home

Thursday Open Thread

Run Lola Run is back in theaters Friday, on the 25th anniversary of its 1999 release. It has been restored and upgraded to 4k. If you still go to movie theaters, this is one to see there. As director/writer Tom Tykwer says during a recent interview in the linked article, the reaction of people watching the film has been a "sheer joy to watch". A very basic plot summary from the article:

In the film, Lola (Franka Potente) has 20 minutes to come up with enough money to get her boyfriend, Manni (Moritz Bliebtreu), out of debt with a gangster. The film portrays three attempts by Lola to find a solution on foot.

Every time she is unsuccessful, the film rewinds to the beginning and Lola tries again. The film's presentation of three different realities qualifies as an early depiction of the multiverse, where infinite universes exist simultaneously.

[More...]

I saw the film in 1999 when it first came out at a movie theater in Greenwich Village. I had no idea what it was about before going into the theater. A lawyer friend of mine and I had just finished a late afternoon lunch, and as we were getting ready to leave, he checked his phone and said there was a new movie playing nearby he wanted to see. It was about to start, and he said if we ran, we might make it.

So we ran -- a few blocks at least -- and got in. Coming attractions were playing by the time we got seated, and we were so out of breath from running, he never did have a chance to tell me what the movie was about before it started playing.

I can still evoke the dazed feeling I had when it was over and we stepped onto Second (or maybe Third) Avenue. The street was teeming with people going about their lives, and it seemed like I was spinning, with people swirling around me everywhere. It took me a few moments to get my composure back.

No, I wasn't high. I just knew that I had seen something completely different, something that normally would not interest me at all (watching someone run the same route three times, for almost two hours, to the same techno-pop song, wearing the same outfit, in German no less).

In the article, both the Director and Potente explain how the movie was made, the "multi-verse" aspect to it, something that recent films have also explored, and the sources he drew on.

The movie isn't Lola running every single minute. The Director/writer says, "Of course, we have a proper plot in our film, but it's also pretty absurd. If you watch Lola for the plot, go elsewhere."

This casino segment is one of the parts where the plot surfaces, quite enjoyably. It also gives you a flavor of the film.

As for why people re-watch certain movies and TV shows and episodes over and over, these psychologists say it's a healthy practice and explain the various types of emotional fulfillment it brings.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Trump Outside Court: Trial Was Rigged, Judge Unfair
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Recorded yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 07, 2024 at 10:04:49 AM EST
    VETERAN: You're the savior of the people, you bring tears to my eyes.

    ZELENSKY: No no, you saved Europe.

    VETERAN: My hero.

    ZELENSKY: No, you are our hero.

    VETERAN: I pray for you.

    I tried it.., (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by desertswine on Fri Jun 07, 2024 at 02:28:48 PM EST
    When asked "Who won the 2020 US presidential election?" Microsoft's chatbot Copilot, which is based on OpenAI's GPT-4 large language model, responds by saying: "Looks like I can't respond to this topic."

    To be fair, it didn't know who won the 1932 election either.

    RIP Doug Ingle (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 07, 2024 at 04:36:42 PM EST
    If this doesn't make you smile (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 07, 2024 at 08:06:16 PM EST
    Looks like (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 08, 2024 at 03:36:29 PM EST
    he went to the same school of acting wrestlers and televangelists go to.

    Parent
    I thought it (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 08, 2024 at 05:27:59 PM EST
    an odd gift to give your detractors

    That video will live forever

    Parent

    I think he crossed that bridge (none / 0) (#8)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 08, 2024 at 06:03:16 PM EST
    a long time ago. There's another video where he talks about being stalked by green-skinned, pot-bellied goblins.

    The guy's mainstreamed psychotic ravings to an extent the fundamentalists never dreamed of.

    Parent

    Oh well (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 08, 2024 at 06:21:09 PM EST
    All I can say is thank you Al, you made my day.

    Parent
    I sent that to a friend of mine. (none / 0) (#10)
    by leap2 on Sat Jun 08, 2024 at 08:38:05 PM EST
    He said it was crock tears.

