All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[babyblob]

See Harvey Weinstein rape conviction has been overturned on appeal. ( Majority verdict 4 to 3 by NY court.)

The grounds for overturning were that the judge allowed evidence from women who had experienced similar stuff from Mr Weinstein, but were not included in the charges listed against him.That seems a curious decision if the true aim of the trial was to reliably establish if he was guilty or not.

He is going to be transferred to a California prison to serve time there for his conviction In LA.

[Dalak]

Problematic but not impossible. I think most of the arguments would be whether malicious intent is covered by the First Amendment.
How bad does it have to become before national security takes precedent over freedom of speech?

Apparently, all it takes is merely encouraging draftees to refuse to be drafted into a war a wealthy newspaper owner sold to America on shaky grounds.

I'm aware. And foreign parties don't enjoy the same level of speech protection. But the post I responded to at least implied malicious intent should be grounds for limiting speech.

Trump had Princeton University investigated for discrimination after the President (or someone in administration) made a statement about the University still being racist under a systemic lens.

Maliciousness should matter in all situations, as well as intent to cause harm & damage to individuals & institutions. It's a good point you brought up there, as as fear of how he could abuse something is meaningless as he will abuse authority that isn't there. He affected the stock value of various companies with his tweets, wanted to nuke hurricanes, wanted to bomb cartels in Mexico as shown by multiple sources showing he's not alone, gassed protestors to get a photo-op, and suggested people ingest bleach as previously noted.

Letting the fact that someone who shits on norms, rules, decorum, truth, and so many other things would do something he already did abusing it isn't an excuse to do nothing as opposed to doing it thoughtfully to minimize abuse.

You’re making assumptions an agency similar to the EPA would operate and regulate the same way. Obviously it wouldn’t.

Any law or regulation can be abused depending on the circumstances and Trump or someone like him would find ways to persecute the media no matter what the situation. We know for certain that a lack guardrails for the distribution of online and broadcast information has increased partisanship and hostility in our society to a dangerous degree so doing nothing will only make our situation worse.
We have the benefit of history to guide us on what not to do. Let’s not pretend like we’d be operating blindly and uniformed. Changes and rules can be made incrementally and adjusted over time.

I typed the above before this was posted. You raise many good points, and I agree that doing nothing will only make the problem worse.

Mitt Romney:

Great quote!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bo...on/ar-AA1nBkI1

This highlights the funding issues that are bringing down public schools, and John Oliver's take on Charter Schools & Homeschooling shows how those alternatives are often abused and/or inadequate amidst the jokes better than I could. Between the violence & many other issues

https://www.barrons.com/news/masked-...eting-a8dfeeb9

In Europe the Nazis must remain masked. Here they wave flags and banners supporting GoP candidates who don't always repudiate them.

Spain in disarray

Is there more backstory to this, because it sounds ridiculous:

Manos Limpias put out a statement on Thursday signed by Mr Bernad acknowledging that its allegations might be false, because they were based on online newspaper stories: "If they are not true, it will be up to those that published them to take responsibility for the falsehood."

No, it's your place to make sure your allegations are based on facts before making them. Not that it stops so many from doing so anyway.

[Dalak]

Kamala Harris Is Almost as Popular as Beyoncé, New Poll Shows

Maybe if the Press reported on his accomplishments instead of concentrating on his age, he would be doing better.
https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/stat...69406581920212
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...house-00154219

I will also add that 538 had a Red Wave taking Congress and the Senate in 2022.

Thanks for providing missing context!

European leaders do need to internalize the fact that Putin is a threat to all Europe and understand where they’ll be if Ukraine’s agricultural and mineral resources fall under his control.

Johnson should be praised for going against Trump and Putin’s Freedom Caucus. Republican lawmakers need to see they’ll be supported by Republican voters and not punished at the poles for doing their jobs.

