I would rather not have OTP filled with game comments as well. I am not sure why this is somehow an issue, but it seems to be.

Why even put it here? I mean are these the guys you want to sit around with and watch a game with? And more importantly do they?

There is no conversation to be had by simply telling us all the score of a game. And what the hell is so verboten about posting it in an old omnichatter? Or in the dugout?

There's a bigger margin on Lexuses than on Honda Civics, one assumes. That doesn't mean that it's difficult to find people willing to manufacture the latter.

Except you are. Ford is getting out of the car business and quite a few car companies have dropped or cutback their low end lines.

I didn't realize Ford ever manufactured the Civic. I didn't say that sellers will sell things that people don't want; I said sellers will sell things that have a low profit margin. Ford is getting out of the (domestic) car business because people aren't buying its cars, not because cars don't have a big enough profit margin. Most autos sold in the U.S. are trucks or SUVs, but there are no shortages of non-luxury cars in the U.S.

There is no conversation to be had by simply telling us all the score of a game.

Yeah, not to beat a dead horse, but this is kind of the key point. If Andy were just so excited about an unusual play that had occurred or a freak injury or something and he didn't have anywhere to discuss it, that might be one thing. (Not saying it would be appropriate here, but it would be understandable.) But all he's doing is posting ordinary scoring updates.

Re: teaching high school in Canada vs USA - my son trained to be a French teacher, and was offered a job for $50,000 Cdn ($40,000 US?) to star

I would rather not have OTP filled with game comments as well. I am not sure why this is somehow an issue, but it seems to be.

If there's no Omnichatter & no hope of getting one (which I doubt), surely the pop culture thread would make more sense for updates than OTP does.

I would rather not have OTP filled with game comments as well. I am not sure why this is somehow an issue, but it seems to be.

Again, it's only because there hasn't been any ominchatter posted for today, and the weekend omnichatter's dropped off Hot Topics. BFD all around.

If there's no Omnichatter & no hope of getting one (which I doubt), surely the pop culture thread would make more sense for updates than OTP does.

I'll bear that in mind.

As a matter of course, people have posted in the previous day's chatter when the current day's is late. That, however, requires not being too lazy to find it when it has fallen off the sidebar.

I'm not quite sure what your point is, SBB.

Maybe try reading what I wrote again? Not sure what to say beyond that.

They didn't decide that the bakers have a free speech right not to bake the cake, nor did they even decide (contrary to reporting) that the bakers have a free exercise right not to bake the cake. (They didn't decide to the contrary, either.) They ruled rather that the state's decision violated the bakers' free exercise rights because the state's decision was infected by anti-religious animus-

Never disagreed with any of that, or even hinted any disagreement with any of it. In fact, I wrote on the topic that the issue was narrowly decided, contextually, and that narrow decisions are properly to be preferred to wider ones when it comes to constitutional interpretation. I merely added the insightful point that it's going to be hard down the road, given what the various opinions said, for commissions to tell religious guys, "Bake," when they're telling secular guys, "You don't have to bake." Moreover, I correctly noted that the free speech issue wasn't addressed because it didn't need to be (*), but it remains a very potent argument for which there are at least two clear votes.

Unless you think that the Court made a sweeping claim about free exercise in this cake decision, you might actually be agreeing with DMN for once,

It would be more him agreeing with me, but YMMV I guess.

(*) See the majority opinion, as follows:

The freedoms asserted here are both the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise of protected speech. This is an instructive example, however, of the proposition that the application of constitutional freedoms in new contexts can deepen our understanding of their meaning.

...

Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality.

As a matter of course, people have posted in the previous day's chatter when the current day's is late. That, however, requires not being too lazy to find it when it has fallen off the sidebar.

And I'll pay particular attention to anything coming from you, I'm sure.

I am considering locking myself in a padded cell so I don't have to find out about any Texas Rangers scores for the rest of the season.

If Mets fans have to live with it, you can suffer as well.

Andy, given that it's known that at least some people here prefer not to be spoiled, if you just can't hold yourself back from sharing some sort of game-related excitement, how about simply a "hey, check out the Yankee gamecast" or something.

In these days of the DVR it's common to try and watch things later, and seems like a simple enough request to honor in the OTP thread. The pop culture and chatter threads are blissfully free of politics (and better for it!), we should make at least some effort to keep OTP spoiler-free. Please.

for saying stupid dilettantish stuff with a faux-authoritative tone

I really only fully appreciated this now.

