Thursday Night Open Thread

I have no idea where this week went but it's almost over.

What happens now that the protests are winding down?
If raising awareness of racism in this country was the goal, they certainly succeeded. If a change in police culture is what they are after, that's going to take a little longer.

Is there a police brutality database where identifying details of offending officers are publicized? The police didn't take well to the idea of "Who's a Rat" (one naming informants) but they have no problem with posting mug shots of those busted for prost*itution.

Back in 2019, USA Today published a database of 85,000 police officers charged with misconduct, including case documents. The searchable database is here. Maybe it should be updated. And limited to cases in which discipline was imposed, so as not to infringe on the most bedrock principle of our criminal justice system which is the presumption of innocence.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< COVID-19 in U.S. Passes 2 Million | Donald Trump Turns 74 Amid New Questions About His Neurological State >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I hope this is true (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 01:21:09 PM EST
    Melania forced Trump to renegotiate prenup before moving into White House

    Not that I'm a Melania fan but I like the idea of Trump actually having to pay the price (hopefully a huge one) for at least one of his actions.

    Interesting POV of book (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 08:55:55 PM EST
    the book concludes that Melania is just like Donald -- and that she approves of his politics and had been urging him to run for Pres. for years. Like him, the book says she has no close friends. She wants what she wants and then schemes to get it.
    It says the prenup was important to her because she wanted Barron to be able to have a job in Europe at Trump Intl. and she was concerned he wouldn't be treated as the first three kids are. She also has exagerrated her background: never graduated from college (she attended an architectural school); she was never a "top model"; doesn't really speak five languages, only two, and on and on.

    I agree (none / 0) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 08:45:41 AM EST
    That Melania is as bad as Trump. Still, I'm for almost anything that makes hurts Trumps personal bottom line, which IMO is the only thing that he cares about.

    Who's a cow now? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 04:18:35 PM EST
    Nunes's hunt for Twitter cow's identity at 'dead end,' attorney says

    An attorney representing Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said Friday the congressman has reached a "dead end" in his efforts to identify whoever is behind the parody Twitter accounts titled "Devin Nunes' Cow" and "Devin Nunes' Mom."

    Twitter has refused to disclose the names of the person or people operating the accounts, leading Nunes to file a lawsuit last year alleging he has been defamed on the platform by the two anonymous accounts as well as Republican political strategist Liz Mair

    Nunes's attorney, Steven Biss, told The Fresno Bee that after Virginia Judge John Marshall opined that Twitter is not obligated to release the identities, finding out who they are so they can properly be served lawsuits is virtually impossible.

    "We're trying to figure out who they are, and we read the comments on Twitter, as painful as it is, we do that every day," Biss said. "But we're at a dead end."


    The account titled "Devin Nunes' Alt-Mom," shared the Bee story, saying: "Yes, Mr. Biss, we also thought you were at a dead end.

    "Maybe you should reassess your life choices that got you here."

    The planned neighborhood in Denver (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 03:59:17 PM EST
    where our middle daughter lives is called "Stapleton," built on the site of the former Stapleton Int'l Airport. The Community Association has just voted to change their name, which honors 1920's Denver mayor Benjamin Franklin Stapleton. The good mayor was elected as the chosen candidate of the Ku Klux Klan, although he lied about it until after the election.

    I wonder if Denverites can ... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 16, 2020 at 05:45:50 PM EST
    ... also retroactively change the name of an airport which no longer exists. I would imagine that it's likely even harder for them to completely erase the history of a mayor who served in that capacity for five terms over the better part of three consecutive decades (1923-31 and 1935-47).

    During his long tenure as Denver mayor, Benjamin Stapleton not only maintained his membership in the KKK, he also appointed a number of fellow Klansmen to top posts in his administration, including city clerk, city attorney, city accountant and parks manager. Anyway, it's nice to see that 70 years after his death in 1950, karma is exacting its due on his legacy.

    Stapleton Int'l Airport was a major hub for United Airlines (as is the present Denver Int'l Airport today), so I used to fly in there fairly often to connect with another flight. When I last flew into Stapleton back in 1993, the terminals had been recently remodeled and there was a lot of vacant land around the airport to expand its operations, so I've never quite understood why city residents voted to build an entirely new facility.

    But that was nearly 30 years ago, and it is what it is. Stapleton's former control tower was left in place to mark the old airport site.



    I am surprised, Donald, to see you use (none / 0) (#138)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 16, 2020 at 09:05:10 PM EST
    the term "erase the history." No one is trying to "erase" any history by disputing the wisdom of publicly honoring significant historical figures who were in fact disreputable. That seems to me more like correcting the history than erasing it.

    Supreme Court (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 09:04:28 AM EST
    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964


    good news without Kennedy there.

    6 to 3 (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 09:05:34 AM EST
    Gorsuch and Roberts.

    And, Gorsuch (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 09:46:39 AM EST
    writing.for the majority.

    I love this ruling (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 08:59:26 PM EST
    On its merits. Long overdue for the LGBT Community. As an added bonus, conservatives and the religious right's head are exploding especially over the fact that Gorsuch joined Roberts and the liberals for a 6-3 decision.

    Love it, love it, love it.


    The legal irony is really beautiful (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 09:11:21 PM EST
    Classic Scalia-style "textualism" - a conservative tool - triumphant over actual legislative/Congressonal intent. This same narrow and almost insanely literal way of reading statutes, btw, often works in favor of criminal defendants also, including in a number of recent Supreme Court decisions.

    The Tr*mpers have no idea what to say (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 09:30:21 PM EST
    or what they are saying:
    "It's bizarre, it's ridiculous, and it's disappointing," Jenna Ellis, a legal adviser for the Trump campaign, said in a Monday appearance on former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka's radio program. "The president of course disagrees with this decision because he is a constitutional originalist."
    Sure, Tr*mp has a theory of constitutional interpretation (even though he consistently demonstrates that he has no idea what the Constitution even says). Which is why he "disagrees" with a court decision that is entirely based on statutory interpretation and does not even involve any constitutional issue.

    Trans decision imminent (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 09:08:44 AM EST
    Which could blow Trumps weekend roll backs out of the water.

    Fake out/confusion (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 09:15:25 AM EST
    Not waiting for more.

    Both decisions covered by the first ruling.  Trans included in Title VII decision.

    Very big news.


    That's not fair! (none / 0) (#136)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 16, 2020 at 06:13:37 PM EST
    The good people of Appalachia voted for Donald Trump in office precisely because their lives could not possibly ever improve unless homosexuals could be fired at will by employers and there was a Confederate monument on every street corner.



    How the culture has changed (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 09:37:52 AM EST
    in 34 years, since Bowers v. Hardwick. Even the conservatives feel a need to apologize. The conclusion of Kavanaugh's dissent:
    Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit--battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment.

    I should note, to be clear, (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 10:59:33 AM EST
    that the other two dissenters (Alito and Thomas) did not join Kavanaugh's dissent. Nor did Kavanaugh join Alito's 100-page dissent from Gorsuch's 35-page majority opinion.

    100 page dissent?!? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 11:21:31 AM EST
    Wow.  Someone was triggered.

    Yes, Alito (none / 0) (#110)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    was unhappy with the decision.  In his mind, it impermissibly elevated the meaning of words over the supposed mental processes of long-dead legislators.

    Whereas, Kavanaugh, in his dissent, seemed happy with the decision, congratulating LGBT people on winning a battle he thought they should lose.  And, then there is Thomas.


    Just got back from walking the dog (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 05:17:08 PM EST
    There are more rainbow flags flying in celebration from front porches down the block from us this evening, in our nice suburban "family neighborhood," than there were American flags flying yesterday, which was Flag Day.