Yeah, Republican voters who remain levelheaded and haven't gone down the MAGA rabbit hole. While don't trust Johnson any further than I can throw him, he deserves kudos for doing the right thing in this instance. Still, given my mistrust, I can't help but wonder if there's a shoe about to drop somewhere. Now, if the Nutbag Caucus does call for Mikey's head, should Democrats support him? I hate myself for saying this, but yeah, they should. Madam Howler Monkey and Rapey McForehead led the charge that got Craven Kevin McCarthy bounced, if history repeats itself with Johnson, you can bet the farm his replacement will be just as deranged as the rest of the Trump slurpers in the party, and that wouldn't be a good thing.

I think Democrats should support him as well. It may serve to crack the wall of support Trump has in Congress at the moment.

The caveat to the support should be that they all say that Hakeem Jeffries should be the speaker so we can get the work of the people done voters need to send us the people that will get there. Repeat it every time they are asked if they will bail out Johnson on votes. That way yes Johnson can get Dem support but the clear message of GOP dysfunction and lesser of 2 evils until we can get the majority and bypass the infighting and nutjobs over there.

They really need to use the platforms and microphones shoved in their face about saving Johnson to do both things. Highlight the disfunction and only one side is ready to govern at this point. And yes still reluctantly support him because yes at least he is doing bare minimum working to keep the govt running and getting the Ukraine aid etc through.

People shouldn't be confused that he is a good speaker or anything. He still wouldn't put the bipartisan border bill out for vote, and many other legislative priorities the people actually want.

This is a very interesting conversation, and I'm surprised to find I agree with supporting Johnson in this way. The fact that this is far worse than if the Dems held a majority should be stressed too, as pointed out.

More trials!

Giuliani, Meadows charged in Arizona ‘fake elector’ indictment

I found it interesting that the RNC's new “election integrity” lawyer is listed here under indictment.

RNC’s ‘election integrity’ lawyer charged with election crimes

Only the best people though. And Biden's old!

Now this is legitimately funny

Well, now, I find out the offer has been rejected… to my astonishment and that of other people too…

Immigration was the biggest fear that was stoked to cause Brexit in the first place, this doesn't surprise me.

See Harvey Weinstein rape conviction has been overturned on appeal. ( Majority verdict 4 to 3 by NY court.)

The grounds for overturning were that the judge allowed evidence from women who had experienced similar stuff from Mr Weinstein, but were not included in the charges listed against him.That seems a curious decision if the true aim of the trial was to reliably establish if he was guilty or not.

This is pretty much my feelings on the matter.

E:

He is going to be transferred to a California prison to serve time there for his conviction In LA.

Great news!

[WestPhillyPunisher]

He is going to be transferred to a California prison to serve time there for his conviction In LA.

Good. I hope his stay will be long and uncomfortable.

[babyblob]

Good. I hope his stay will be long and uncomfortable.

Take it from someone who has been in prison and seen this first hand. Rapists and sex offenders have a very hard time. That is not just a rumor. His time will be very long and uncomfortable. The fact that he was such a big man and famous also will not play in his favor. Inmates love taking people like that down a notch or two.

[Maine Starfish]

https://zeteo.com/p/i-am-a-jewish-st...e=true&r=2ba0g

a pretty good first hand account

[Tami]

This looked interesting enough to share

Appeals court upholds conviction of GOP operative who steered Russian money to Trump camp

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the conviction of veteran Republican campaign operative Jesse Benton for steering an illegal Russian contribution to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Benton, who played leading roles in the presidential campaigns of Ron and Rand Paul and worked briefly as Mitch McConnell’s campaign manager, helped facilitate an improper $25,000 payment to the Trump camp and the Republican National Committee on behalf of Roman Vasilenko, a Russian national who had approached another GOP operative, Doug Wead, about his interest in meeting an American celebrity. When he was unable to get an audience with Oprah Winfrey, Steven Seagal or Jimmy Carter, the operative suggested Trump.

Benton then arranged for Vasilenko to attend a join Trump-RNC fundraiser in Philadelphia, where the Russian took a picture with the soon-to-be president. Vasilenko used the photos to burnish his reputation in Russia “including speaking on Russian TV about President-elect Trump and his attitudes toward Russia.”

