Federalist: "Liberals May Not Wish To Hear It, But You Shouldn't Start A Quarrel Of Fists With 15 Guys In A Foreign Embassy"
From the Federalist article: "At this point, drawing on his terrorist training, the so-called journalist and probable Muslim brotherhood member began brandishing one of his stumps in an aggressive and threatening manner, forcing the 15 intelligence agents to defend themselves."
More from the Federalist: "President Trump was clearly gently and diplomatically rebuking the Saudis, not mocking the journalist, when he pantomimed an armless man struggling to avoid a bone saw, drawing raucous applause at a Tuscon rally."
The international community recognizes certain fundamental human rights: the right to free speech, to free worship, to be free of genocide and organized abuse, and the right not to take care of the goddamned cat if you don't feel like it cnn.com/2018/10/19/uk/…
I'm not the neatest guy ever, but no sovereign nation has ever had to issue a formal communiqué asking me to try to get my underwear in the hamper occasionally. Did Ecuador consider sending him some links to @jordanbpeterson videos? I understand that helps with untidy manchildren
I mean, "squatter posting Hillary memes in his underwear while Ecuadorans yell at him to empty the litter box" sounds like John Kennedy Toole lived to write another book
/2 First things first. Defamation requires a . . . anyone? Anyone?
Yes. A provable statement of fact.
Insult, rhetorical hyperbole, political bloviation, and opinion-based-on-disclosed-facts are not defamation.
/3 So, in the phrase "rat faced baby killer and Trump PR homunculus, Jason Miller," the words "rat faced" and "Trump PR homunculus" are patently not defamatory -- they're insults and rhetorical hyperbole. That's not defamatory. That's AMERICA.
Judge Otero issues order granting Donald Trump's anti-SLAPP motion, agreeing that the President's tweet about her was "rhetorical hyperbole" and not a provable statement of fact. The President can seek his attorney fees from Stormy Daniels.
So I’m walking back to my hotel alone fairly late last night and two young black guys turn a corner and are walking right behind me. And I’m thinking “the stereotypical old white guy is supposed to be made nervous by this but I’m not. Am I post-racist or just quite buzzed?” /1
/2 Then I think “wait. Or am I being self-congratulatory for simply momentarily not being a total asshole? And is recognizing the occasion for racism actually non-racist or is it apophasis, being racist by saying you’re not racist?”
/3 Then the two young black guys start talking about Pokémon Go and I think “okay, now you’re just fucking with me,”
So @jbarro and I were speaking at a private event last night and I was following him so we wound up at the wrong private event at the hotel and got drinks before we realized it, so thanks to @ComericaCares for the Pinot Grigio.
Yes I took the glass of wine with me as we left to find the right event because it seemed somehow less awkward than just setting down the full glass of wine and fleeing
So we show up at the CORRECT private event and there’s a cocktail reception and they’re like do you want a drink and I’m like no I got one on the way and they’re like “oh”
/2 Judge Ellis’s grumpiness comes in two parts. The first part has to do with the remaining counts before him on which he declared a mistrial after the jury hung on those counts. Those are in limbo right now.
/3 Manafort’s DC plea agreement is not a model of clarity about what’s supposed to happen on those counts or when. It is not surprising that vexes the judge. It’s not usual to keep live counts (with no guilty plea or conviction) open indefinitely.
/2 See, he penned a screed about the manliness of Kavanaugh and the sissyness of Democrats. It turned some heads.
/3 Then, in the face of turbulence, he retconned it, adding to the post asserting that it was satire in the style of Jonathan Swift, and condemning students for being ignorant of Swift and Horace and such satirical luminaries.
/2 Langbert, as is currently fashionable in some circles, wrote a belabored "oh come one everyone did that" post about Kavanaugh's alleged youthful behavior. It's what you'd expect from an average-literate Redditor. People are, understandably, repulsed.
/3 So. In analyzing whether the school may (never mind the philosophical question of SHOULD) fire him, we need to look at two things.
The first thing is any contract -- union or individual -- he has with the school. Many such things place restrictions on termination.
OK, Graham is a toad, but this is a (smug) reference to Democratic attacks on Clinton accusers in 1998 (Carville used that line to denigrate Paula Jones), and it's more than a little dishonest to clickbait it as if it's not.
/2 I mean, Graham still comes off looking awful, because he IS awful, and his defense of Trump's dickbaggery is feeble. But let's not be dishonest (or historically illiterate, not sure which).