Like I said last week, the best SBB is a projecting SBB. This stuff just writes itself!

I merely added the insightful point

Hot tip: If you have to keep referring to yourself as "insightful", you probably aren't.

JE, I'm honestly curious as to what your reaction would be if the hypothetical President Hillary declared that she could pardon herself as hypothetical special counsels hypothetically closed in on her for hypothetical Benghazi/ServerGate/Clinton Foundation mischief. Or the reaction of "the right" in general. Would it be a "Snore"?

Whether it would be a 'snore' or an 'LMAO' is anyone's guess.

JE, I'm honestly curious as to what your reaction would be if the hypothetical President Hillary declared that she could pardon herself as hypothetical special counsels hypothetically closed in on her for hypothetical Benghazi/ServerGate/Clinton Foundation mischief. Or the reaction of "the right" in general. Would it be a "Snore"?

You would be able to hear them screeching from Mars.

More shenanigans from the WITCH HUNTERS, this time in the DoD:

The Pentagon's Office of Inspector General has opened an investigation into allegations related to Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson, President Donald Trump's one-time personal White House physician whose nomination as veterans affairs secretary was withdrawn amid allegations of misconduct and poor administration of the White House medical office.

That Swamp, she is a drainin'! Or maybe not. Perhaps Scott Pruitt should look into it, after a good night's sleep?

— Charles Kushner, in an interview with The Real Deal, about his son’s ethics problems in the White House.

I didn't know Bill McNeal was still doing his show. Good for him!

"This is the part of my speech where I share some inspirational quotes I found on Google," Bowling said in his speech. "'Don't just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table.' — Donald J. Trump."

But then ... Crowd cheers when valedictorian quotes Trump. Then reveals it was Obama

No real point, just amused by the Valedictorian. Probably just a liberal elite though.

In equally amusing news ... Republicans Brace for a Brutal House Leadership Race

Top Republicans in Washington are increasingly skittish that heir apparent Kevin McCarthy lacks the support to succeed Speaker Paul Ryan atop the House Republican conference, paving the way for an ugly leadership fight that yields a dark horse candidate or a strident ideologue.

Much more after the link. Something to keep an eye on?

Or the reaction of "the right" in general. Would it be a "Snore"?

I think his point was that they'd simply skip the whole indicting process and impeach her. Not that this gets tested all that often, but the supposition is that for presidents, the law and the justice system don't matter anymore. Instead it is the House's role to accuse and the Senate's role to convict.

From the link in #120:

"There was a portion of the crowd that thought it was absolutely hilarious," Alisha Russell, a Kentucky law student who attended the ceremony said in a Twitter message.

This is one of my life's ambitions. To make a joke in a wedding toast that bombs except for one person falling out of their chair in the back.

I read DMN's posts in a Cliff Claven voice, and SBB's in a Foghorn Leghorn voice.

I find it adds depth and color to the exchange.

I say, I say, that's big idea you got there, and puts the whole thing in a new perspective, as it were. My word, you are a genius, I say, a genius.

I think his point was that they'd simply skip the whole indicting process and impeach her. Not that this gets tested all that often, but the supposition is that for presidents, the law and the justice system don't matter anymore. Instead it is the House's role to accuse and the Senate's role to convict.

(You forgot a step at the end)

And then indict her and "lock her up!"

(You forgot a step at the end)
And then indict her and "lock her up!"

True! Whatever happened to that campaign promise? I mean, what is stopping them?

"This is the part of my speech where I share some inspirational quotes I found on Google," Bowling said in his speech. "'Don't just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table.' — Donald J. Trump."

The thing is, this doesn't even sound a little bit like Trump's voice.

The thing is, this doesn't even sound a little bit like Trump's voice.

"No puppet, no puppet. You're the puppet."

Don't just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table.

Don't just get involved. Be the thing other people want to be involved with. Don't fight for your seat at the table. Make other people build the table around you. Better yet, make other people build the table around you and then stiff them on the bill.

Andy, given that it's known that at least some people here prefer not to be spoiled, if you just can't hold yourself back from sharing some sort of game-related excitement, how about simply a "hey, check out the Yankee gamecast" or something.

In these days of the DVR it's common to try and watch things later, and seems like a simple enough request to honor in the OTP thread. The pop culture and chatter threads are blissfully free of politics (and better for it!), we should make at least some effort to keep OTP spoiler-free. Please.

Sure, no problem. Won't do it again.

how about simply a "hey, check out the Yankee gamecast" or something.