    Parent
    I was thinking (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 10, 2024 at 05:27:18 PM EST
    At sentencing the judge might give Trump probation on the charges but give him some jail time for contempt.

    Right?

    He really needs to be in jail. Even for little while. The nation needs it.

    Most attorneys (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 10, 2024 at 06:09:25 PM EST
    seem to think he will get jail time for all of it and that he will get jail time for the felony charges because of his behavior during the court and the contempt probably a year or two but will be out on bail pending appeal. I guess he could sentence him to jail immediately for the contempt charges? But I thought that was already handled with fines.

    Parent
    Yeah, I think GA6 is right. The contempts were (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 10, 2024 at 07:04:37 PM EST
    already adjudicated and sentenced (to fines). I do not expect jail or prison time, even though anyone else in these circumstances would likely get that sentence. If sentenced to jail (say, a couple of weekends), and he appeals, the judge may, but need not, continue his release on bail pending appeal. My friend who is a very experienced NY criminal defense lawyer, asked to outline the judge's non-prison options, responded: "The defendant could be sentenced to serve 3, 4 or 5 years' probation.  He could be made to pay restitution to the State or any other victim assuming the DA shows victim loss. ... He could be sentenced to a conditional discharge of three years; that is a revocable sentence if the conditions are violated.  He could be sentenced to an unconditional discharge. He could also get "intermittent imprisonment" such as weekends in jail. He could be sentenced to serve as long as six months jail plus the balance of 5 years on probation." My friend also wrote me, I believe (although I cannot find the message just now), that the defendant can ask for bail pending appeal either from the trial judge or from the appellate court, but only once: either way, the order on bail pending appeal is not appealable to another judge after that.

    Parent
    Harry Litman offers a good overview (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 09:43:09 AM EST
    of the immediate consequences of the NY conviction in a new Atlantic article. I have known Harry casually for some years (argued an appeal against him when he was a young prosecutor, soon after he clerked at the Supreme Court), and knew his remarkable mother pretty well before that and until her death.

    Parent
    6 Months in Riker's Starting July 11 (none / 0) (#32)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 06:30:09 PM EST
    would be appropriate for this defendant, so until Jan. 10, 2025.  If he is elected President in November, he would have a few days to prepare for the inauguration.

    Parent
    He has been contemptible, legally, (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 10, 2024 at 06:52:52 PM EST
    many times since the fines.  

    Parent
    Hunter guilty on all counts (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 10:33:29 AM EST
    I was hoping for an acquittal to make their heads explode but a conviction makes their framing explode.  

    Which is probably even better.

    I feel bad for Hunter but he's a first time offender

    At least I think he is.

    Yes, too bad. For a number of (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    reasons, most of which I will not bother to mention. None of the individuals I have known (clients, neighbors, friends, family) who experienced addiction, either to alcohol or to drugs, "knew" that was so while in the active grip of that condition; they were all in denial. Sometimes to the moment of death. Not one would have been capable of answering "yes" to that question on a federal form, even knowing they were subject to the penalties of perjury. I was frankly anticipating a split verdict, perhaps guilty on one of three counts. The judge's pretrial rulings limiting the defense evidence that was directly relevant to his mens rea (required guilty mental state) give him strong grounds for appeal (following the sentencing), in my opinion.

    Parent
    Andrew Weissman (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 12:32:13 PM EST
    and others have said the best hope for Hunter on appeal could ironically be that most right wingers, including probably some on the supreme court, think the stuff about not allowing ownership of a gun while on drugs is an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd amendment.

    That would be a helluva thing,

    Parent

    Hard to blame him (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 12:56:47 PM EST
    "It is hard to blame him for wanting a gun, which he has a God-given right to have under the 2nd Amendment," Trump said in a statement.

    Parent
    I'm not siding with the gun nuts here (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    but the law he supposedly violated is in my opinion laughably vague.