    Guns (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 10:05:15 AM EST
    Justices Refuse to Hear New Challenges to Gun Restrictions

    June 15, 2020 at 10:09 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 19 Comments

    "The Supreme Court wasted little time Monday making clear its reluctance to wade back into the national battle over gun rights," USA Today reports.

    "After refusing to rule on a challenge to New York City gun restrictions because they were rescinded while the case was pending, the court turned away all potential replacements that would have given its conservative justices a chance to strengthen the Second Amendment."

    Washington Post: "The court did not accept a batch of nearly a dozen cases that gun groups had hoped the court, fortified with more conservative members, might consider. Among them were cases involving restrictions in Maryland and New Jersey to permits for carrying a handgun outside the home."

    P Wire


    Justice Kavanaugh seems (none / 0) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 11:06:57 AM EST
    to be attempting to have it both ways--asymmetric with a gratuitous turn toward symmetric. However, his dissent is, certainly, a short distance from the majority and a far cry from that of Scalia's dissent in Romer v Evans (1996) in which the Court ruled that Colorado violated equal protection, denying gays the right to seek and receive specific legal protections from discrimination.

    Scalia's dissent in Romer was, in my view, a homophobic screed resting on the argument of "judicial activism", even omitting "respectfully" when he wrote, "I dissent."


    Lawyer, Karlan' statement (none / 0) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 01:37:55 PM EST
    Lawyer For Plaintiffs In Landmark SCOTUS Case On Gay Rights Explains Why They Won

    During an interview on MSNBC, Karlan said the blockbuster decision "follows directly from the text of Title VII" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    "Title VII says you can't fire a worker because of that worker's sex," she explained. "If you have two workers named Bobby, one of whom is male and one is female, and you fire the male worker named Bobby because he marries somebody named Pete but you don't fire the female worker for marrying somebody named Pete, that's sex discrimination, pure and simple."

    The word "sex" was (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 03:00:28 PM EST
    inserted into the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by the powerful Chairman of the House Rules Committee, Howard Smith (D.VA). Smith was an unrepentant segregationist and racist but he added sex to the bill's anti-discrimination text--- on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin---for not necessarily, good reasons. Many believe it was as a poison pill for votes against the bill since it would also protect women in the workplace. A revolutionary idea at that point.

    Another view of Chairman Smith's action was that non-discrimination on the basis of gender would  eliminate limiting the hours and working responsibilities of women in places like the Virginia textile mills that depended on female workers. A boon to manufacturers who could treat women just like men and get more work out of them.

    The insertion of "sex" did cause worry on the part of the advocates of passing the bill, but it ended up as law and a pathway to getting equal treatment for women and paved the way for Court victories in the women's movement.  And, now for the LGBT workforce.


    Amazing (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 03:14:00 PM EST
    Talk about unintended consequences

    Pamela Karlan, who argued and won (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 04:16:55 PM EST
    the case, is co-director of the Stanford Law School Supreme Court clinic (where she is a professor); a leading liberal constitutional scholar (and a voting rights expert in particular). One of my favorite lawyers, and a super-nice person, too. I have mentioned her on this site previously as a candidate for a seat on the Supreme Court.

    Sure took long enough (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 02:26:26 PM EST
    For something so simple

    Supreme Court (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 01:25:50 PM EST
    Supreme Court denies petition to hear 'sanctuary' case

    With the denial, the Supreme Court let stand the lower court's resolution in favor of three California sanctuary laws, which limited law enforcement cooperation on immigration and banned state and local authorities from using their resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

    One for the good guys.

    Governor Tom Wolf institutexd a stay at home order (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jun 16, 2020 at 08:13:02 PM EST
    earlier than most and closed down non essential business. COVID-19 cases are now down in PA. Yet the GOP legislature now wants to impeach him. My company, which got a waiver for manufacturing because of being a defense company had 2 outbreaks.

    Gov Wolf acted appropriately and quickly and these clowns want this circus. I doubt this goes anywhere. But if it does, it will be fun having John Fetterman as governor. If they don't like Wolf, Fetterman will make them apoplectic.

    One protester got shot, and is in critical (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by desertswine on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 12:56:27 AM EST
    condition, during a protest near Old Town in Albuquerque when they tried to tear down a statue of conquistador Juan de Oñate.  The shooter was arrested and is in the clink.  There were a half dozen or so "militia" types there just to make things worse.  The City removed the statue today in the interests of safety.  It was actually part of a very artsy grouping called La Jornada.

    A second statue of Juan de Oñate in northern New Mexico was removed a couple of days ago.  It had been a bone of contention for years.

    If they're going to build statues of people, why can't the build statues of writers or poets, artists, or nurses, doctors or musicians. You know, instead of killers.

    Was the second statue of Onate (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 10:56:45 AM EST
    the one with the foot cut off?

    If so, I'd think it would be better to leave it up...


    Yes that was the statue of Oņate (none / 0) (#148)
    by desertswine on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 01:00:03 PM EST
    on horseback just north of Española, NM.  The missing foot had been replaced.

    .2017 NYT story about the missing foot.


    cut it off again (none / 0) (#155)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 02:53:07 PM EST
    Popular Mechanics (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 07:09:10 PM EST
    Just made a grocery run (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 10:51:58 AM EST
    I was very pleased and surprised to se a major increase in masks.  This time it was closer to 80% in masks.

    Also interesting it was more common to see the unmasked looking a bit peer pressured and unwilling to make eye contact.

    I would guess the National news stories about this state that have been inescapable on actual cable news is having a positive effect.

    That said, it was Walmart.  Which has always been the most "masked" place.  But like I said last time I was there was very different.

    So did I and it was (none / 0) (#147)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 12:50:00 PM EST
    100% in Publics down here.  They had said masks were optional however there was a sign on the door saying masks required.  This was down in Marathon, Florida, but my friend said the Islamorada Publics was about 50/50.  

    The (none / 0) (#156)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 03:07:15 PM EST
    Publix around here run about 60%. It seems to be higher early in the morning and a little less later in the day.

    I went to Walmart last week first thing in the morning and it was around 90% but even as I was walking out the percentage of masked people walking was dropping.


    My wife is constantly complaining (none / 0) (#152)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 01:25:35 PM EST
    about the lack of people wearing masks at the local Giant. There is a sign on the way saying that everyone must wear a mask but they refuse to enforce it.

    On the other hand, I talked to my cousin down in Maryland yesterday. She told me her local Safeway has someone at the entrance. If you don't have a mask, you are denied entry.

    Pretty much every store in PA (at least in my area) has a sign on the door saying you must wear a mask, yet the stores refuse to enforce the rule. Spineless in my opinion.


    I do love that they (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 12:39:41 PM EST
    "Realized" Aunt Jemima was a stereotype

    Speaking of Aunt Jemima... (none / 0) (#149)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    Pancake mix is loaded with sodium, and the popular brands all seem to have over 600 milligrams of it.  I finally found that Annie's organic pancake and waffle mix has 330 mgs.  Then amazingly the organic eggs I bought had 70 mgs of sodium in each egg.  How can that be?  Must come from the chicken's diet.  Quitting salt seems more difficult than quitting sugar.

    Three pancakes per serving (none / 0) (#150)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    have that much sodium.

    Scratch is so easy (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 01:10:59 PM EST
    It's like whipped cream.  Easiest thing in the world.  Never ever understood "cool whip"

    I've always preferred (none / 0) (#154)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 01:30:04 PM EST
    Mrs. Butterworth's.

    We've always preferred (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by Zorba on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    Actual maple syrup.
    "Imitation" syrups are an abomination unto the Lord.  ;-)

    I love the freak out on the right (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 06:20:41 PM EST
    with people our age sayin how she was "where they got their positive image of blacks" as a child

    As if that was a good thing.  About how they just thought she was a "member of the family"

    A common hedge from slaveowners.