That wouldn't work, because as notorious front runners, the only reason a Yankees fan would post something like that would be when the Yankees did something good.

Gee Bivens, glad you showed up to run your big dumb chowdah-guzzling mouth just when I had some tickets to tomorrow's game against the Tigers at Fenway.

BFD all around

Actually IT IS a BFD is someone is DVRing that game and you randomly spoil it. It's a total dick move, Andy/

I didn't know Bill McNeal was still doing his show. Good for him!

Gazizza, my Dillsnoofus!

The thing is, this doesn't even sound a little bit like Trump's voice.

Anyone who thought that would be something DJT would say should have their diploma taken away :)

I'm not quite retired yet. Besides, the wife beater is pitching. Can't condone that.

You would be able to hear them screeching from Mars.

I think you undersell the distance.

There's a bigger margin on Lexuses than on Honda Civics, one assumes. That doesn't mean that it's difficult to find people willing to manufacture the latter.

Except you are. Ford is getting out of the car business and quite a few car companies have dropped or cutback their low end lines.

I didn't realize Ford ever manufactured the Civic. I didn't say that sellers will sell things that people don't want; I said sellers will sell things that have a low profit margin. Ford is getting out of the (domestic) car business because people aren't buying its cars, not because cars don't have a big enough profit margin. Most autos sold in the U.S. are trucks or SUVs, but there are no shortages of non-luxury cars in the U.S.

To underscore David's point - YTD, Honda has sold just short of 145,000 Civics (Honda sells a very small percentage of cars to fleet customers, which is a very low profit part of the business); Ford has sold 156,000 Fucus, Fusion, and Fiesta combined, and almost a third of Ford's sales are to fleet customers.

EDIT: The Ford link isn't working. If you're interested, here's the url: https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North America/US/2018/06/01/18-may-sales.pdf

EDIT 2: You'll also notice that except for the F_Series, no Ford product has outsold the Civic, and only the F-Series and Escape have outsold the Accord. So consumers will indeed buy cars instead of SUVs.

I would drive a Ford Fucu.

BFD all around

Actually IT IS a BFD is someone is DVRing that game and you randomly spoil it. It's a total dick move, Andy/

Okay, now that's a point I should've thought of, but didn't. (I don't even have a DVR.) But it wasn't intentional, and it won't happen again.

other big political news: POTUS says he can pardon himself.

That got floated last summer too.

There's no actual answer to the question because it hasn't been tested yet in court -- no, Laurence Tribe and Norm Eisen aren't actually on the Supreme Court -- but there's a strong argument that he can. And the argument on the other side is no stronger. (I think the argument that he cannot is weaker but YMMV.) This is essentially a 50-50 question, and anyone who tells you otherwise is full of what makes the grass grow green.

But actually, even if Trump were to pardon himself today it would likely not be reviewed by the courts since it's a political question. What would probably have to happen for it to receive judicial review is that Trump would first have to be charged with a crime or indicted, with Trump pardoning himself either before or after, and then the prosecutor would ask a court to rule on whether the indictment could proceed.

But absent such a scenario taking place (i.e., an actual charge or indictment with Trump self-pardoning himself) Trump could likely pardon himself and others without the issue being reviewed by a court during his term or possibly even ever.

By the way, if anyone's interested in the actual legal argument, rather than just bloviating about how terriblehorriblemadfascistevil Trump is for taking -- as president -- the utterly unremarkable view that he can pardon himself, here's the starting point:

Article II, Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Thus the textual argument is that Section 2 gives him the unfettered power to grant pardons for federal crimes, and does not carve out an exception for pardoning himself. Instead it states that he simply can't pardon himself from impeachment.

That's a pretty strong argument that he can self pardon.

As I said, the courts haven't ruled on the issue, and -- even now -- a self pardon would likely not be reviewed by the courts unless Trump is indicted and raises the pardon as a defense and thus a prosecutor goes to court to try to quash the indictment.

The best counter argument is probably that there is a longstanding tenet of judicial review that nobody can be a judge in his or her own case (*). But to my mind that general tenet doesn't outweigh the specific text of Article II, Section 2. The Framers could easily have prohibited self pardons. They did not.

The main takeaway though is that when Trump says he can pardon himself he is not advancing some conspiracy theory or crazed frivolous legal argument as his detractors imply. The constitutional/legal argument is strong, and those who claim it isn't -- or that Trump is being authoritarian when he says this -- are either not being intellectually honest or don't understand the legal and constitutional issues at play.