    And based on a laughable premise.  And in fact seems to me more like an opportunity for cops to rope people in on things like a random traffic stop when they smell pot and then find a gun.

    It's nonsense.


    Parent

    A friend told me (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jun 12, 2024 at 07:00:38 AM EST
    that nobody has ever been convicted on any of these three charges against Hunter Biden.  I'm not sure if this is true.

    Parent
    Absolutely not literally true. But not far (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 12, 2024 at 09:06:53 AM EST
    from true. That clause of the statute is very rarely prosecuted. Perhaps never before when the person was already in sustained recovery by the time the charges were brought, and the gun had not been used in the commission of any crime.

    Parent
    Statement from President Biden (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 02:38:12 PM EST
    "As I said last week, I am the President, but I am also a Dad---I will accept the outcome of this case and will continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal. Jill and I will always be there for Hunter and the rest of our family with our love and support. Nothing will ever change that."

    Hunter was found guilty of something he attempted to plead guilty to last year, but the judge did not accept the plea.  At the time, there was loud displeasure about the plea by Senator Marsha Blackburn (R.TN) and other Republicans.

     Now, it seems some Republicans are disappointed that Hunter was convicted because it removes a talking point about how "unfair" and "rigged" that he got off and Trump was convicted.  Also, it would have been a handy means of falsely equating the two separate circumstances.  At a minimum, and literally, there is a difference in the volume of felonies: 34/3.  But, enough so that I will not be voting for either one of them, Hunter or Donald,  for President of the United States of America.

     

    At first I thought that whole thing (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 03:54:54 PM EST
    was a statement from Joe.  I wish it was.

    The authority (on dumb) has spoken.

    Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) called Hunter Biden's conviction on federal gun charges "kinda dumb."


    Parent

    Orange Jesus has jumped the shark (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    in an electric boat

    Yeah, let's give this guy the nuclear codes

    This rant (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 07:30:01 PM EST
    was bizarro.  And, scary.  He seems to have jumped the shark. Big ly.

    Parent
    jaws? (none / 0) (#56)
    by leap2 on Sat Jun 15, 2024 at 06:06:15 PM EST
    Justice Alito, in a (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 12, 2024 at 11:51:23 AM EST
    strange response about flying flags of insurrectionist symbolism over his home to Senators Durbin and Whitehouse, claimed his wife is fond of flags.  Unless, as it turns out, it is a gay flag.

    In audio-recordings, Martha Ann, Alito's wife, is heard fantasizing about flying a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag because she has to look across the lagoon at a Pride Flag for all of June. But, she told her husband she would not do it out of deference to his request not to do so, "but when you are free of this nonsense, I'm going to send them a message every day" she told informed her husband..."" maybe every week, I'll be changing flags. They'll be all kinds . I made a flag in my head. This is how I satisfy myself".  "It's white, it has yellow and orange flames around it, and in the middle is the word vergogna.  That is the Italian word for shame".

    Besides Mrs Alito's envisioned counter-flag program, it is curious as to just what she meant ---when he is free of this nonsense. Is that her view of his job as a SC Justice?  And, does it imply that he may be thinking of retiring from such nonsense?  And, hoping for a Trump victory and doing his part so he can leave the nonsense behind?  

    In fairness to Alito, he told the Senators he is not fond of flags. And, in that audio-recording was almost a regular, sane reactionary, simply agreeing with the questioner that the country needs to be restored to "a place of godliness".   Vergogna, indeed.

    As expected (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 09:30:01 AM EST
    Part of the good news (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 10:18:05 AM EST
    is that the Supreme Court seems to have re-discovered "standing".  The legal concept of  harm abandoned in Creative LLC v Elenis....the case where the plaintiff filed suit against Elenis, Director of Colorado's civil rights agency.  The plaintiff, a graphic designer, was just  "blue skying" the possibility of starting a website business but wondered about having to design for same sex marriages in keeping with the state's anti-discrimination  requirements.  The Court found in her favor although there  were no customers, no requests for designs by same sex couples, no complaints registered with the state, and no state action taken.