    For the record

    here is an Aunt Jemima ad.  It's pretty clear who she is.   And it ain't nobody's aunt.


    Waiting for Trump's head to explode (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 09:52:14 AM EST
    What a great day for justice.

    Supreme Court blocks Trump from ending DACA

    A classic Chief Justice Roberts dodge (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 10:28:51 AM EST
    on dubious (but welcome) technical, administrative procedure grounds, of a hot-button political case.  Hopefully, the Court has now screwed up the Administration's unilateral executive-action repeal process enough to get to November and then January. Or maybe Congress will finally do the right thing (a guy can dream ...). Somewhat alarmingly, the underlying premise of the Supreme Court decision does not dispute that the original Obama Administration DACA program was illegal; just that the Tr*mp Homeland Security secretaries' efforts to repeal that action have been flawed in various ways.

    Yes (none / 0) (#196)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 10:43:48 AM EST
    "Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn't like me?"

    -- President Trump, on Twitter.


    But, wait (none / 0) (#197)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 10:47:46 AM EST
    You named two of them, right

    Donald J. Trump
    These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!

    The whole "put up with Trump because of his awsum Supreme Court picks" must be looking less and less worth the trouble to many right wingers.



    Wait til we get (none / 0) (#194)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 10:26:48 AM EST
    To the decisions about his financial records.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2020 at 08:27:44 PM EST
    British authorities have suspended sending over any evidence to the U.S. in criminal cases, stating it has "paused transmission of all evidence to all countries that maintain the death penalty on their statute books." The move follows a U.K. Supreme Court case in March that ruled it was unlawful for British authorities to have worked with the U.S. on a terrorism case without first being assured the suspects would not face the death penalty. "The U.S. is not, however, the only country affected by this pause, and the U.K.C.A. is mindful of the impact the decision to pause transmission might have on some proceedings. ... Our policy colleagues are working through the implications, and we hope to be in a position to reconsider the transmission to third countries in cases where the death penalty is not the maximum sentence possible in due course," the Central Authority said. Matt Zapotosky, Shane Harris and  John Hudson report for the Washington Post.

    The post story is behind a pay wall

    In any and all criminal cases (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 11, 2020 at 09:24:18 PM EST
    or only in cases in which the death penalty may potentially be imposed, and the extradition-requesting or evidence-seeking authority (state or federal) does not provide adequate assurances that the death penalty will not be sought or imposed?

    Maybe someone pays (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2020 at 09:35:39 PM EST
    For WaPo?

    As I said paywall.  The only other place I could find the story was Sputnik news.  Didn't want to link.


    Well, you didn't provide a link or (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 11, 2020 at 11:11:34 PM EST
    mention your source (you often don't). (I wish you would, when you block quote things.) I can see it on WaPo; thanks. This is it. Concerns evidence sought under Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties. Pretty technical. Some speculate that suspension of cooperation with U.S. investigatory requests on this basis, even in patently non-capital cases, could be a cover for protecting Price Andrew from providing evidence in the continuing Epstein-related investigations. But the story also says that the suspension of cooperation was only temporary and is now no longer in place.

    It said Washington Post (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 07:27:13 AM EST
    I said it was behind a pay wall. It was.   What is the point of linking to a paywall?

    Links are a pain to make on a tablet and google is really pretty easy to use.  It really is.  


    Because it's frustrating (none / 0) (#15)
    by leap on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 09:38:42 AM EST
    when you don't provide links to pieces you quote. For instance, you recently posted something from "MJ." Given the context of the quote, I assumed it was from Mother Jones. When I commented I couldn't find the article in Mother Jones you replied it was something you saw on "Morning Joe," and that when you write "MJ" you always mean "Morning Joe," and that is something we should remember for future reference. Oh, OK, sailor.

    Seems to me that if you bother to quote something, you should provide a link, no matter that "[L]inks are a pain to make on a tablet and google is really pretty easy to use." So who is the lazy one?


    Besides, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by leap on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 09:41:02 AM EST
    there are ways around a paywall. And some people have actual subscriptions to WaPo.

    One more thing (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 09:57:41 AM EST
    I do sometimes quite a blurb about some topic without a link WHEN IT SAYS IN THE QUOTE WHERE IT IS FROM.

    Now if you are interested in knowing more what you should do is learn to search the internet's.  

    Links are a pain.  They often screw up.  On a tablet no matter how careful you are.  Jeralyn has commented about this.  So if I do not see a reason to make a link I don't.


    I agree with you on linking (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    If someone really wants to read the original article it is so easy to just copy and paste the quoted text into the google to get to the exact article.

    And many times the subject has been reported on by many other sites, such that simply googling one or two words of the subject will do the trick.

    And it is often a benefit to use the google to find other articles on the same subject that might have different info and/or povs.

    All of which makes for a more informed discussion all around.


    If you have a subscription (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 09:50:11 AM EST
    To WaPo or a "workaround" I would expect you to follow my comment asking if anyone had one with an extended quote from the blocked article.

    As for the rest you do often seem pretty helpless as far as "needing a link"

    I provide links all the time.  I explained why I did not in this case.  Beyond that I just assume anyone who I hope will read a comment is capable of basic internet usage.


    That was the entire blurb (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2020 at 09:36:18 PM EST
    On Just Security

    538 (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2020 at 08:35:07 PM EST
    Trumps approval has been sinking since the end of March.

    this morning it was 41.  It's now 40.9

    It will be news when it sinks below 40.  And it should be.

    He has (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 08:22:28 AM EST
    gone below 40 in a couple of polls already.

    Not in a poll of polls (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 08:29:08 AM EST
    Big difference

    Actually he has (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 08:30:39 AM EST
    Briefly after "good people on both sides"

    I believe the lowest at least at 538 was 37ish.

    I think we are going below that.


    40.8 (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 11:15:16 AM EST
    Not just Ukraine (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 07:49:54 AM EST

    Behind the scenes: People close to Trump have been worried about the book because Bolton was known as the most prolific note taker in high-level meetings, Jonathan Swan reports.

    Bolton would sit there, filling yellow legal pad after yellow legal pad with notes.
    In short: Bolton saw a lot, and he wrote it down in real time. And when he left, the White House never got those notes back.

    More from Business Insider (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 08:15:40 AM EST
    I (none / 0) (#21)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 12:21:56 PM EST
    wonder where this registers on the "troubled" scale?
    Simon & Schuster said Bolton was "astonished" by Trump's actions, and viewed him as a "president for whom getting reelected was the only thing that mattered, even if it meant endangering or weakening the nation."
    Not enough to do anything about it apparently, except to plan on cashing in.

    This belongs in the weasel hall of fame

    Bolton "argues that the House committed impeachment malpractice by keeping their prosecution focused narrowly on Ukraine when Trump's Ukraine-like transgressions existed across the full range of his foreign policy,"
    Gee, too bad a patriotic whistleblower did NOT point that out to them.

    Yes (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 12:56:25 PM EST
    That said.

    It's not bad timing. For everyone.  Except Trump.


    And yes yes (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    coulda woulda shoulda.  If only.  Why didn't he speak sooner.

    Whatever.  He didn't.  He is speaking now and it could be a very good time for us.

    We don't have to buy the book.  We don't have to like him.  I'll take it.


    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 01:54:29 PM EST
    I don't think it will move the needle that much, it's "old news" and Bolton will be cast as a deep state super-villain and "look over there"

    On the other hand the media tour should be a hoot(provided actual journalism is practiced).


    Lawsuit (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 12:27:38 PM EST
    Bloomberg (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 08:06:33 AM EST
    The reality TV president once proposed a season of "The Apprentice" pitting white contestants against black contestants.

    an interview Trump conducted with radio and TV host Howard Stern in which he also explored the possibility of airing white-against-black competition on "The Apprentice."