Edit: (*) In counter to the counter argument, the president is not acting as a judge but simply in a political capacity using the powers granted to him under the Constitution. In counter to the argument that a self pardon would be prohibited as self-dealing, obviously presidents can act in nepotistic ways -- even while using the pardon power. Bill Clinton pardoned his brother.

And (as to self-dealing) George Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five others when their investigations could have potentially led to an indictment of Bush. Bush's pardon of Weinberger et al Stopped All Investigations. And yet few people a quarter century ago uttered a peep about Bush's pardon of Weinberger and friends being obstruction.

I thought you nerds would get a kick out of this one:

Low IQ scores predict excellence in data science

Here are two IQ test questions for you:

Fill in the blank in the sequence 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, __ , 49, 64, 81.
What number comes next in the sequence 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, .. ?
Please stop and think about these questions before proceeding. Spoiler alert: the blog post reveals the answers.

President Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani reportedly said Sunday that Trump could shoot former FBI director James B. Comey in the Oval Office and still not be indicted for it while still serving as president.

On this score Trump probably loses. This too is an unsettled question, but the text of the Constitution doesn't speak to this issue. The closest the Constitution comes to addressing this is Article I, Section 3:

“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

Thus in effect the Constitution says that an impeached official (including an impeached president) can be indicted. And the Constitution never says that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Thus to me the stronger argument is that a sitting president can be indicted (although the argument that he cannot be does have merit - it's just that it's weaker). This is consistent with my view that Trump can pardon himself: the Constitution speaks explicitly to his pardon power but does not have an exception for self pardon.

To reach the conclusion that Trump can't be indicted while in office you have to make an implicit or structural argument, which I think is the weaker argument. (Note to the Trump critics, however: Trump asserting this would not be frivolous or crazy or dictator-y; it's a credible argument, just weaker.)

What everyone agrees about is that the president can be indicted after she leaves office, unless she's pardoned.

And (as to self-dealing) George Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five others when their investigations could have potentially led to an indictment of Bush.

Eric Holder thinks you're an idiot.

"Bottom line: Holder said Trump issuing pardons "will not ultimately thwart the Mueller investigation." That’s because "if Bob Mueller, for instance wants to take a pardoned person, put that person before a grand jury, that person no longer has the ability to say, 'I'm going to invoke my Fifth Amendment right'" and "that person then becomes a perfect witness for the special counsel.""

Omega Dancing Monkey moron.

Note to the Trump critics, however: Trump asserting this would not be frivolous or crazy or dictator-y

Note to Ray; yes it would. The fact that a power made dictator wannabe might twist the spirit of the American Constitution to "say" this doesn't mean his desire to do it isn't dictatorial and authoritarian. You give aid and comfort to the enemy by doing this, Ray.

(I don't even have a DVR.)

WTH, Andy, are you still taping movies off cable directly onto VHS cassettes? :)

Low IQ scores predict excellence in data science

It's an interesting premise that vaguely reminds me of a principle in textual editing: lectio difficilior. The idea is, if you have two manuscripts of a classical text, and one has a weird word and the other a common, expected word, you assume that the author actually wrote the more difficult, weirder word. The idea is that the scribe copying one of the ms. was smart and literate, and mentally corrected the weird word to a common linguistic pattern à la the squares or the Fibonacci sequence in math.

Here's more to frame the discussion about whether a sitting president can be indicted.

This from a 2000 Jusitce Department memo summarizes the view of the 1973 JD:

"In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions." But this argument is not all that persuasive because a special counsel investigation such as Starr's or Mueller's is constitutional.

Conclusion:

"1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this ques­tion directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitu­tionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution."

Mueller may consider himself bound by this guidance.

According to Giuliani -- and take it with a huge grain of salt since even when Giuliani isn't lying he's often confused about the legal issues -- Mueller's team acknowledged to Trump's team that Mueller would follow Justice Department guidelines and not indict sitting President Trump. At least, that's the only way I see to logically parse Giuliani's comments. Giuliani actually said that Mueller's team "acknowledged" that they "can't indict" Trump, which makes no sense; they can choose to follow Justice Department guidelines but they aren't bound by a court of law on this issue. Mueller's team might lose in court -- though on this issue I doubt they would -- but even if one thinks they'd lose that doesn't mean they can't try.

Giuliani also said that Mueller's team "acknowledged to us orally" that they "understand that they can't violate the Justice Department rules." Again -- they certainly CAN "violate" (that's the wrong word) Justice Department "rules." Because they're just Justice Department "rules" (really just guidance or a legal opinion as far as I understand it) and the "rules" represent the views of past Justice Departments -- not necessarily the present Justice Department -- and under different factual circumstances.

