Watkins case. So we are back in court with this Jan 6 case. There is a superceding indictment that hasn't been made public yet, but the PD says they have a copy and they waive the reading of it and plead not guilty to all the (new" charges.

Now they are arguing the "crime of violence" issue. The PD says the govt is misapplying the Stokely case, which is about taking property from a person, not inanimate property.

Now the judge is asking the PD about the way govt is using the definition of "federal terrorism" as a sort of substitute for "crime of violence." PD is pointing to the bail statute as the thing that needs interpretation.

Watkins Case. For those who are interested, the section of law that Judge Mehta wants the Govt to pin down a position on is in the detention statute: 18 USC 3142(f)(1)(A)

/1.

(f) Detention Hearing.—The judicial officer shall hold a hearing to determine whether any condition or combination of conditions set forth in . . . this section will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required & the safety of any other person & the community—

/2

(1) upon motion of the attorney for the Government, in a case that involves—
(A) a crime of violence, a violation of section 1591, or an offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed;

/3

Watkins case. There is a detention hearing going on now for this Jan 6 case.

Judge Mehta is presiding. He is a full judge, not a magistrate. Watkins is currently detained.

Judge Mehta has expressed that he's not impressed w/the govt argument Watkins is a flight risk, given that she turned herself in. So he wants to know what the govt's theory is for the detention based on a "crime of violence" theory. Not just for this case he says, but generally.

The detention statute requires a hearing on the govt motion if they assert the charge is one that is a "crime of violence." This can be a very technical area of the law. It matters for whether there is a presumption of detention beyond the usual factors that apply.

The female equivalent song to me is this one, which I also love.

via @YouTube

Baby. Baby yeah
Are you listening?
Wondering where you’ve been all my life
I just started living
Oh, Baby, are you listening?
When you say you love me
No, I love you more
And when you say you need me
No, I need you more
Boy, I adore you
I adore you
Boy, I adore you
I adore you
/1

Baby can you hear me
When I'm crying out for you
I'm scared oh
So scared
But when you're near me
I feel like I'm standing with an army of men
Armed with weapon
When you say you love me
No I love you more
And when you say you need me
No, I need you more
Boy I adore you
I adore you

Valentine’s Day vibe.

via @YouTube

This song is so beautiful to me. Lyrics:

Whenever I'm weary
From the battles that raged in my head
You made sense of madness
When my sanity hangs by a thread
I lose my way, but still you
Seem to understand
Now & Forever,
I will be your man

/1

Sometimes I just hold you
Too caught up in me to see
I'm holding a fortune
That Heaven has given to me
I'll try to show you
Each and every way I can
Now & Forever,
I will be your man

/2

So Gina Carano’s Instagram post was not “abhorrent & unacceptable.” See for yourself - she’s saying normalizing the vilification of others is a totalitarian tactic. She’s right about that.

It seems she may have originally been targeted by libs for poking fun at pronouns.👇🏻& she voiced some views (in Nov) about election integrity that are far from crazy. None of this justifies Disney+ cancelling her. This is instead - free speech. In America we tolerate free speech.

So, if we’re serious about free speech & we’re serious about liberty & we’re serious about “we need to do something,” here’s what you do: you stop buying & consuming anything Disney until they repudiate this. And you tell them so. Civilly write & tweet them that you’re doing so.

An idea: You know what would be good? If the govt would be honest with people for a damn change. In my experience most people will accept restrictions & sacrifices for the greater good if they’re necessary & effective. But you have to explain them in order to get buy in. /1

The govt is not doing this about the covid vaccine. People think that once you’re vaccinated, how can you spread the disease? Isn’t that the point of vaccination- so you’re immune? So how does it make any sense to wear a mask after being vaccinated? /2

The thing is the govt isn’t explaining the situation so it makes sense. They aren’t explaining that some vaccines completely clear you of the disease - & therefore you can’t pass it on, which is called sterilizing immunity. The smallpox vaccine does this so we’ve eradicated it./3

