domain:freddiedeboer.substack.com
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
11hr ago
Nothing is particularly funny about Slaughterhouse-Five, which I think was OP's point.
SwordOfOccam
13hr ago
Why would these methods fail now?
Sure COVID was a thing in 2020, but Trump was in power and already suspicious of rigged elections. Despite that, the rigging took place ant 10% and there was no concrete evidence?
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
15hr ago
That's nothing. I know a guy who watches movies and TV shows on 2x or more.
felis-parenthesis
17hr ago
I seem to be missing vital context, necessary to follow the law review article. In the United Kingdom the problem of "who pulled the trigger" is solved by the notion of joint enterprise
Until 2016, the courts interpreted the law to mean that if two people set out to commit an offence, and in the course of doing so, one of them commits a different offence, the other person will also be guilty of that offence if they had foreseen the possibility that it might be committed.
For example, if two people set out to commit a robbery, but in the course of the robbery one of them pulls out a knife and commits a murder, the other party will be guilty of murder on a joint enterprise basis if he foresaw this as a possibility, but did not himself intend it.
Thinking about that myself, it strikes me that even UK law is not quite ruthless enough. Here is my theory of how a "two robbers, one shot" case should go.
"proof beyond reasonable doubt" is not a terminal value. The actual goal is to solve an optimization where the two big desiderata pull in opposite directions. First, one wants to live under a justice system that suppresses robbery and murder, so that one does not get robbed or murdered. Second, one notices that justice systems tend to turn into injustice systems. A naively designed justice system will turn into a graver risk than that posed by robbers and murders constrained by no justice system at all. At least in the absence of a justice system one may possess weapons and fight back.
The social dynamic is that a naively designed justice system that suppresses robbery and murder is a power honey pot that attracts the worst kind of people. In time the police force is manned by two kind of people. The first are smart criminals who join the police to abuse police powers and rob and murder under color of law. The second kind of person starts of good, but is corrupted by absolute power and the malign influence of the first kind of person.
We have solutions to these problems. We split the justice system into three parts. The police investigate. The Crown Prosecution Service presents the case to the judge. The judge listens attentively to the defense explaining why the prosecutor is wrong. The instrumental value "proof beyond reasonable doubt" is there to poison the honey pot. Only nerdy, wannabe Sherlock Holmes become detectives and their personal motivation is to crack the case and find out who really did it. Needing to provide convincing proof for the prosecutor to present to the judge filters out personality types who would otherwise be draw to the power wielded by the justice system. The wrong kind of person is filtered out because the system wields power as a system; no individual gets to indulge their personal power trip.
Return to the "two robbers, one shot" conundrum. We don't actually care which one pulled the trigger, and are happy to hang both of them. That works well to further the first goal of suppressing robbery and murder. If we care who pulled the trigger, a smart robber might find himself a stupid and violent partner, to do the bloody part and take the drop if the victim dies. Ugh! We don't want that. But what of the second, more troubling goal, of poisoning the power honey pot, to avoid attracting the sort of person, attracted to police work for power and personal gain? The prosecution still need to prove the robbery element beyond reasonable doubt. And they still need to prove the murder, except for exact attribution, beyond reasonable doubt. I think that the honey pot remains poisoned, even without needing to say which robber fired the fatal shot.
dasfoo
20hr ago
But that’s the entire point. You needed to do it with an intent to defraud and commit another crime. If he wasn’t thinking at all about that, then that is proof he didn’t commit the crime.
Yeah, I agree. But Trump is his own worst enemy and creates most these problems for himself. It's hard to feel sympathy for him when he is essentially dooming himself by repeating the same mistakes over and over rather than adapting -- even though I think he is being unjustly persecuted in a way that really hurts the entire country. Even if he's the least-bad part of this whole debacle, I can only shake my head in pity at mess he's put himself in.
zeke5123a
23hr ago
Ehh the focus has been very heavily on “this is wrong” and not “Trump’s atty did a bad job.”
The WSJ piece is from their news section which is quite progressive. The opinion section is not forgiving this show trial.
pm_me_passion
אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה
19hr ago
Gvir
LOL. Shortening Ben Gvir to ‘Gvir’ is like shortening ‘McDonald’ to ‘Donald’. You’re betraying a ridiculous lack of familiarity.
You seem confused about the analogy, as well. The analogous act would be that republicans tried to overthrow American democracy on January 6th, and that your former president told you to grab women by the pussy. Does that make more sense now?
pm_me_passion
אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה
19hr ago
To make your defense more explicit, are you arguing that now that you’re done with the genocide, it has become immoral? Was it not immoral in the 19th and 18th centuries, only arbitrarily now when it’s convenient for you?
omfalos
17hr ago
I wouldn't say an invasion is likely, but China has an ace up their sleeve which they can use to win a war against Taiwan, and the ability to win affects the probability of invasion. If Taiwanese shore defenses, the US Navy, and the US Air Force are strong enough to defeat China's initial invasion force in a conventional amphibious assault, China can launch a second wave and give it an improved chance of success by DETONATING SUPER EMPS IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE OVER TAIWAN TO FRY THE ELECTRONICS OF ENEMY FORCES.