Note that Clinton tried hard to argue that he couldn't be forced to appear for the Jones civil deposition -- he threw every legal argument he could against the wall -- and the Supreme Court ruled against him thereby rejecting a sitting president's immunity for civil litigation. Whether this extends to criminal litigation has not been tested.

But while arguing that the president has the theoretical ability to pardon himself, Giuliani and other Trump allies on Sunday nonetheless rejected the reality of such a brash move — in part because of the political backlash they said could lead to Trump’s impeachment.

Claiming unrestricted authority for Dear Leader but couching it in "but he's benevolent" is precisely what fascists do. Which you know. Because it's why you support them. The world will be better at your death.

You're out of your depth here. Again, the framers could quite easily have excepted self-pardons from the president's pardon power. ("No president can pardon himself.") They did not do so. That makes Trump's argument strong.

If you want to call the framers fascists, go right ahead. But all you're doing is flame throwing. You can't actually discuss substance, because you don't know anything about the underlying subject matter and you don't understand the constitutional/legal issues at play.

You can't actually discuss substance, because you don't know anything about the underlying subject matter

Tell us again how climate change is a hoax.

Note to the Trump critics, however: Trump asserting this would not be frivolous or crazy or dictator-y

Note to Ray; yes it would. The fact that a power made dictator wannabe might twist the spirit of the American Constitution to "say" this doesn't mean his desire to do it isn't dictatorial and authoritarian. You give aid and comfort to the enemy by doing this, Ray.

This cannot be said loudly enough. The way Hitler (the real one, not the clown one) amassed power and control, was entirely by working with the powers that were vested in his office, to which he was democratically elected. (most notably his power to dissolve the Reichstag and force reelections).

The notion that something cannot be authoritarian or dictatorial just because it is legal is beyond stupid. See for example also the frequent authoritarian but legal actions of the police.

I thought you nerds would get a kick out of this one:

Low IQ scores predict excellence in data science

Here are two IQ test questions for you:

Fill in the blank in the sequence 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, __ , 49, 64, 81.
What number comes next in the sequence 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, .. ?
Please stop and think about these questions before proceeding. Spoiler alert: the blog post reveals the answers.

Eh too cute by half. It wants to try and argue that the obvious answers are 'wrong,' and that the more convoluted answers are 'correct.' But that is of course silly. They are both correct solutions to the problem. Given the data presented, both fit the sequence. Not every problem has a single solution (and often you cannot be expected to be able to list all of them). That should be doubly obvious if you are talking about the field of mathematics.

You cannot from the data presented, insist that only the more complicated answer is the only correct one. Trying to do that is actually far more wrong, than simply giving the simple and obvious answers.

You can't actually discuss substance, because you don't know anything about the underlying subject matter and you don't understand the constitutional/legal issues at play.

I'm not sure you do either. I mean, you've been one of the many talking heads with law degrees who have struggled to understand that Giuliani & friends should not be judged based on the strength of their interpretations of Madison v. Marbury or whatever, but rather on the approval polls that Yankee Clapper mysteriously stopped posting last year.

David N, #53:

No, it is a cliché. One pretty well undermined by the 2016 election, when the same silly idea that women voters were desperate for a woman candidate was not reflected in the vote.

Eppur si muove towards her. Hillary Clinton's margin over Trump among female voters was larger than Obama's over Romney.

Really? That's what you're going with? First, it's not even accurate -- quoting Pew:

Women supported Clinton over Trump by 54% to 42%. This is about the same as the Democratic advantage among women in 2012 (55% Obama vs. 44% Romney) and 2008 (56% Obama vs. 43% McCain).

-- since these are surveys, there are margins of error, and you can't draw any firm conclusions from 1% swings. Second, even if it is accurate, it rather supports my argument that women voters were not desperate for a woman candidate. Instead, women voted how they always do.

You and others had no problem citing the same infirm, potentially errant surveys back in 2015-16, when declaring that Hillary Clinton could not and would not improve on the existing 2012 vote margin among women. But she did improve on it.



Mouse, #121:

In equally amusing news ...

Republicans Brace for a Brutal House Leadership Race

Top Republicans in Washington are increasingly skittish that heir apparent Kevin McCarthy lacks the support to succeed Speaker Paul Ryan atop the House Republican conference, paving the way for an ugly leadership fight that yields a dark horse candidate or a strident ideologue.