    "On `The Apprentice' there was a concept, OK, thrown out by some person, nine blacks against nine whites," Trump said. "And it would be nine blacks against nine whites, all highly educated, very smart, strong, beautiful. Do you like it?"

    Stern said he did. Stern's African-American co-host, Robin Quivers, had a different response: "Well, I think you're gonna have a riot."

    "It would be the highest-rated show on television," Trump replied.

    Stern prodded the future president for more information: "Very dark blacks, or light-skinned blacks?"

    "Assortment, against whites," Trump said, adding that he wanted all of the white contestants to be blondes.

    "Wouldn't that set off a racial war?" Stern asked.

    "Actually, I don't think it would," responded Trump. "I think it would be handled very beautifully by me. Because, as you know, I'm very diplomatic.... Also, I think you'd have 35 million people a night watching."


    Martin Gugino Is starting physical therapy (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 08:52:40 AM EST
    To recover from the brain injury he got when he fell harder than he was pushed.

    'His Brain Is Injured:' Lawyer Updates on 75-Year-Old NY Protester Shoved by Police

    Star Trek Discovery & Picard (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 10:18:18 AM EST
    Yeah, I am maxed out for comments in this thread and I'm happy to stop with this one.  Which may or may not contain links.

    I had been putting off CBS AllAccess hoping they would drop The Stand.  It's done, they say, and just waiting for the covid plague to look less like Captain Trips.  Hopefully soon.

    But ST (that's short for Star Trek)
    Yeah the Klingons svck.  And blow.  Seriously who let this happen and why.  Literally the first few minutes of the first episode of Discovery is extreme closeups of a Klingon in the worst makeup I have seen in a prestige series ever.  The make up for all of them is famously terrible.  I suggest a google.  But why stick it in your face right off the bat.  Really really stupid IMO.

    That said there's a lot to like I love the idea of threat ganglia.  I love the new propulsion system but really they had me at the warp speed tardigrade the size of a water buffalo.  I love their shirts say DISCO

    Also season two is much better.

    And Picard is excellent.  


    Mr. Biden's short list (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 03:32:38 PM EST
    Someone not on the list (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 09:20:37 AM EST
    That I believe would be a fantastic VP pick is Katie Porter. Not only is she super smart and does her homework, can't you just picture her debating Pence. He would definitely have to go home to Mother to have his wounds kissed.

    Rep. Porter (formerly Prof. Porter) (none / 0) (#78)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 11:40:16 AM EST
    studied consumer law under Elizabeth Warren at Harvard, and became a national consumer protection expert before running for office. A younger Warren?
      That said, we know from 2016 (and from the 2020 Democratic primaries) that when a woman is the better debater than her male adversary, and the smarter and better qualified candidate, this can create as much or more negative backlash as it does positive support.

    Even agreeing with you (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 01:44:43 PM EST
    on the backlash, it would still be a thing of beauty to watch.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 01:37:39 PM EST
    there Is a lot of truth about what you write about negative backlash against smarter and better qualified women.

    I am liking the choice of (none / 0) (#30)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 05:57:07 PM EST
    Susan Rice. She has popped up cable news lately and I like her. Still holding out for Kamala Harris for Atty Gen. Warren is too old and too "lefty" (not for me but for thee).

    Her son (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 09:15:16 PM EST
    is a big Trump supporter. I don't know if that will matter or not.

    I don't see where (none / 0) (#41)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 11:36:29 AM EST
    that would matter on any level.

    other than (none / 0) (#42)
    by leap on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 12:51:08 PM EST
    she raised him poorly. </s>

    No Stacey Abrams? (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 11:06:08 PM EST
    She is very, very talented....

    No (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 06:07:12 AM EST
    statewide wins and only wins have come from a deep blue state senate seat.

    Only Elizabeth Warren (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 09:08:28 PM EST
    fits the bill. The last thing we need with Mr. Crime Warrior is a career prosecutor like Kamala Harris. Susan Rice belongs in the cabinet, not the White House. A mayor has insufficient experience to run a federal government, especially considering how old Biden is and may not last all four years. She needs to be move-in ready and I doubt she is.

    I hope he has the good sense to nominate Elizabeth Warren. Adding her to the ticket will make the choice very clear: go backwards or shelter in place (which is as good as you can do under someone like Biden)


    I think if all this had not happened (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 09:25:52 PM EST
    It would have been her probably.  I don't see how he doesn't pick a woman of color now.

    Probably Harris or Demmings


    Demmings is being (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 09:32:49 PM EST
    downgraded due to having been chief of police.

    Today (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 09:36:37 PM EST
    New York Times: "The search committee has been in touch with roughly a dozen women, and some eight or nine are already being vetted more intensively."

    "Among that group are two contenders who have recently grown in prominence, Representative Val Demings of Florida and Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta. One well-known candidate, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, has lost her perch as a front-runner. And some lower-profile candidates, like Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, are advancing steadily in the search process."

    I was listening to Tammy Duckworth earlier.  I don't see why she would not be a stellar pick.


    NYTimes (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 09:43:23 PM EST



    Also (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 09:27:41 PM EST
    I think the "defund the police" thing is likely to make someone like Biden think he has to pick someone from law enforcement

    Oy (none / 0) (#59)
    by jmacWA on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 04:33:34 AM EST
    I hope not, but that would be the Biden we know.

    Warren would be the best pick (none / 0) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 08:31:58 AM EST
    Having said that, there are two things going against that choice. A Republican Governor would be able to fill her Senate seat and current events make picking a woman of color almost certain.  

    To be honest (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by CST on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 10:30:45 AM EST
    I could take or leave Warren as VP. I would be happy with her but I would also be happy with most of the front runners including Harris who I think is not nearly as regressive on criminal justice issues today as is portrayed.

    That said, the republican senator issue for Warren is overblown.  MA law requires a special election that could be held before the next term starts if she stepped down soon.  And while Scott Brown did win a special election in MA prior, a huge factor is that he caught Dems sleeping.  That won't happen again, in part because of Scott Brown.


    True that. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 11:06:36 AM EST
    Martha Coakley was an abysmal candidate. Poor choice by Dems.

    I think Warren (none / 0) (#74)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 10:42:49 AM EST
    ...will be more valuable in the Senate, where a Democratic president would give her considerably more authority.

    A D majority would give her even more.


    El Gordo goes full Jefferson Davis... (none / 0) (#29)
    by desertswine on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 05:28:42 PM EST
    "I think I've done more for the black community than any other president, and let's take a pass on Abraham Lincoln, because he did good -- although it's always questionable. You know, in other words, the end result -"   -  fox interview

    Beyond weird (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 12, 2020 at 11:06:21 PM EST
    The interviewers response (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 08:25:05 AM EST
    She was black

    "Well, we are free, Mr. President, so I think he did pretty well," she said, referring to Lincoln.

    His response time the response (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 08:35:52 AM EST
    Was also noteworthy

    He said, yes.  We are free.

    In a way that suggested he really was incapable of understanding what she was trying to tell him.

    Since, you know, he was always free.


    Yeah, but to be fair, he later (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    clarified his idiotic assertion:
    The president later tried to clarify his comments, saying they were "spoken as a fact, not as a statement."
    A fact, not a statement; of course. Well, that explains it; all clear now.

    Peter, what are your thoughts on this (none / 0) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 12:47:40 PM EST
    The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped two hot-button issues by declining to take up cases involving Second Amendment rights and legal protections for police officers.

    The justices chose not to add new disputes over the right to carry a firearm in public and declined to revisit the legal doctrine of qualified immunity, which generally shields government employees from being held liable for alleged wrongdoing.