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
21hr ago
My understanding is that the law says that if the expenditure would not have occurred but for the candidacy, then it is a campaign expenditure. If it would have occurred anyway, then it is not. So in reference to the Trump case, the question is if Cohen would have paid off Daniels if Trump had not been trying to get elected. Presumably, the jury was satisfied that the evidence showed he would not have.
Rov_Scam
22hr ago
Tagging @zeke5123a since this response also applies to his comment from yesterday that I didn't get a chance to respond to.
You're confusing mistake of fact with impossibility. Mistake of fact is a defense that obviates some element of the crime, the classic example being the theft of property one wrongly believes to be his own. If I take a coat similar to mine from a coat room at a bar because I thought it was mine, I can use mistake of fact as a defense because I haven't formed the sufficient mens rea. Factual impossibility, on the other hand, is generally not a defense but the opportunity to even raise it is so rare that it's not really a huge issue. The hypothetical I gave doesn't involve impossibility, though, because the conduct doesn't amount to attempted murder. There's no generally recognized point at which mere preparation becomes attempt, but it's but it's basically hornbook law that lying in wait or looking for the intended victim don't rise to that level. Cases involving this test usually focus on things like whether the bullet you fired had a realistic chance of hitting the target, which is well beyond what I presented.
The reason I presented that specific fact pattern is that it illustrates a point I'm trying to get — the intent requirements of some crimes don't require you to prove those other crimes. The crime of burglary developed at common law specifically because the act of breaking into someone's home did not in and of itself rise to the level of attempt, but the courts agreed that it was still a crime. So when New York law prohibits anyone from falsifying business records with the intent of concealing another crime, whether or not you can prove that he committed another crime isn't important. Whether or not you can even specifically identify that other crime isn't important. With respect to crimes like this, there's a certain res ipsa loquitur aspect where the mere commission of the act is evidence of intent in and of itself; if a defendant is found having broken into a jewelry store with his face concealed and in possession of burglary tools, the prosecution usually doesn't have to go any further than that to show intent. They don't have to — what some are suggesting would be required in Trump's case — give extrinsic evidence showing that the defendant broke into the building specifically to steal jewelry.
The fact that Trump may not have violated election law is therefore irrelevant. The fact that the prosecution couldn't demonstrate the very specific scienter requirements required to prove an election law violation are also irrelevant. Trump wasn't charged with violating election law. The elements of the crime he was charged with are independent of the elements of the crime he is alleged to have concealed. You may not like this, or think the DA is stretching the law, but that's just The Way It Is, and it's been that way for a very long time. If you're looking for an appellate court to overturn the conviction because you disagree with one or another of the principles involved, that's fine, but even as someone who's broadly liberal I don't know if I'd welcome that, as it would give the Warren Court a run for its money on how defendant-friendly it is.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
18hr ago
I think there are some bad things in the religion, like ethnocentrism.
Jew-hater
No more than a Jew who critiques Christian culture is a Christ-hater.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
21hr ago
lands stolen by genociding the natives and importing slaves
It’s generally acknowledged that humans have moved past 19th century norms. We treat natives as fully human now, and most of the globe also considers Palestinians human now too. So the moral questions are significant. And in the article the oppression of Palestinians is considered both factual and significant by none other than —
-
Maj. Gen. Yehuda Fox, once head of Israel’s Central Command
-
Ami Ayalon, head of Shin Bet from 1996 to 2000
-
Mark Schwartz, American three-star general, once the top military official working at the United States Embassy in Jerusalem from 2019 to 2021
-
Judith Karp, then Israel’s deputy attorney general for special duties
These are not exactly renowned antisemites we are talking about. I don’t know anyone more important whose testimony should be heard short of Yahweh appearing on Mt Sinai again with a PowerPoint on his tablet.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
21hr ago
Maybe he does? I hate this idea that only Jews living in Israel have the esoteric moral knowledge regarding Israel. Sorry but you have been a controversial nation for decades, lots of people know how Israeli politics work.
Really? Can you explain in detail the Israeli parliamentary system, the various factions that are currently part of the government coalition, how Haradim are currently seen by the right and the left, exactly when the Israeli left and support for a two-state solution collapsed (hint: long before October 7), and numerous other surface-level details about Israeli politics? Not even getting into esoteric or political wonk territory? Do you know how the feelings of Israelis in Tel Aviv and in the settlements differ? Do you know why Netanyahu was on the verge of being turned out just before October 7? Can you explain the controversy that was the top Israeli political issue the day before October 7?
I don't think you can (you, specifically, because your analysis of Israel always begins and ends with "Jews"), and I think very few people can, especially outside of Israel, in the same way that most people in the world have a general understand of American politics (they know we're essentially a two-party system with Republicans=conservative and Democratics=liberal), but how many of them understand the electoral college and why there is so much emphasis on "swing states," the implications of mid-term elections, the factions within the Republican and Democratic parties, and other more complicated details that only someone who is actually knowledgeable about the political system can describe?