Kevin McCarthy will have the GOP House's full support for as long as he wants to.

In these days of the DVR it's common to try and watch things later, and seems like a simple enough request to honor in the OTP thread. The pop culture and chatter threads are blissfully free of politics (and better for it!), we should make at least some effort to keep OTP spoiler-free. Please.

I figure that if a game that I'm trying to DVR gets spoiled, there are two silver linings. If my team wins or is winning, I'm still going to be happy, even I was trying to avoid the score. If my team lost or is losing, then I'll be glad I didn't invest 2-3 hours in watching them for no reason. Hell, even when I DVR a game (less frequent now that I stream baseball and hockey), I usually start fast forwarding as soon as they start losing.

In other sports news, the White House has designated itself a giant safe space for special snowflakes offended by the big mean black men in helmets.

President Trump announced Monday the Philadelphia Eagles will not visit the White House this week to celebrate the team's Super Bowl win amid the national anthem dispute.

Trump, in a statement, said the team is "unable" to attend the ceremony because they don't agree with his belief that NFL players should "proudly stand for the National Anthem, hand on heart, in honor of the great men and women of our military and the people of our country."

Note: the link and quote are from different sites, but same difference.

Having only now noticed greenback's name, I would simply like to say I used to live on the 700 block of West 23rd in Los Angeles, a stone's throw from the 110.

Having only now noticed greenback's name, I would simply like to say I used to live on the 700 block of West 23rd in Los Angeles, a stone's throw from the 110.

Checks out.

And (as to self-dealing) George Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five others when their investigations could have potentially led to an indictment of Bush. Bush's pardon of Weinberger et al Stopped All Investigations. And yet few people a quarter century ago uttered a peep about Bush's pardon of Weinberger and friends being obstruction.

I recall a fair bit of noise about it, but three things make it very different from Trump:

-Bush was on his way out of office. And while he lost and wasn't particularly popular, he was widely respected as a statesman and as a decent person. Trump is not respected at all. His base worships him, many Republicans tolerate him, but nobody respects him. That goes a long way in a political affair.

-Bush had recently sent troops to Somalia and media attention was leaning there.

-There is a fundamental difference between pardoning another and pardoning oneself.


But don't listen to me, listen to the DOJ, which said that Nixon couldn't self pardon

-There is a fundamental difference between pardoning another and pardoning oneself.

Wow, you must have gone to super law school!

Much more after the link. Something to keep an eye on?

Only if you have a glass eye that is not otherwise being used.

Here is my new mantra for most of these things

Checks out.

Before 105 existed, in fact.

President Trump announced Monday the Philadelphia Eagles will not visit the White House this week to celebrate the team's Super Bowl win amid the national anthem dispute.


He's such a pussy, he should grab himself.

Before 105 existed, in fact.

That's a mark against your credibility. It's THE 105.

The argument that the civic is outselling other cars is not proof that there is more than a little market for lower end cars. The lower end cars used to be the market and now they are not. Car companies have cutback their lines or have gone away and the lines they have cut have been at the low end of the car lineup.

Unemployed hobo Jon Stewart says some things.

“[There's a] yearning in America right now that this is a dragon that can be slayed. ...Everybody’s looking for a shortcut. It’s really quite simple. What is the opposition party? Oh yeah, the Democrats. If they could come with like, I don’t know what you would call it, a set of ideas. And then they would say them in a way that didn’t seem fucking weird. And then, like, the people would—understanding how the Electoral College works—vote, and then I’m assuming at that point he has to leave.”

“We mistake cultural power for power.” ... When a clip of him or John Oliver or Samantha Bee “eviscerating” someone on the right “went viral,” Stewart would think, “Great. What happens next?” Meanwhile, the Tea Party was “off the highway by Stuckey’s taking over school boards.”

“Please understand that a lot of what the right does, and it’s maybe their greatest genius, is they’ve created a code of conduct that they police, that they themselves don’t have to, in any way, abide.”

The right described him as a “tool of the Obama presidency,” because he made two visits to the White House. Meanwhile, Trump “spoke to the head of Fox [News] and strategized with him on a weekly basis and uses their on-air talent as advisers.” He told liberals, “Don’t get caught in a trap of thinking you can live up to a code of integrity that will be enough for the propagandist right. There isn’t. And so, create your own moral code to live by, but don’t be fooled into trying to make concessions that you think will mollify them.”