Benton — who was pardoned by Trump in 2020 for other campaign finance crimes in the final weeks of Trump’s term — was convicted by a jury in late 2022 of six felonies related to the contribution and falsified campaign finance records. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, sentenced Benton to 18 months in prison, and records indicate he is due for release in June. Both Ron and Rand Paul — the former Texas representative and current Kentucky senator, respectively — wrote letters on Benton’s behalf at sentencing, decrying the impact that a jail sentence would have on his family.

[Kevinroc]

The Petty Feud Between the NYT and the White House
Biden’s people think they’re “entitled.” The Times says “they’re not being realistic.”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...house-00154219

When news broke one Saturday night in March 2023 that President Joe Biden’s nominee to lead the Federal Aviation Administration was withdrawing, Mark Walker was the reporter on duty in the New York Times Washington bureau. Assigned to write up the news, Walker asked the White House for a comment just before midnight. Assistant press secretary Abdullah Hasan was still up and emailed a quote blaming the withdrawal on a barrage of “unfounded Republican attacks.” After going through edits, Walker’s 502-word story was posted on the Times’ website in the wee hours Sunday morning.

Then all hell broke loose.

Hasan, who has since left the White House, had offered the quote to Walker on background sourced to “an administration official.” Walker, not a member of the Times’ White House team, was unfamiliar with the protocol and had made an unintended mistake and attributed the quote to Hasan. When officials in the press shop called him Sunday morning about the mistake, they asked to speak with White House Editor Elizabeth Kennedy. But the number he gave them was the cell phone of Elisabeth Bumiller, the Times Washington bureau chief.

Bumiller, who was away from Washington visiting family, received a call from Emilie Simons, a White House deputy press secretary who had actually written the statement. According to three people familiar with the conversation, Simons asked that Hasan’s name be removed and the quote attributed to a nameless official. Bumiller, who expressed dismay that the issue had been escalated to her level, was reluctant to alter a story that had already been online for over 12 hours.

Both parties later told colleagues the call ended on a sour note. Two Times staffers recalled Bumiller grumbling, as she occasionally does, about how she’d been spoken to. Aides in the press shop recalled hearing that the bureau chief had been surprisingly defensive and that when Simons tried to bring up another concern with Walker’s story, Bumiller just hung up. The following day principal deputy press secretary Olivia Dalton emailed Bumiller asking the Times to reaffirm its commitment to abide by the administration’s rules about information given on background. For Dalton, Simons and others, it was about ensuring fairness with embargoed information so that all news organizations could be on a level playing field. But the Times’ bureau chief never replied. In response, the White House removed all Times reporters from its “tier one” email list for background information about various briefings and other materials, a situation that wasn’t resolved for 11 months.

The seemingly minor incident over sourcing might not have escalated or triggered such emotional responses on both sides if not for tensions between the White House and the Times that had been bubbling beneath the surface for at least the last five years. Biden’s closest aides had come to see the Times as arrogant, intent on setting its own rules and unwilling to give Biden his due. Inside the paper’s D.C. bureau, the punitive response seemed to typify a press operation that was overly sensitive and determined to control coverage of the president.

According to interviews with two dozen people on both sides who were granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive subject, the relationship between the Democratic president and the country’s newspaper of record — for years the epitome of a liberal press in the eyes of conservatives — remains remarkably tense, beset by misunderstandings, grudges and a general lack of trust. Complaints that were long kept private are even spilling into public view, with campaign aides in Wilmington going further than their colleagues in the White House and routinely blasting the paper’s coverage in emails, posts on social media and memos.

Although the president’s communications teams bristle at coverage from dozens of outlets, the frustration, and obsession, with the Times is unique, reflecting the resentment of a president with a working-class sense of himself and his team toward a news organization catering to an elite audience — and a deep desire for its affirmation of their work. On the other side, the newspaper carries its own singular obsession with the president, aggrieved over his refusal to give the paper a sit-down interview that Publisher AG Sulzberger and other top editors believe to be its birthright.

The president’s press flacks might bemoan what they see as the entitlement of Times staffers, but they themselves put the newspaper on the highest of pedestals given its history, stature and unparalleled reach. And yet, they see the Times falling short in a make-or-break moment for American democracy, stubbornly refusing to adjust its coverage as it strives for the appearance of impartial neutrality, often blurring the asymmetries between former President Donald Trump and Biden when it comes to their perceived flaws and vastly different commitments to democratic principles.