This opening argument has several problems. The first is that it’s what lawyers call an ipso facto argument. “My point is proved by me saying it is.” “He’s guilty because he’s guilty.” The speaker assumes you already agree. That’s not persuasive & it’s logically flawed. /1

A second problem is that it’s claiming neutral facts are nefarious. Pointing out that Trump invited & encouraged people to come to DC on Jan 6 doesn’t move the needle on whether he incited them to insurrection. He’s arguing that fact like it’s damning; it isn’t. /2

When you argue every single fact as if it’s totally damning & the worst thing ever, you loose persuasive force. All facts don’t have equal weight. Certainly they don’t all carry the most weight. An unbalanced, non-nuanced presentation doesn’t persuade. /3

What happened is you lost because you are intolerant, arrogant & petty. You are the cause of the very problem you’re complaining about. My God, try to be a better person than this.

https://twitter.com/page88/status/1357901068596883456

And now she’s made her tweets private. 👇🏻🙄 If you’re not going to stand by what you have to say, then don’t say it.

Here’s a snippet of what her article said:

It’s not alleged he incited a plan. It’s alleged he incited an insurrection *by* his Jan 6 speech. Defending the charge as written is not “dumb.” That’s how defending works. The burden is in the accuser to specify the charge. /1

https://twitter.com/danielsgoldman/status/1356962391431532545

The article says the Jan 6 speech is “consistent” w/prior efforts by DJT to upend the election & points -only- to his call w/the GA Secretary of State, but it doesn’t actually allege that call incited violence (it clearly did not call for violence based on the recording). /2

Maybe if the House had not thrown the one article of impeachment together in a bum’s rush & had included moderates or even a few Republicans in the drafting, it wouldn’t be vulnerable to such defenses. But they didn’t, so this article is what you’ve got./3

He was outside in the cold for 3 minutes. #Ineedanap

Update:

100% recharged!

This is about @AmandaEnsing. 👇🏻She’s a Christian Republican. She’s being “cancelled” by @Sephora & the beauty/lifestyle influencer world. As far as I can tell it’s only because she’s conservative & supported Trump. E.g., she’s a “racist” because of it (she’s herself Latina). /1

https://twitter.com/dmb1031/status/1356011813687713794

This is the link to her Instagram post explaining the situation. The complaint comment Sephora is responding to is so generic -as it usually is in these situations. Amanda thinks it’s because of her religious & political beliefs. See for yourself./2

instagram.com/tv/CKsD2lNpoAj…

For context there’s this YouTube video from another beauty influencer who disputes Amanda is being mistreated, but after listening to her, it seems to me she just proves that it’s only support for Trump that’s the “problem.” Judge for yourself. /3

Hahahaha. I love when people say the 360 degree change in direction one! Really? 🤣

Reminds me of a real life story, which I will now tell. /1

https://twitter.com/CFKSherry/status/1354258136270594049

So hubs & I were coming home from Europe from our vacation one time (we go every year) & we’re seated in a row with two ladies who’ve been on a trip to Africa & are now in France for the last leg of their trip home to the good ole US of A. 🇺🇸 /2

And they are looking at the world maps on the screens on the backs of the seats in front of us showing our flight path back from Paris, which makes a big loop up along the Normandy/Britain/Iceland/Greenland/Newfoundland/East Coast path to NY/Philly, I can’t remember which now./3

Are you 12?

https://twitter.com/Wolfe321/status/1351637382756503554

Oh look. She blocked me. 🙄

She was a contract editor at the Times & was apparently fired after that tweet got criticism. Now folks on the left are claiming Glenn Greenwald & a “right wing mob” got her fired & that’s cancel culture, esp they say since other Times people didn’t get fired for misconduct./1

I am a wife.

You know why?

Because I’m a married woman.

So the controversy over the “gendered” language in the new House Rules is as follows.

1. The House Rules contain an anti-nepotism (you can’t hire your own relatives) provision.

2. To make that make sense, there’s a definition of who is included in the meaning of a relative.

/1

3. That definition is found in Rule XXIII, clause 8(c)(3). This👇🏻is what the definition said in the Rules for the last Congress (the 116th). It uses words like mother, father, wife, husband, daughter, son, etc. Words that convey gender. /2

WCWD?!