    The Hill


    It is speculation, of course, as to why (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 04:27:45 PM EST
    the Supreme Court chooses not to take any of the 8000+ petitions to it each year for possible selection for consideration on the merits. They take only about 70-75 for full precedential review. That said, I can guess, w/r/t the firearms cases, that the conservatives are not sure they have five votes to make the law worse than it is now in this area, and thus by accepting a case (which takes only four affirmative votes) they could end up setting a precedent that would support the constitutional basis for state and local gun control laws. As to qualified immunity, on the other hand, the current state of the law is based on the Court's interpretation in the '80s of a Reconstruction Era statute. As an important aspect of police accountability "reform," Congress is presently (supposedly) considering amending that statute to overrule or modify the Court's existing precedent. So it is normal for the Court to wait and not weigh in until it is clear that Congress will not take the bull by the horns.

    Thanks, Peter (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 06:38:18 PM EST
    It is always great to get your input on these cases.

    Would have been nice (none / 0) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 08:35:09 AM EST
    If the interviewer would have asked him what he meant by his statement.

    And the blind shall see... (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 08:01:56 AM EST

    Donald J. Trump
    We had previously scheduled our #MAGA Rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for June 19th - a big deal. Unfortunately, however, this would fall on the Juneteenth Holiday. Many of my African American friends and supporters have reached out to suggest that we consider changing the date out...
    10:23 PM · Jun 12, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

    Donald J. Trump
    Replying to
    ...of respect for this Holiday, and in observance of this important occasion and all that it represents. I have therefore decided to move our rally to Saturday, June 20th, in order to honor their requests...

    Donald J. Trump
    ...We have already had ticket requests in excess of 200,000 people. I look forward to seeing everyone in Oklahoma!

    I can't argue w (none / 0) (#38)
    by smott on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 10:17:07 AM EST
    Presumption of innocence of course, but how do we alert people to a pattern with this cop-complaint database?
    If someone (say like Chauvin) has 37 excessive force complaints, but thanks to union protection or a weak DA, only one or two reprimands, I'd still want to know. He's a walking red flag. As was Chauvin.

    This is pretty amazing (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 10:28:57 AM EST

    "Houston's top prosecutor has concluded that a scandal-ridden former Houston police officer likely lied when he arrested George Floyd on a minor drug offense for which Mr. Floyd served time in state jail," the Wall Street Journal reports.

    Yep (none / 0) (#40)
    by smott on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 11:15:16 AM EST
    Sadly not too surprising....

    I just went out (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 05:16:40 PM EST
    80% no masks

    Gov. Asa Hutchinson

     While it is critical that we continue to go about our daily business, wearing a face covering is vital to stopping the spread of COVID-19. Be sure and wear a face covering when social distancing is not possible to protect those around you from contracting COVID-19.

    4:27 PM - Jun 12, 2020

    `All of a Sudden It Blows Up': Arkansas' COVID Problem Is Just Getting Started

    "It is important for our community to understand that we are not seeing more hospitalizations simply because more testing is being done," added Wright. "We are seeing more hospitalizations because more people in our area are being infected with the virus."

    I think I am (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 09:16:30 PM EST
    the only person left wearing a mask in my apartment building. At my local chain grocery store, which has had many employees get the virus and 2 died (who were in their 40s), they employ an "aisle-walker". She dresses all in black and looks pale and ghoulish -- with bright red lipstick. Probably in her early 40's. Anyway, apparently her job is to catch shoplifters. Everytime I see her, she's walking up and down the aisles with a little cross body bag and no cart. Two days ago she kept taking off her mask. And then she'd put it back on so it didn't cover her nose, only her mouth. I was going to complain to management, but I just wanted to get out of there (I'd already spent over an hour in the store). Why so long? I'm now into reading labels and avoiding anything with "seed oil" which is basically everything but olive oil and avocado oil (the latter smells so bad to me I've never tried it.)

    That article is good (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 09:33:39 PM EST
    I have been saying people don't believe it because they do not personally know anyone who has gotten sick.

    That I think is about to change.  Sadly that will be exactly to late.

    I like the quote about it being like hitting your thumb with a hammer but it doesn't hurt for 4 weeks.

    I'm being more careful than ever.  I might start ordering groceries for pickup.  Which has literally been the only time I leave my property


    Anecdote (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 09:51:10 PM EST
    I was talking to a friend earlier and he was fretting his sister and her children had come to visit him and he let them in.

    This was when I called him to direct him to that article so it probably won't happen again.

    But he had an interesting story.  His sister, and her friends I guess, have come up with a clever plan.  It is to have a "circle of a few friends" that you visit with.

    I told him that reminded me of the days of the AIDS plague when people would say they are only "active" with a small circle of friends.  

    Almost all of those people are dead


    "Seed oils" (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 03:02:32 PM EST
    I am on that train too.  Saw Catherine Shanahnan' book on Bill Maher.  Got it. Seed oils are bad.  High fructose corn syrup, very bad.  It is in everything.

    Not sure how much to believe this.  Dr. Shanahan did not have a lot research to back her up.  And its  hard to do what she says.  But, sure, I'll take butter over margarine, and bacon over salad dressings with seed oil....Yummy, but, really, it is good for you?

    I get that your body turns simple carbs into fat, and sugars and starches are not so good.  But no more Diet Dr. Pepper?  


    I'm Not So Sure About That (none / 0) (#89)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 03:41:33 PM EST
    Especially the part about simple carbs getting turned into fat.  I think it turns into blood sugar.  Former FDA commissioner David Kessler has a recent book "Fast Carbs, Slow Carbs" where it is claimed that the best carbs to eat are whole unprocessed ones, especially "sprouted grains."  Avoid anything made from "enriched" flour.  I learned that certain breakfast cereals like Cheerios and Kix are manufactured by exploding grains, making them fast carbs, too easy to digest and thus raising your glycemic index.

    If there is any silver lining (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 11:16:15 AM EST
    It is this

    Trump Barely Leads In Arkansas

    June 14, 2020 at 11:51 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 20 Comments

    A new Hendrix College poll in Arkansas finds Donald Trump leading Joe Biden by just two points, 47% to 45%.


    Donald Trump won the state with 60.57% of the vote, and Hillary Clinton received 33.65% of the vote.

    If people start dying in large numbers enough people will blame him.

    If he lost AR I would be very happy.  Or as happy as possible considering the cost.


    Protests in Atlanta after Rayshard Brooks (none / 0) (#45)
    by McBain on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 06:26:34 PM EST
    was shot and killed by police.
    "During the arrest, the male subject resisted and a struggle ensued," the Bureau of Investigation said. "The officer deployed a Taser. Witnesses report that during the struggle the male subject grabbed and was in possession of the Taser. It has also been reported that the male subject was shot by an officer in the struggle over the Taser."

    Police Chief Erika Shields is immediately stepping down after the shooting, Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms announced in a news conference Saturday afternoon. She also called for the termination of the police officer who shot Brooks and for another officer to be placed on administrative duty.

    Here is a video of the shooting.

    I believe police are allowed to shoot fleeing felons in certain situations so I don't think the officer should be fired without an investigation.

    There is always an investigation (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 08:03:12 PM EST
    of an officer-involved shooting. The involved officer may be placed on administrative leave. The officer is always entitled to a hearing prior to termination. And is then entitled to appeal the termination decision.

    The man (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 08:46:43 PM EST
    ...who was shot was accused of being drunk in public. They had his car. How dangerous was it to not shoot him?

    Bad police work. (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 09:22:07 AM EST
    An unresponsive person in a vehicle suggests the need for a call to Emergency Medical Response. Poor judgment with a lethal consequence.

    The cop shot him in the back. (none / 0) (#94)
    by fishcamp on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 08:25:42 PM EST
    You've probably seen the recent footage of him running with the taser he grabbed from the cop, turning and firing it high over the cops head, and turning back again to run away when he was shot in the back.  Just saw it on CNN.  sad.