    Part of the bad news is that the finding was made on the basis of no standing, rather than on its merits.  The FDA has found during the drug's  long approval period to be safe and effective, including its prescribing modifications over time.

    Overall, a good decision for women's health and women's rights.  Besides, the SC and Trump do not need another justifiable political firestorm.

    Parent

    It's being said (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 11:31:39 AM EST
    they have basically punted it to the states.

    Parent
    I have serious doubts whether a state (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 12:24:52 PM EST
    can ban (or even regulate the distribution or dispensing of) a medication that is FDA approved, or try to regulate what can be mailed or delivered, under the Supreme Court's view of the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and/or Tenth Amendment federalism. As the Supreme Court plurality recognized in the PPACA (Obamacare) case in 2010, the United States has a single interstate system of medical care that can be subject to legally-mandated federal controls.

    Parent
    Good (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 12:31:03 PM EST
    PBS (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 02:36:24 PM EST
    link

    Access to the pills is restricted across large swaths of the country because of state laws that ban abortion (including medication abortion) outright or impose separate restrictions on the drug's use.

    How do state laws impact access to mifepristone?
    Access largely depends on the laws in the state where a patient lives and, in the case of states banning or restricting mifepristone, what steps they are willing to take to circumvent them.

    About half of U.S. states allows online prescribing and mail delivery of mifepristone, conforming to FDA's label for the drug.

    Currently, 14 states are enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Another dozen or so states have laws specifically limiting how mifepristone can be prescribed, such as requiring an in-person visit with a physician or separate counseling about the potential risks and downsides of the drug.

    Those steps are not supported by major medical societies, including the American Medical Association.



    Parent
    More (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 02:41:59 PM EST

    What's next for legal challenges to mifepristone?
    Legal experts say other parties could bring new lawsuits.

    Idaho, Kansas and Missouri sought to join the case against the FDA and the Biden administration, which Supreme Court rejected -- though a conservative Texas judge who initially ruled against the FDA allowed them to join the case in his district. The three states, all led by Republican attorneys general, could try to revive the case at the lower court, arguing they have state interests in blocking mifepristone's use.

    "They are not physicians who have to show that they actually have some relationship to abortion care," Rebouche said. "They're claiming a state interest in the regulation of medicine, so I think that's the vehicle in which you could see a lawsuit come forward."

    They made it pretty clear the problem this time  was standing.  

    Parent

    Much discussion (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 02:44:54 PM EST
    of "Easter eggs" and "poison pills" in the decision.  

    Parent
    Florida man wants to name the ocean after Trump (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 14, 2024 at 04:56:41 PM EST

    Republicans now want to rename the oceans after Donald Trump

    I have a better idea. Rename the Yucca Mountain Waste Repository the Donald J Trump Memorial Toxic Waste Repository

    It's (none / 0) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 14, 2024 at 06:56:39 PM EST
    a cult, a bizarre absurdist cult.

    Parent
    Very good ad (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 10:44:53 AM EST
    I am going to (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 11:22:09 AM EST
    try that line out on some Trumpers and see what happens. Personally I think this only works on persuadable voters but that is good enough I hope

    Parent
    The target is (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 12:51:13 PM EST
    persuadable voters I assume.

    The voting public has checked out.  You and might find it odd but vast numbers of people, if you believe polls, know nothing.  About nothing.

    I've seen more that than a quarter don't even know Trump has been convicted.  And a third think Biden is responsible for the Dobbs decision.

    I think massive advertising will help change that.  And I think it's coming.

    Parent

    I have (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 09:04:52 AM EST
    seen campaign professionals say that voters don't even pay attention until October. In a lot of ways I am not surprised to see voters don't know anything. We don't have the most intellectual electorate and there are many that just don't pay attention or think politics is not relatable to their lives.