“Democrats believe in the importance of a free press in upholding our democracy, and the NYT was for generations an important standard bearer for the fourth estate,” said Kate Berner, who worked on Biden’s 2020 campaign and then as deputy White House communications director before departing last year. “The frustration with the Times is sometimes so intense because the Times is failing at its important responsibility.”

Biden aides largely view the election as an existential choice for the country, high stakes that they believe justify tougher tactics toward the Times and the press as a whole. Some Times reporters have found themselves cut off by sources after publishing pieces the Bidens and top aides didn’t like. Columnist Maureen Dowd, for example, complained to colleagues that she stopped hearing from White House officials after a column on Hunter Biden. For many Times veterans, such actions suggest that the Trump era has warped many Democrats’ expectations of journalists.

“They’re not being realistic about what we do for a living,” Bumiller told me. “You can be a force for democracy, liberal democracy. You don’t have to be a force for the Biden White House.”

In Sulzberger’s view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency. Beyond that, he has voiced concerns that Biden doing so few expansive interviews with experienced reporters could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, according to a third person familiar with the publisher’s thinking. Sulzberger himself was part of a group from the Times that sat down with Trump, who gave the paper several interviews despite his rantings about its coverage. If Trump could do it, Sulzberger believes, so can Biden.

“All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” one Times journalist said. “It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.”

[Tami]

Supreme Court Justices’ Pro-Trump Immunity Arguments Make Zero Sense

After an astonishing oral argument session before the Supreme Court, it seems highly likely that there is at least some support for the former president’s position that a president can commit crimes while in office, even ones designed to help them remain in office. And what is the reasoning for this position, at least according to what we can tell from some of the questions posed by several of the justices?

The reason at least some justices seem to suggest that we cannot hold former President Trump accountable for his actual effort to spur an insurrection to remain in office is that—get this—some imagined future president might be encouraged to remain in office for fear that they might be prosecuted once they leave office.

Wait, what?

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. pronounced, with no apparent sense of irony, that a “stable, democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully.” Agreed.

His answer to what such an outcome requires appears to be, wait for it, presidential immunity.

Under Alito’s logic, a president who feared he or she might be prosecuted after leaving office might be less willing to surrender power. And the sense that the president would get off scot-free would… encourage them to act in accordance with the law?

I guess he’s not aware of what actually happened on Jan. 6, 2021.

[4saken1]

Supreme Court Justices’ Pro-Trump Immunity Arguments Make Zero Sense

Well, shoot! I guess if Trump had had Presidential immunity after the Election in 2020, he would have just admitted that he lost and wouldn't even have had to commit any of the crimes that he did in order to stay in office!

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Supreme Court Justices’ Pro-Trump Immunity Arguments Make Zero Sense

Oh, Alito was aware about 1/6 alright, he’s in the bag for Trump and just voiced nonsense to justify giving Don Snoreleone immunity.

[kidfresh512]

Supreme Court Justices’ Pro-Trump Immunity Arguments Make Zero Sense

It is just horrifying that these people are even considering this. Honestly, how in the world can they reasonably interpret that a President can just sit there and commit crimes and be immune. I get that they want to help Trump. But, jesus the doors it would open are exactly what you need to take a Democracy to dictarorship.

You want more power as president just take it. Commit some crimes.

[Tendrin]

Alito is genuinely evil.

[skyvolt2000]

Another school shooting has happened in Dallas tonight.

We are now at 3 school shooting within 2 weeks.

A drive by.

[Gray Lensman]

It is just horrifying that these people are even considering this. Honestly, how in the world can they reasonably interpret that a President can just sit there and commit crimes and be immune. I get that they want to help Trump. But, jesus the doors it would open are exactly what you need to take a Democracy to dictarorship.

You want more power as president just take it. Commit some crimes.

They also seem to be attacking the law that is the basis of Smith's case.

Although if they decide Presidents ARE immune, what's stopping Biden from deciding he needs 5 "openings" on the Supreme Court?