    Shot in the back (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 08:48:44 PM EST

    Awaiting toxicology results. (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 02:31:31 PM EST
    On the cop? (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 01:27:56 PM EST
    No. Curious why the victim fell asleep in the (none / 0) (#178)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 09:08:25 PM EST
    drive through lane. And why, after lengthy calm interaction between him and the officers, he then resisted. Not justification for the homicide, of course.

    Doesn't being drunk (none / 0) (#181)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 09:23:17 PM EST
    explain that?

    No. B.A. wasn't that high. (none / 0) (#187)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 10:27:06 PM EST
    What felony was he suspected (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Jun 13, 2020 at 11:53:10 PM EST
    of committing? They had reason to shoot him. They knew who he was. They had his car, probably his DL. Police could have easily found him and picked him up at a layer date. Fleeing felon my a$$.

    that was supposed to read (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 11:02:10 AM EST
    NO reason to shoot him.

    Beginning the sound like (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 07:35:21 AM EST
    The conversation a few years ago about the formerly ubiquitous "high speed car chase"

    Some one ne finally pointed out they were mostly self-indulgent macho BS from cops who "want what they want when they want it" and it was actually insane to risk numerous lives in a car chase when they know who they are.

    Not many high speed chases recently.


    It looks like there was a violent struggle (none / 0) (#70)
    by McBain on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 09:59:48 AM EST
    to arrest Brooks.
    It also looks like he points something that's glowing, maybe a taser, at the officers just before he is shot. If someone punches a cop and tries to use his taser on him, pretty sure that's a felony.

    We don't see what happens before the struggle.  Maybe we'll learn more about that.


    Firing a taser (none / 0) (#141)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 09:23:13 AM EST
    At a cop might be the answer.

    Shot for pointing a Taser (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 02:05:45 PM EST
    L. Chris Stewart, an attorney for Brooks's family, said the officer who shot him should be charged for "an unjustified use of deadly force, which equals murder."

    "You can't have it both ways in law enforcement," Stewart said. "You can't say a Taser is a nonlethal weapon ... but when an African-American grabs it and runs with it, now it's some kind of deadly, lethal weapon that calls for you to unload on somebody."



    Here is some information about taser laws (none / 0) (#88)
    by McBain on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 03:16:47 PM EST
    in Georgia...
    Legally, stun guns are divided into two types:

    One type requires you to make direct contact with your target before the gun discharges.
    The other type, used by police, fires a projectile (typically a wire) into the target so it can be used at a distance.

    The "contact" type of stun gun is not considered a firearm in Georgia and can generally be carried without a permit. The "projectile" type stun gun is considered a firearm and is regulated by the same laws that govern the use of other types of weapons.

    Here's a link about use of deadly force in Georgia...

    "1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or

    2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (O.C.G.A. Section 17-4-20) and the employee reasonably believes that the suspect's escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person."



    Based on your link, (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 04:20:18 PM EST
    The type of taser you claim the police are using is indeed a lethal weapon and their claims that it is not are not accuracy.

    As the lawyer said, you can't have it both ways.


    I agree with Stewart (none / 0) (#106)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 11:15:06 AM EST
    that the cop should be charged for killing Brooks.


    "You can't have it both ways in law enforcement," Stewart said. "You can't say a Taser is a nonlethal weapon ... but when an African-American grabs it and runs with it, now it's some kind of deadly, lethal weapon that calls for you to unload on somebody.

    Who is Stewart talking about here? Who in law enforcement is trying to have it both ways? Who is Stewart saying made the claim that in this case the taser was a "deadly, lethal weapon?"


    I don't think he's ... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 11:35:27 AM EST
    ... talking about a specific statement from someone, but the anticipated defense/justification  from the officer.  Tasers are generally considered by police to be non-lethal or "less than lethal" weapons.  I think Brooks is pointing out that police can't claim tasers are non-lethal when police use them, then turn around and claim that plice are justified in responding to a (non-lethal) taser with lethal force when a suspect has a taser.

    Ah, yes, that makes sense.

    Here is body cam footage that shows (none / 0) (#85)
    by McBain on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    what happened before the struggle.  He resists arrest around the 5:20 mark.  Before that things were calm.  

    Both officers have been charged (none / 0) (#157)
    by McBain on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 03:42:09 PM EST
    The Atlanta Police officer who shot and killed Rayshard Brooks at a Wendy's parking lot last week was charged with felony murder, and the other officer on scene was charged with aggravated assault, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced Wednesday.
    The decision comes just five days after Brooks was shot twice in the back in Atlanta during an attempted arrest. Officer Garrett Rolfe, who shot at Brooks three times, has already been fired, and officer Devin Brosnan, who was also on scene, has been put on administrative duty.
    After shooting Brooks, Rolfe said "I got him" and kicked him, and Brosnan then stood on Brooks' shoulder, Howard said. The officers did not provide medical aid to Brooks for over two minutes after shooting him, Howard said.
    Their demeanor after the shooting "did not reflect any fear or danger of Mr. Brooks, but reflected other kinds of emotions," Howard said.

    Pretty sure these guys had some fear in them during the struggle.  Most of the police use of force expert opinions I've heard describe the shooting as justified.  Here's one.
    I haven't heard comments about what happened after the shooting.

    Here's a link (none / 0) (#158)
    by McBain on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 04:14:04 PM EST
    to the press conference of the charges.
    Blurry photos are used to show the alleged kicking and standing on of Rayshard Brooks.

    "Pretty sure" ... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 04:45:53 PM EST
    ... the struggle was over before the shooting happened.  But the "use of force expert" video from the Sheriff was interesting.  Any word from the officer's union rep?  Maybe his mom?

    Police officer Garrett Rolfe (none / 0) (#161)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 05:06:20 PM EST
    is entitled to a competent defense and the argument expressed by Georgia's Burke County Sheriff Williams may be a part of that.

     Fulton County District Attorney Howard, in his press conference, laid out a careful case, citing law and departmental standard operating procedures. The videos, eyewitnesses, and, apparently, the cooperation of Officer Devin Brosnan (who has three charges) present, at least at this point, a very strong case.

     Moreover, the photos of Rolfe kicking the downed Mr. Brooks and Brosnan standing on his shoulders (he admitted to standing on what he believed was Brooks' arm), and not acting quickly to provide any medical assistance, add to the strength of the case.


    It isn't just police who think (none / 0) (#168)
    by McBain on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 06:57:14 PM EST
    the shooting was justified.  Most the video/article comments are in favor of the officers. Much different than the Floyd case.  A lot of people see this as political.

    I don't see a strong case so far.


    Shot in the back while running away? (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 07:28:53 PM EST
    I don't see a strong case so far.

    I see a slam dunk. The officer had the option of retreating from the taser.


    USA Today (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 07:49:59 PM EST
    Rolfe knew the Taser that Brooks had "presented no danger" because it had already been shot twice, Howard alleged.

    Brosnan's lawyer disputes (none / 0) (#198)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 11:43:11 AM EST
    that he agreed to be a state's witness and says the DA should be a "ashamed" for charging Brosnan and stating that agreement took place....
    "Inappropriate doesn't even begin to cover it"

    This is very, very rare' (none / 0) (#171)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 07:12:25 PM EST
    Ex-Atlanta Police officer who killed Rayshard Brooks charged with felony murder

    DA Paul Howard announced 11 charges against Garrett Rolfe, who five days ago fired three shots at Brooks, two of which hit Brooks in the back and another that hit a car with three people inside.

    After Rolfe shot Brooks, he failed to give timely first aid, exclaimed, "I got him," and kicked Brooks as he struggled for his life, Howard said.