    Parent
    Traditionslly (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 09:13:16 AM EST
    after Labor Day

    Parent
    2016 (none / 0) (#60)
    by BGinCA on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 12:19:28 PM EST
    Didn't Hillary have a similiar ad?
    Some people  can't be shamed.

    Parent
    The ad covers (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 12:42:26 PM EST
    things since 2016.   This year is nothing like 2016.

    He is the farthest thing imaginable from a change candidate

    Parent

    I Think the Best Anti-Trump Strategy (none / 0) (#63)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 01:56:36 PM EST
    is to advertise his wacky policy proposals.  "Imagine what a blanket 60% tariff on Chinese imports (and 10% on those from the rest of the world) will do for inflation."  An overemphasis on how bad Trump is as a person didn't work so well in 2016.  The emphasis should be on how much better off you will be if Biden is reelected rather than let Trump try to keep his promises if he becomes president in 2025.

    Parent
    I'm sure that will also be done (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 02:13:45 PM EST
    It's funny to me you think because talking about his character didn't seem to work in 2016 it still won't.  

    He was an unknown quantity in 2016.  A crazy entertaining empty suit.
    In 2016 he had not been convicted of 34 felonies.  He had not had multiple civil judgements against him including fraud and assault that the judge called rape.

    Trump will not be elected again.  I'll take bets on that for any interested.  They, including Trump, know he will lose.   That's why they are already talking about how we will steal it.

    When we get to the point of who is lying about the election Trump's character or lack of it will be as important as any loony fantasy policy he might make up.

    Parent

    Correct (none / 0) (#65)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 07:16:13 PM EST
    by in large, the electorate does not do policy.

    You want to talk about not paying attention, your average voter has a hard time connecting the dots between party and policy and any argument besides a simple propagandist sound bite sails over their head.

     

    Parent

    EXACTLY what the GOP Wants (none / 0) (#66)
    by jmacWA on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 05:17:43 AM EST
    your average voter has a hard time connecting the dots between party and policy and any argument besides a simple propagandist sound bite sails over their head.

    The GOP has spent the last 40+ years dumbing down Americans and they have been successful beyond their wildest dreams. I never thought it could be as bad as it is now

    Parent

    One of the reasons (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 09:07:17 AM EST
    that the GOP is holding tight to the Trumptanic. They think they can lie and gaslight their way out of this.

    Parent
    I'm sure some think that. (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 09:25:14 AM EST
    To the extent they think.
    I also think they are many, like McConnell, who have resigned themselves to the disaster they can not prevent and are, pardon the expression, giving Trump enough rope.  I noted Mitches response to the crazy performance on Capital Hill.

    "Well, we shook hands several times.". With evil grin.

    I can imagine them thinking, when this election where Republicans are going to get slaughtered, is over, Trump will effectively be over also.

    The cult will survive of course but Trump will be removed from the stage by the next election.  By the legal system or the grim reaper.

     I don't believe the autocratic cult will survive in a way that is a real threat to the country without Trump.  No one else can do what he does.  It's not transferable.  Many have tried.

    So, give him enough rope.

    Parent

    I so hope (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 01:39:59 PM EST
    that you are right, Howdy. I really do.

    Parent
    I think there will be (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 02:15:16 PM EST
    senate republicans voting for Biden.  And not just Romney

    Parent
    Willie Mays dies (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by jmacWA on Wed Jun 19, 2024 at 05:05:52 AM EST
    My childhood hero, everything I ever had to be numbered was 24.  Saw him play in every stadium he played in in the majors.  Polo grounds, Seal Stadium, Candlestick, and lastly Shea.   Atteneded Willie Mays night in 73.  A solid 93 years old, he had a great run. America says good night to Willie Mays.

    My late father, who grew up in the Bronx (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 19, 2024 at 09:18:35 AM EST
    was a lifelong, diehard Yankees fan. He took me to Yankee Stadium a couple of times every year when I was a kid in the 1950s, living in the Northern New Jersey suburbs. But in 1956 or 1957 (I don't know exactly when), before the other New York teams moved to California, my dad took me one time each to the Polo Grounds, to see Willie Mays play with the New York Giants, and to Ebbets Field, to see Jackie Robinson with the great, late-50s Brooklyn Dodgers. Honestly, I don't remember Robinson. But to this day I can remember watching Willie Mays play center field.