One of the values we need to return to is self-reliance.

You can build self-reliance by first doing it in small ways. Once you start doing it, you realize other ways you can do it & you feel more comfortable & confident in it & you can build more of it into your life. /1

Being self-reliant makes you freer. It gives you options & flexibility when things outside your control go wrong. You’re also less dependent on others & their potential failure, betrayals, mistakes, etc. I’m not recommending isolationism, of course. Just more self-reliance. /2

It becomes a mindset & if you make sure you don’t go overboard either, it’s healthy. Some examples to start with:

1. Spend less; save more & give more to charity.
2. Eat & drink less; walk or play or exercise more.
3. Watch less tv; read more.
4. Be online less; sleep more.

/3

So if the Congress is really going to impeach DJT again, here’s the thing on an “incitement” charge. As I’ve been saying, there is no basis for “incitement” as a matter of criminal law, based on his speech or his conduct overall. It’s not a legitimately indictable case. /1

Like many,(& probably most actually), lawyers, I do not believe impeachment requires that the conduct satisfy the criminal law to be impeachable. That is, just because it’s not a crime doesn’t mean it’s not impeachable. The criminal law is certainly a guide to use, however. /2

So for an impeachment on “incitement,” I suppose you look at the situation a bit more broadly than the criminal law does & say DJT created the environment that led to the storming. I personally think there are too many contributing factors to hold him responsible that way. /3

WCWD?!

First, we have to continue to believe in the Union & our republican form of govt. Belief is vitally important.

“One person with a belief is a social power equal to ninety-nine who have only interests.”

John Stuart Mill

BELIEVE in the Constitution & republican govt.
/1

To get perspective on yesterday’s events, I suggest today’s podcasts from @dbongino & @CamEdwards. Both are sober but not defeatist assessments & like me condemn all political violence. Dan is longer; Cam shorter. If you can’t listen today, just fit them in this week. Links👇🏻/2

Dan:

podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the…
/3

I know people are angry & upset. I am also. We face an existential crisis in our governance, our institutions & our values. And, it is made worse because our opponents are in denial about this or they know it & are for it. We must face this moment with courage & conviction./1

One thing we must do to conquer this challenge is renew our own commitments to our republican form of government, to our institutions & to our American values. Do not lose hope; do not lose faith in what we believe in; do not lose courage in the face of these adversities. /2

But we also need to be doing some things differently & be doing some new things. Each generation of Americans has had to adapt our great experiment to its times. We can as well. Our values & our institutions are true & good. They will endure if we defend them. /3

@Heretictus @AncientRedwood @Digitalis_Man You sue, you demand investigations, you vote them out, you demand the legislature investigate & write new laws, you run for office, you publicize the issues with press conferences, meetings, & papers, you call & email & write your representatives, you have rallies, . . .

@Heretictus @AncientRedwood @Digitalis_Man . . . you build coalitions, you create programs to teach people about the issue, you keep pushing your point. Do you think it was any less existential that women couldn’t vote, for example? /2

@Heretictus @AncientRedwood @Digitalis_Man Resorting to using the military to resolve legal issues & particularly those involving elections is to abandon the constitution altogether. There is no basis for doing that now. /3

Flynn case. J.Sullivan’s memorandum opinion on the Rule 48 motion to dismiss is completely inappropriate & he knows it. That motion was mooted by the pardon. In order to try & hide that fact, he coupled his order on that motion w/his order on the motion to dismiss for mootness.

He’s making it superficially look like the opinion relates to the mootness (pardon) motion, but it does not. It’s an opinion on the Rule 48 motion, not the mootness (pardon) motion. By putting those two motions together in one order, he obscures that distinction.

This is even clearer when compared to the other minute order he issued at the same time, which ruled that all the other pending motions were moot. The order on the Rule 48 motion should have been grouped with those too. It’s moot just like they are because of the pardon.