    Has anyone seen an explanation of how (none / 0) (#174)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 07:34:41 PM EST
    this is allegedly a "felony murder" -- which, at least as generally understood, means a death that results unintentionally from the commission of a dangerous felony. Typical examples being a bystander killed by the robbers' reckless driving while trying to get away, or a firefighter dying while battling an arson fire, or a co-felon killed by the victim acting in self-defense. What's the underlying dangerous felony here out of which Brooks' death eventuated?

    I have not (none / 0) (#176)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 08:15:30 PM EST
    Felony murder has been stated as one of the charges in more than one article but I haven't seen any explanation of the charge.

    This article at CNN just mentioned that he was charged with murder and lists these other charges:

    The former officer is facing six other charges related specifically to his interactions with Brooks:

    • Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon linked to Brooks' death. The offense carries a possible sentence of 1 to 20 years.

    • Aggravated assault for kicking Brooks. Rolfe was wearing a shoe "which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury," an arrest warrant said. The offense carries a sentence of 1 to 20 years.

    • Four counts of violation of oath by a public officer -- a felony offense under Georgia law. Each offense carries a sentence of 1 to 5 years.

    Prosecutors say Rolfe broke his oath and didn't follow the police department policies when he used a Taser as Brooks ran away, failed to render timely medical aid to Brooks, shot Brooks twice in the back and failed to tell him that he was under arrest for driving under the influence.

    Rolfe faces four additional charges linked to the third shot he fired, a bullet that hit an occupied vehicle in the Wendy's lot.

    • Three aggravated assault charges related to the three people who were inside the vehicle.

    • One count of criminal damage of property in the first degree for damaging the vehicle "in a manner so as to endanger human life by shooting it with a handgun."

    Perhaps it's just careless journalism by (none / 0) (#179)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 09:20:51 PM EST
    someone not familiar with criminal law terminology. (I remember being confused by it as a first-year law student, thinking, "How can murder not be a felony?") Perhaps what the reporter meant was "capital murder." Which I can understand from a prosecutor's POV, though that seems to be way out of line to me, from my own defense-atty and anti-death-penalty perspective. Unless the evidence indicates a cold-blooded decision to kill, I tend to view police killings in the course of an arrest as a kind of voluntary manslaughter, that is, homicide committed in the sincere but unreasonable belief that killing the victim was justified under the circumstances as they appeared at the time.

    A leagal analyst on CNN (none / 0) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 09:31:17 PM EST
    Just said felony murder in this case is murder committed in the act of committing a felony.  Which in this case is aggravated assault.

    Ok, if that's Georgia law. Kind of wierd (none / 0) (#185)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 10:03:30 PM EST
    interpretation of "felony murder" by general American standards. But as I've pointed out on this blog any number of times, each state's body of criminal law is unique and can have its own quirks. In normal American criminal law, if the victim dies unexpectedly or unintentionally as a result of an aggravated assault that would be second (or in some states, third) degree murder. Not "felony murder" and certainly not capital murder, which the Supreme Court has held requires, under the Constitution's Eighth Amendment, in all cases, proof of an intent to cause death. In other words, capital punishment for felony murder is unconstitutional.

    Just reporting (none / 0) (#186)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 10:10:30 PM EST
    But I have today heard what the prosecutor did was "throw the book(s) at him"

    Charging him with every thing he possibly could.  11 charges I think.


    I cannot support the abusive and too-common (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 08:24:26 AM EST
    prosecutorial tactic of "throwing the book" at a someone when first bringing charges, regardless of where my sympathies lie in the particular case. Hopefully, Georgia has a preliminary hearing stage of the case where the excessive and spurious charges are weeded out.

    Didn't expect you would (none / 0) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 08:59:31 AM EST
    I don't either.  That phrase was used by talking heads not the prosecutor but 11 charges seemed a bit overexcited.

    Wondering what you thought about the laundry list of charges including aggravated assault and felony murder and 9 others.


    The Georgia (none / 0) (#193)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 10:03:16 AM EST
    Bureau of Investigation (GBI) is conducting a parallel investigation.  The GBI was not consulted on the charges filed by the District Attorney, stating that the GBI was not needed due to the extensive evidence and eyewitness testimony that typically is not so readily available.

    It will become complicated if the GBI does not come up with the same conclusions as the DA.  If different findings the charges presented to the grand jury could be modified or, maybe even, if the differences are substantial, the GBI could become witness for the defense.


    Normally prosecutorial authorities with (none / 0) (#199)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 12:06:50 PM EST
    overlapping jurisdiction (county DA, state AG and Bureau of Investigation, federal US Attorney) discuss among themselves and agree up front who will handle a given case. As between the county and the state, there is probably a state law that says who gets to do what, if they can't or don't agree. I don't actually understand what is going on between the DA and the GBI here.

    And Would This Abuse be Ameliorated (none / 0) (#192)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 09:52:42 AM EST
    by having such decisions made by low key civil service functionaries rather than elected politicians?

    Actions by police (none / 0) (#184)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 09:45:38 PM EST
    After Brooks was shot and lying on the ground seemed to indicated a high level of rage on the part of the officers.

    Per photos, rather than rendering immediate aid, they spent their time kicking him and standing on his body.


    Interview with Rayshard Brooks in February (none / 0) (#201)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 02:06:53 PM EST
    about his life after incarceration.

    Brooks told the interviewer he was arrested for false imprisonment and financial credit card fraud. He said his public defender told him he could get 10 years, so he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison.

    Brooks added: "They're not taking you out to find a job, you have to do these things on your own, you know, and I feel like it should be a way for you to have some kind of person like a mentor assigned to you to, you know, keep your track, keep you in the direction you need to be going ... yet I'm out now and I have to try to fend for myself."
    Perhaps the most chilling words from Brooks in the video were these, spoken when he still had hope for a better life: "I'm trying, you know, I'm not the type of person to give up. You know, and I'm gonna keep going until I make it to where I want to be."

    I don't think much of that is relevant to the shooting but it's an interesting article.  

    NPR article (none / 0) (#61)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 07:37:37 AM EST
    Those aren't ammosexuals (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 08:33:00 AM EST
    "Ammo$exuals" are the clowns who feel the need to carry a gun with them everywhere.  To prance around in military surplus gear pretending thy're in some kind of redneck militia.  To fetishize gun ownership to the point where they oppose all types of gun regulation, licensing and registration.  To take anti-tank weapons with them to get a Subway sandwich.  To arm themselves to the teeth when going to a "protest", when they're actually having a political rally and threatening legislators.

    But I understand why you'd try to conflate them.


    After all the mass shootings (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 12:34:02 PM EST
    how goddam endlessly clueless and socially retarded do you have to be to not consider that you're going to freak a lot of people out when you walk into restaurant with an assault rifle?

    Clueless, or just inconsiderate, me-first, ass*oles? That is the question.


    Need to carry a gun everywhere (none / 0) (#80)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 12:50:13 PM EST
    You sound like the type that feels only people like Derek Chauvin should be allowed to carry in public. Or possibly body guards for plutocrats and the politically powerful as well as their families.

    The kind of psychological testing (none / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 01:01:34 PM EST
    I think should be required to carry guns around would probably leave out Chauvin, most rich people's guns-for-hire, and probably you.

    What you are describing (none / 0) (#86)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 02:53:12 PM EST
    Would likely exclude most police, military, FBI, secret service and others. FWIW, I passed the psych testing for nuke weapons.

    That was a long time (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 03:53:14 PM EST
    ago, I'm assuming.

    The brain and nervous system are subject to deterioration over time.

    One day you're going along fine and the next you're putting the laundry in the oven and the roast in the washing machine.