Rov_Scam
21hr ago
It's not a crime to try to conceal personal information, obviously. But whether or not that was Trump's intent in falsifying the records is a question for the jury. My point was simply that that the statute he was charged with violating has a lower standard of proof than the underlying act itself, and that the evidence was sufficient for the government to make a prima facia case; doing so doesn't require them to prove the underlying act, or even an attempt to commit the underlying act.
Rov_Scam
21hr ago
I'm not saying that res ipsa is sufficient on its own, just that there's a certain element involved when it comes to proving intent. If the falsification of the records happened in a vacuum and there was no obvious underlying motive, that would be the misdemeanor. But when you demonstrate that the concealed payments may have covered up a potential campaign finance violation, that's probably enough evidence that a jury can infer that the potential violation was behind the concealment. Like I said in the previous post, if a guy breaks into a store the prosecution doesn't have to demonstrate that the defendant was there specifically to steal a particular item for it to be anything more than trespass; the jury can infer that because there was a very obvious motive for the break-in that the defendant intended to commit a felony. The defendant can certainly argue that that wasn't his intent and present evidence supporting that, but that's a question of fact for the jury. We can argue all day about whether there was sufficient evidence of Trump's intent to commit a campaign finance violation for the purpose of the statute, but my overall point is that arguing about the specific elements of such a violation itself or the mens rea requirement to prove a campaign finance violation is irrelevant here because we're operating on two separate legal principles.
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
22hr ago
I think this just is one of those where you are not well-versed with a very different legal regime than your own. I notice that you avoided talking about McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n. Do you have any comment on that case or how it could play in to a hypothetical future case that directly addresses reporting requirements?
I haven't read that case and I don't intend to.
Express advocacy has reporting requirements.
So it does. TIL.
What's the difference? You just said "any" expenditure made for the purpose of influencing the election is a campaign expenditure. So, shouldn't the latter be one, too?
Implicitly I meant "any expenditure by the candidate or people coordinating with the candidate". The distinction I was drawing was that I believed unconnected individuals did not face reporting requirements. You've now alerted me that this is not precisely the case, so I amend my answer: Not a reporting requirement nor a crime, because a "Blue Lives Matter" sign does not constitute "express advocacy".
Let me one more hypo you. One that I would be very unsurprised if it literally actually came up in arguments if we had a SCOTUS case directly on the reporting requirements. Would the pseudonymous Federalist Papers have been legal? They were all essentially politicians of various sorts and were surely running for elections at various times. The papers, themselves, were certainly aimed at influencing voting, and they could very plausibly think that it would influence things in ways that would get them elected (as they were, indeed, elected to various positions). Pseudonymous? Or reporting requirement? Criminal?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Why would they be impacted by campaign finance laws at all?
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
12hr ago
Indeed, things change. Reunification cannot happen peacefully in the present circumstance. But maybe in another 50 years things will have changed again.
Say what you like about what the CCP did to Hong Kong (and believe me, I do), but it demonstrated their ability and patience to execute a multi-decade plan.
Rov_Scam
16hr ago
Intent can't be proven in any of the three scenarios you put forward because buying paperclips isn't illegal, and legal impossibility is almost always a complete defense. In any event, whether you think something is legal or not is irrelevant, because in most cases, mistake of law isn't a defense. Ignorantia juris non excusat. What's tripping people up here is that the crime Trump was allegedly concealing has very specific intent requirements that does require knowledge of the law, while the crimes he was actually charged with don't. The relevant analogy here is where buying paperclips actually is illegal. In that case, if you falsified records relating to their purchase you'd be guilty of the falsification whether you knew they were illegal or not.
pm_me_passion
אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה
18hr ago
· Edited 18hr ago
I say trivial things that require no citation. Water is wet, some birds can fly, Trump didn’t actually say he supports Nazis in Charlottesville but some people act like he did.
pm_me_passion
אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה
18hr ago
Politics is a bit similar everywhere, in that people don’t actually vote on policy and the resulting government is nobody’s 1st choice. But when reporting on Israel, suddenly this fact is forgotten.
Israeli politics is tribal, and foreigners don’t understand the tribal landscape. The religious right gets most of its power from the “zionist religious” portion of the population, which is mostly a religious caste. There’s competition over who gets to wield this power, but it’s basically a constant portion of the population that they get to “represent”. That’s with a small caveat, that Likud also has representation from the religious right these days so they’ve also started siphoning those votes a bit.
non_radical_centrist
19hr ago
LOL. Shortening Ben Gvir to ‘Gvir’ is like shortening ‘McDonald’ to ‘Donald’. You’re betraying a ridiculous lack of familiarity.
Yeah I'm not that familiar. If you want to provide a good defense of why his actions are acceptable instead of just criticzing my familiarity, go ahead.
The analogous act would be that republicans tried to overthrow American democracy on January 6th, and that your former president told you to grab women by the pussy.
Those were pretty bad too. Better or worse than Ben Gvir's? I'm not sure.
How do you find so much time to watch videos you're not enjoying?
More options
Context Copy link