/3 And, by the way, don't miss the absolutely fantastic Season Two of Slow Burn covering the Clinton impeachment, including unsparing looks at how badly some of his accusers were treated. I thought it was impossible to loathe Bill Maher more, but I was wrong!
A reminder from last month: evasive and non-responsive answers, even if misleading, aren't perjury. It's hard to prove perjury. [That's not to say that such evasion or dishonesty is right, or that it ought not be taken into account in evaluating someone.]
The Good Samaritan was the scripture today. Hard not to take it as a rebuke.
/2 Also, the Parable of the Samaritan today reminded me of a @englishhistpod episode talking about the words "kind" and "gentle," which are cognate. "Kind" is how you treat your "kin" -- your people -- as is "gentle," with the root "gen", people.
/3 The point being, I guess, that it's easy and natural to treat your own tribe well, so easy that even the snarky lawyer in the story knows to do it; less easy is treating the other tribes well.
Of all the awful things going on here, one is the notion that you can't examine any particular argument without taking a stand and defending the big picture/end result. e.g., don't criticize lie detectors, or don't question the opinion of a partisan prosecutor. /1
/2 The criticism is typically "you're not focusing on what's important, you're ignoring the important question, you're being a secret partisan for the other side."
This is stupid, and ignores how even minor supporting arguments and ideas gradually become accepted and influential
/3 Lie detectors are awful. The subjective opinions of prosecutors hired for political reliability are not neutral. These are bad arguments, and pretending they are not bad because they get us where we want to go is destructive.
Walking to appellate argument. Game face. Court mind.
As I drop off Bunker Hill on 4th there’s a man down the street, standing outside a store. He’s in cammos and a face mask. He’s staring me down. Staring.
He’s mad dogging me!
Oh no. Not on game day.
I stare back./1
/2. I stare back harder. Walking carefully now because I’m not watching where ibam putting my feet. His eyes are unreadable above the face mask. I don’t slow down. I don’t speed up. I walk. And I stare. I approach him. He stands rigid and still, a sentinel.
I'm going to do a one-minute promo for All The President's Lawyers at @PopUpMag this weekend and I'm trying to suss out whether it would be appropriate to use the term "Yeti pubes" or no
I mean I feel like I really restrained myself last time I was live. I listened to @sarafay and didn't mention ANY PUBES AT ALL, let alone Yeti pubes. I didn't use my line about Ed Whelan.
("This is not the sort behavior you expect from a former Scalia clerk, think tank leader, and serious political commentator. This is the sort of behavior you expect from a guy on Reddit who goes by the handle 'AdmiralBallsack.'")
/3 FRE 610 says "Evidence of a witness’s religious beliefs or opinions is not admissible to attack or support the witness’s credibility." In other words, you can't cross-examine someone saying "isn't it true you're a Jew," then argue they shouldn't be trusted because of it.
Today I celebrate a life: that of my grandmother, Annette Doyle, who passed today at just under 101. A life well-lived and an example to me. Here’s her favorite family picture. The photographer made a rude noise that alarmed the dog, and hilarity ensued. My is mom back left. /1
/2 I was blessed to have a chance to say goodbye yesterday and to help take care of her needs today. That is, after all, what this whole ridiculous business is about: that we’re here for each other, care for one another, and live in memory.
/3 I heard a great story about her today I hand them before. 1945, grandpa was coming back from the Pacific, due in SF port. She stowed mom with her parents and reserved a room at their favorite hotel in SF. But how to find him, to meet him?
What "rights" do Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford have in the confirmation hearing?
None -- other than the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
/2 The power of the Senate to confirm (or not) Supreme Court justices comes from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which says the President has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"
/3 (So the confirmation power is actually more a limit on Presidential power than a freestanding power of the Senate, but never mind that.)
I mean I don't read a lot of Ed Whelan and don't know him so I don't have a baseline but can any of his friends do some sort of wellness check? Because this doesn't seem like normal behavior.
Also, it’s just inexplicable to me that Whelan thought this would make Kav more sympathetic and his denial more convincing, as opposed to diverting everyone into accepting a starting presumption that that the whole Boat Shoe Gang is kinda rapey.
I mean, it’s the sort of argument you make if you’ve been up for 72 hours not talking to anyone else and putting Folgers crystals straight on your tongue