“They don’t give a shit about the word ‘cunt,’” he said of the Trump administration. “That is probably—he says that instead of ‘please,’ I’m guessing.” (And it is true that there are numerous reports of Trump himself using the “c-word” word over the years, including one on camera.) Seeming to imply that Bee shouldn’t have apologized, Stewart said there is nothing anyone can do to “make them give up this ‘We’re the real victims’ game,” because, “it’s a game, it’s a strategy, and it’s working.”

Does the phrase "pardon oneself" even make any sense?

Again, the framers could quite easily have excepted self-pardons from the president's pardon power. ("No president can pardon himself.") They did not do so. That makes Trump's argument strong.

Well it means that his argument can't be immediately dismissed out of hand. Like if he said "congress CAN make a law that restricts practice of a religion"

But it's a pretty weak argument that he can actually pardon himself, as that is not explicitly said either. Seems pretty likely it didn't occur to him. Since it took 200 years before someone even tried it.

I do think there is a reasonably strong argument that POTUS can't be indicted (he has to be impeached and removed first)

Actually IT IS a BFD is someone is DVRing that game and you randomly spoil it. It's a total dick move, Andy/

Were you fellas seriously wigging out on Andy because he posted the score of a game in June? (scratches head)

EDIT: I'll concede that his generous use of bold print was decidedly obnoxious.

It's moot anyway, if he does leave office Pence will pardon him. And this is presuming that if he actually did anything worth indicting/convicting/pardoning , congress would have the sack to do it.

I recall that one week before the 2016 election, there was an article asking whether Hillary as POTUS could pardon herself, with the author answering in the affirmative. If I can find a link, I'll share it.

I recall that one week before the 2016 election, there was an article asking whether Hillary as POTUS could pardon herself, with the author answering in the affirmative. If I can find a link, I'll share it

Thanks, that'll bring me around to supporting Trump. At first I was worried that he was a megalomaniac authoritarian, but if there was an article about Hillary two years ago, that makes all the difference :)

I don't know if Pence would pardon him. It really depends on how much Pence is entangled in the mess as well. I seriously doubt Pence is going to be the good commander and take a bullet for the disgraced leader. I'm guessing in whatever time Pence has left in office he is going to what to accomplish things and try to get things done for his base. Pardoning Trump doesn't really achieve that.

JE, it wasn't a week before the election, but there was an article on Dan Abrams's site.

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/a-president-hillary-clinton-could-pardon-herself-and-congress-might-be-helpless-to-act/

And here it is, kinda re-done and re-posted, in late October 2016.

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/if-hillary-is-indicted-president-clinton-could-pardon-herself-and-congress-might-be-helpless/

You're really surprising me lately, Jason. Yes, to take your unnecessarily flippant remark seriously, I have heard of impeachment. In today's environment it's extremely unlikely. The GOP would never do it, and the Democrats doing it would be a disaster absent clear documentation of Trump actually committing crimes.

You assume much, my friend. A POTUS pardoning himself would be unprecedented; it's very silly of you to assume there would be no consequences.

The BEST people!

And here it is, kinda re-done and re-posted, in late October 2016.

Thanks, DJS. Yes, that's it.

Why would you need to tamper witnesses when you didn’t do anything wrong and you can get pardoned anyways. I suppose all the lawyers here will say this is not unusual?

Thanks, DJS. Yes, that's it.

This reads like one of those straightdope or xkcd/what-if articles. Like how exactly would you die if you stopped eating and how long would it take? How quickly would you die if the sun stopped burning, etc.

A disturbing tweet from Chuck Ross:

Simona Mangiante tells me that George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to Mueller after being told he would be charged as a foreign agent of Israel. Special Counsel declined comment.

Emphasis mine.

I read the linked article and unfortunately Ross didn't follow up with Mangiante on her comment. Someone needs to ask her whether her husband was ever in close contact with Israeli officials. Because if not, then Meuller needs to be called out. His focus (obsession?) on Israel is decidedly unhealthy and noxious.

obsession?

Now that's a VERY strange corner case where HRC is indicted BEFORE stepping up, right?

FTFA

There remains a possibility that self-pardon is grounds for impeachment as an abuse of power.

Gee, ya think?

His focus (obsession?) on Israel is decidedly unhealthy and noxious.

Well you would certainly know, JE.

baking

as is often the case, the "surprise" affirming view - written by Kagan and joined by Breyer, may be the most interesting in what seemed like a difficult case:

"It is a general rule that [religious and philosophical]
objections do not allow business owners and other actors
in the economy and in society to deny protected persons
equal access to goods and services under a neutral and
generally applicable public accommodations law.”