    Parent
    The ones I watch over and over (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 07, 2024 at 10:18:12 AM EST
    are usually horror that most people have trouble making it thru once.

    Hmmmmmm.  I often wondered why some love horror, it's big business, and others don't.  
    OTOH I can't sit through a romantic comedy.

    About 4k.  

    youtube

    I ran across this very interesting YouTube video about new 4k conversions and how, and why, some are so bad.  
    The why is the case is AI.

    The guy does a great job of explaining how they are screwing it up and why it's really important.  
    The 4k version, however good or bad it is, is almost certainly the version we are going to see on streaming platforms.
    Like, forever.

    I don't see Trump or H Biden (none / 0) (#18)
    by coast on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 11:21:15 AM EST
    seeing the inside of a jail cell for either of these convictions.

    IMO neither of the Trump trials (the real estate or the falsification of documents) should have been brought, and I don't think this case against Hunter should have been brought.

    I'm more interested in the documents and election trials for Trump and the tax trial for H Biden.

    The thing that will make a difference (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 01:08:52 PM EST
    as I understand in both cases is that NEXT TIME both will have prior convictions

    That will make sentencing and other things more interesting the next time around.

    Parent

    A prior conviction as of the date of (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 04:07:06 PM EST
    sentencing may affect some sort of "guideline" calculation for sentencing in a given jurisdiction, but it is not a meaningful aggravating circumstances, imho, unless the commission of the present offense post-dates a prior conviction. And that will not apply to either Tr*mp or HB.

    Parent
    I report (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 04:11:20 PM EST
    what I read and hear

    Parent
    not criticizing you, just (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 04:48:10 PM EST
    responding based on decades of relevant personal, professional experience

    Parent
    As you should (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 04:53:56 PM EST
    Just sayin

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 05:14:19 PM EST
    What giant cases get dropped on Thursday?

    I'm really curious if they will leave the immunity decision to the absolute last possible minute.

    I'm of course talking about which of the big decisions the Nine Nazgul will drop.  They are running out of Thursdays.

    It is Thursdays, right?

    Parent

    Thursdays are the presently scheduled (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 12, 2024 at 09:03:24 AM EST
    "decision days." But there will have to be additional days added, to clear all 29 remaining decisions by July 4 or so. Dubious they can meet the typical June 30 goal. I don't think they actually "hold" anything that is finished; what keeps decisions from being released is endless back-and-forth minor or responsive edits between the majority and any concurrences or dissenters.

    Parent
    That sounds like any justice (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 12, 2024 at 09:34:55 AM EST
    could delay it to the last minute if they wanted to.

    Parent
    BIG THINGS coming (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 05:18:44 PM EST
    Lots of cable news pundits agree with you ... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 15, 2024 at 02:36:55 AM EST
    ... about Trump not being imprisoned. I would also note that these are the same pundits who also said that Trump would never be indicted in New York and then when he was, would never be convicted.

    Regarding Judge Merchan's sentencing decision, I wouldn't bet the farm against imprisonment. If anyone has asked for it, Trump has. He's repeatedly defied his gag order, and not only has he shown absolutely no remorse or contrition, he has also effectively doubled down. The likelihood of recidivism, in which he violates election law again, is better than even.

    Judge Merchan would be doing the country a big solid at the July 11 sentencing hearing by revoking Trump's bond and ordering him immediately remanded into state custody.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    And for a myriad (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 15, 2024 at 09:45:06 AM EST
    of reasons this would probably be the best thing to happen to the GOP. They would finally be forced to deal with this issue instead of continually enabling him.

    Maybe Merchan will split the baby and put Trump in prison on weekends.