    Hehehe (none / 0) (#160)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 05:06:08 PM EST
    Maybe someday. Not there yet. :)

    "You sound like" - heh (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 08:30:23 AM EST
    You "sound like" the type that's scared of your own shadow.  The type that feels the need to carry a gun everywhere because of that fear.  The type that fantasizes about threats and the chance to be a "hero" by gunning someone down.  The type that's desperately trying to compensate for something.  The type that fetishizes guns.

    I love this game.


    Bill Maher nails it (none / 0) (#65)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 08:45:36 AM EST
    Question (none / 0) (#69)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 09:54:26 AM EST
    When two groups of people with opposing views meet, one side is wearing t-shirts and carrying signs, the other is wearing body armor and helmets, carrying shields, billy clubs, guns, tasers and tear gas, which side showed up looking for a fight?

    And which (none / 0) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 10:05:11 AM EST
    Group will the police protect?

    So (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 10:32:20 AM EST
    Devs (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2020 at 08:19:59 PM EST
    On HULU.  Technically FX on HULU.

    This is very good.  Created written and directed by Alex Garland who made two of the best movies in the last 10 years.  Ex Machina and Annihilation.

    Devs Takes Its Time to Blow Your Mind

    COME OUT (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 02:54:44 PM EST
    First I love this series.  Everything about it but especially the music and sound design.  Episode 7 (which I just started) begins with the iconic COME OUT.  From Steve Reich from 1964.  Which changed my life on an acid journey in about 1970 and along with ITS GONNA RAIN (the other side of the record) which also uses the voice of a black man became major parts of my audio world and still are.

    Here from an article from 2016 about a piece of music from 1964 that I first heard in 1970 and could not possibly be more timely.

    Blood and Echoes: The Story of Come Out, Steve Reich's Civil Rights Era Masterpiece
    Fifty years ago, the composer debuted his tape-loop experiment Come Out--a piece that put forth the voice of a man beaten by police, an injustice that still reverberates in our Black Lives Matter moment.


    That link to the actual music (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 02:58:09 PM EST
    Did not work for me


    This will work



    Say their names (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 12:33:35 PM EST
    Um (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 12:38:35 PM EST
    THe other left

    Donald Trump, (none / 0) (#123)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 03:33:44 PM EST
    expert on infectious disease (spreading it) as well as treating it, has experienced a set back.  His own FDA has withdrawn its emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of Covid-19 patients. "it is no longer reasonable to believe the drug is effective or that benefits outweigh known and potential risks."

    No word yet on the use of Chlorox IV or other Trump nostrums for the treatment of the coronavirus.  

    What I want to know is... (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by desertswine on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 04:12:23 PM EST
    "The U.S. has sent to Brazil more than 2 million doses of a malaria drug touted by President Donald Trump as potentially protecting against and treating the coronavirus, even though scientific evidence has not backed up those uses."

    who paid for this stuff and who's making the profit off of this?  This drug is useless for covid19 yet someone is making a fortune.


    Our (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jun 15, 2020 at 05:28:52 PM EST
    idiot governor has some to spare
    TALLAHASSEE -- Florida is sitting on more than 980,000 unused doses of hydroxychloroquine, a drug President Donald Trump touted as a "game changer" in the fight against the coronavirus, after only a handful of hospitals in the state asked for access to the medicine.

    OTOH (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 16, 2020 at 11:52:49 AM EST
    Malaria is endemic in parts of Brazil, so at least the drug would prove useful for them to treat what it was actually meant to treat.

    According to CNN article (none / 0) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 08:27:17 PM EST
    US stockpile stuck with 63 million doses of hydroxychloroquine

    The stockpile also has another 2 million doses of chloroquine.

    Novartis, Mylan and Bayer donated doses of the drugs to the stockpile. HHS is working with the companies to determine the available options for the product that remains in the Strategic National Stockpile


    Please distribute them to poor people (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 09:22:32 PM EST
    -- many of them older black women -- with lupus.

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 09:29:07 PM EST
    Good use especially since those who legitimately needed the drugs had a hard time getting them due to Trump's "medical malpractice."

    Border (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 16, 2020 at 01:58:34 PM EST
    I found this on HULU but I'm sure it's "around".
    It's (primarily) from the guy responsible for 2 of my favorite things ever.  The book and (original Swedish) movie, Let The Right One In.  If that book doesn't make you squirm.......

    I agree with the review (completely in every respect) especially that it's best to go in knowing nothing about it.  

    I Accidentally Walked Into "Border," and It Kind of Changed My Life

    Mary's book (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 08:04:54 AM EST

    Book By Trump's Niece To Reveal He `Derided' Father's Alzheimer's Struggles
    A new tell-all by Mary Trump promises to expose the president's "appalling" treatment of his father.

    I did not know Sr had Alzheimer's.  But it certainly explains a lot.

    In other book news, they say Trump is unlikely to stop the Bolton book.   The stories today are about how good Trump is at selling books.  I'm sure he will work his magic for Mary

    With President Trump suing to stop publication of John Bolton's book, the scathing memoir hit #1 on Amazon's bestsellers list -- a week before it's even out.

    Mike Allen: "Trump's opposition to publication vastly increases the book's value, and reader interest around the world... And we're told that Attorney General William Barr has a starring role in the book."

    Magic (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 05:16:45 PM EST
    In less than two days, Mary Trump's book, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man has jumped to number five on the Amazon best-seller list.

    I would pay (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 06:33:21 AM EST
    money for this book but not Bolton's.

    Here's the thing about this (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 10:54:54 AM EST
    If it becomes news that Trump actually is having symptoms of Alzheimer's it will be a lifeboat for many of his supporters I think.

    See, they will say, he is sick.   That's why he was acting so crazy.  He wasn't like that when I voted for him.

    We can't let them do that.  I look forward to shooting that BS down.


    And (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 11:04:02 AM EST
    I can see it being used as a defense to try to keep him out of jail.

    NYTimes (none / 0) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 05:14:07 PM EST
    "They say his repeated acts of political self-sabotage -- a widely denounced photo-op at a church for which peaceful protesters were forcibly removed, a threat to use the American military to quell protests -- have significantly damaged his re-election prospects, and yet he appears mostly unable, or unwilling, to curtail them."

    "Mr. Trump doesn't want to be seen as a `loser,' a label he detests, in the campaign against Joe Biden... But for now, they said, the president is acting trapped and defensive, and his self-destructive behavior has been so out of step for an incumbent in an election year that many advisers wonder if he is truly interested in serving a second term."

    Also interesting: "Mr. Trump has also become consumed, once again, with leaks from the White House, demanding that officials find and prosecute those responsible for information getting out about his trip to the bunker beneath the White House during unruly protests."



    Shorter (none / 0) (#164)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 05:39:30 PM EST
    NYT "the emperor has no clothes, but we can't come right out and say it" these "many advisers wonder[ing]" are worse.

    Can't say about advisors wondering (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 06:23:16 PM EST
    But I sure have been wondering why he is acting like he is not really expecting or even that interested in winning.

    I've been assuming it was because they expected to win by stealing the election somehow.  

    Maybe there are other reasons.


    My (none / 0) (#167)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 06:53:23 PM EST
    point being that there is too much "wondering" going on about the actions of a crazy man.In his mind's eye every move he makes is a master stroke.

    A stroke (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 07:00:39 PM EST
    MIght we'll be involved

    Trump denies a stroke (5.00 / 6) (#173)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jun 17, 2020 at 07:30:38 PM EST
    In fact, after every round of golf, he denies a couple of dozen strokes.

    Klobuchar withdraws her name from VP (none / 0) (#202)
    by desertswine on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 10:41:13 PM EST

    Klobuchar says she called Biden and told him, "I truly believe ... this is a moment to put a woman of color on that ticket."

    New Dylan (none / 0) (#203)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 07:30:21 AM EST