But in upholding that principle, state actors cannot
show hostility to religious views; rather, they must give
those views “neutral and respectful consideration.”

I join the Court’s opinion in full because I believe
the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not satisfy that
obligation."

Look if Blagojevich didn't pardon himself, ain't no one gonna do it.

obsession?

Jordan Schachtel sums up the concern. Additionally, Mueller's supposedly investigating both Wikistrat and Psy Group, two Israeli entities.

Well you would certainly know, JE.

Awww, did the mohel lop off a little too much of your schmekel? Is that why you became such a hater?

Regarding pardoning, I was under the impression that a person can't be pardoned until after they have been convicted. Is that not the case? I know about Ford/Nixon, but that seemed to be a just "let's move on" kind of thing and it was never challenged. I don't know if that set a precedent, or if there were other "pardoned for anything he might have done" cases before that.

Looking for information here, because I know I don't understand.

In case anyone missed it, this was the most interesting article I've seen all day, perfect for bookmarking for reference. It's dated the 29th, but it just crept up to the front page of the WP's website today:

How the NRA transformed from marksmen to lobbyists

Gun control tapped into the turmoil of the 1960s, exposing tensions of race and class, and between rural and urban Americans. The National Rifle Association, founded in 1871, 100 years after the Founding Fathers inked the Second Amendment, began to wield power by amplifying its members’ fears of being disarmed in lawless times, and it used that energy to influence gun legislation in Washington.

How the assassinations of 1968 led the NRA to become the lobbying force it is today

A timeline of NRA influence on gun laws ....

For a newspaper article it's fairly comprehensive, and the graphics alone make it well worth a look.

I was under the impression that a person can't be pardoned until after they have been convicted. Is that not the case?

No, that's not the case. The Constitution places no such restriction on the President's pardon power, and it has been used without a conviction in many instances, even if post-conviction relief is more common. When Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to the Vietnam era draft evaders, for example, he included many who hadn't been convicted since they fled the country.

Imagine being one of the quoted people on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Essentially, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that you're a giant jerkass.

It has been my experience that most people on a state or local board are giant jerkasses.

I'm more of a where the 605 meets the 405 guy.

Seriously, this Manafort thing is crazy. He tried to witness tamper using electronic devices that sync to a remote cloud? While out on bail? With the whole FBI gunning for his ass?

What a moron. This really is stupid watergate.

That's a mark against your credibility. It's THE 105.

It wasn't in 1993 what it is now, so I'm justified. You kids and your easy route to LAX.

It wasn't in 1993 what it is now, so I'm justified. You kids and your easy route to LAX.

Right, didn't anyone watch Speed?

And here it is, kinda re-done and re-posted, in late October 2016.

The hilarious thing is that this article goes even further for Hillary than anyone -- even Trump supporters, even Trump's lawyers -- has gone for Trump. It argues that a hypothetical President Hillary, indicted after she took office, cannot even be impeached after a self-pardon for crimes that she carried out before she took office. Applied to Trump that would mean that even if he did collude with the Russians to win the election and Mueller charged him with crimes stemming from that pre-election behavior and then Trump pardoned himself, he nevertheless cannot be impeached for that:

So, assuming Clinton follows the latter approach and issues the self-pardon, where does that leave Congress? Could the House of Representatives start impeachment proceedings based on the criminal indictments?

That answer to that question is a resounding “no.”

Under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, “The President… shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

...

In Clinton’s case, however, the conduct underlying this hypothetical indictment occurred prior to her taking office. The House of Representatives, as far back as 1873, has determined that a person cannot be impeached based on conduct prior to them holding office. In other words, House precedent says a President Hillary Clinton could not be impeached as president for crimes related to the e-mail server or the Clinton Foundation.

In 1873, the House of Representatives considered impeaching the Vice President for crimes committed before he took office. After considering the matter, the House determined impeachment was only proper for crimes committed while in office.

So, under this precedent, a President Hillary Clinton could pardon herself without the Congress being able to do anything about it.

However, all options may not be exhausted. There remains a possibility that self-pardon is grounds for impeachment as an abuse of power. Furthermore, there is the possibility of impeaching Clinton back from her time as Secretary of State.

Regarding pardoning, I was under the impression that a person can't be pardoned until after they have been convicted.

No, that's not correct.

I don't think there is such a thing as House precedent.

I don't either, which shows the lengths people were willing to go to to argue that Hillary would have been able to pardon herself.