Doesn't that make Willis's decision to charge him look better?

I read a few articles about that. My view is Willis has a template - she's done RICOs before - and she's defaulting to it. Smith could've done something similar, but I think he more wisely chose to narrow his focus. One of the two is going to try a case in the near term. And it won't be Willis.

Maybe Willis' aim is to provide proffers Smith can use? If there's coordination, that'd be pretty smart.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

When I was at DOJ, a colleague got seated for a four-month trial. It sounded pretty cool. I would love to be on a jury, but have never had the chance. I got called to voir dire once, but I had a connection to one of the firms that got me excused immediately.

I get another shot a week from Monday.

When I was called, I knew the court administrators handling jury selection. I gave them the "You know they're going to reject me... Can you just tell the lawyers I'm a lawyer?'

The answer was a smiling "no."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I understand that climate-change activists feel that the danger of climate change is so great that they need to engage in civil disobedience to highlight it to an apathetic world. I respect that they are willing to suffer the consequences entailed by civil disobedience. But the apparent decision to focus on disrupting sporting events seems totally misguided and uphelpful to me, a calculated decision to piss people off with very little prospect of mobilizing public opinion in any kind of useful way, quite the opposite actually.

No one is protesting to change minds.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

When I have been in a jury pool I would have loved to have been seated. I'd sit back and watch. But yes, a Grand Jury, I don't get how anyone can do that.

I spent 6 weeks on a DC grand jury as a first year associate. Fungible billing units can do it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

No one is protesting to change minds.

Ty, Sebby and I all agree those knuckleheads hurt their cause, not help it. Understand? When is the last time Ty, Sebby and I agreed on anything?