    Parent

    They seem to be expecting it (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 15, 2024 at 09:50:48 AM EST
    they are actively planning around a convention with him in jail

    RNC planning for possibility of Trump being jailed during convention

    I also would not be surprised by some jail time.
    Trump think may he wants it but I don't think he
    would like it.

    I really hope we find out

    Parent

    And he will be, for all the wrong reasons. The man has been so corrosively malevolent that I could even imagine unapologetic defense counsels like Peter and Jeralyn cracking a wry smile of satisfaction as they heard the 34 guilty verdicts read aloud. If anyone deserved it and asked / begged for it, it's Donald Trump.

    Parent
    Considering (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 15, 2024 at 11:13:15 AM EST
    his meltdown over the verdict jail might just send him into full blow psychosis.

    Parent
    He looks bad (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 15, 2024 at 12:05:27 PM EST
    I keep hoping he will just seize up.  Hopefully on camera.

    Parent
    He (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 15, 2024 at 02:35:39 PM EST
    does look really bad. I lost hope the hambergers would take him out long ago.

    Parent
    I'm 73 (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 15, 2024 at 04:35:35 PM EST
    I can't imagine surviving the stress of running for president in 5 years.
    Even with countless worker ants to carry me around serve all my needs.

    Then adding the prospect of dying in prison.  If I lose.

    Its getting to him.  Finally.  Thank god


    Parent

    Who thinks Larry Hogan (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 11:43:15 AM EST
    can win in Maryland?  I saw his opponent this morning and she is impressive.  

    My money is on Alsobrooks

    Larry Hogan is an old-school GOPer ... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 18, 2024 at 08:53:17 PM EST
    ... in the best sense of the term. He's a throwback to the days when you could be disappointed as a Democrat that your candidate lost but take some solace in knowing that the Republican victor was competent at governance, was reasonable in temperament, could work well with people across the aisle when matters called for it, and wasn't going to blow the place up while in office.

    We really can't say that about today's crop of Republicans.

    Parent

    Doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 19, 2024 at 07:08:08 AM EST
    He will still vote for a republican leader and republican judges.

    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 19, 2024 at 09:51:19 AM EST
    As an "old-school" Republican, he would not be serving his constituents well as an elected member in the "new school" Republican Party (aka, fascist party). Maybe, he should consider becoming an Independent who caucuses with the Democratic Party. But, then, why go for the ersatz when a real, competent Democrat is running.

    Parent
    Hogan is popular in Maryland. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 06:33:40 PM EST
    He is a Republican who served two terms as Governor. Quite a feat in Maryland.

    I saw Alsobrooks on TV this morning as well. She seems to be more than capable. It's a matter of winning over the Baltimore area for someone from PG County.

    I'm not rooting for Hogan, but he will hard to beat.


    Parent

    What I hear other places (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 06:50:01 PM EST
    is he would have been much better off running against one of the conservative Democrats who lost to Ms Alsobrooks.  I guess a lot of money was spent by them against her.

    I think it's the kind of year when MD could elect it's first black woman senator.

    He's running from Trump but Trump is literally chasing him.  Endorsing him even tho he would not endorse Trump.

    That's gotta be because he knows it will hurt him.  No?


    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 18, 2024 at 06:09:55 AM EST
    his biggest problem as being a Republican and while they might trust him to run MD going to DC where he will have to swear fealty to Mitch and Trump is something altogether different.

    Parent
    Our friend Ms Zorba lives in Maryland (none / 0) (#77)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 18, 2024 at 07:46:19 PM EST
    I wonder what she thinks.

    Parent
    Anyone else watching the Karen Read trial? (none / 0) (#82)
    by McBain on Wed Jun 19, 2024 at 09:32:58 AM EST
    It's my latest obsession.  The defense came out swinging in their opening statement, claiming a conspiracy/coverup.  Many of the prosecution's witnesses have credibility problems, especially the lead investigator.  Hard to see a conviction at this point but the state or "Commonwealth" of Massachusetts hasn't finished their case yet.  

    I have (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 19, 2024 at 09:53:10 AM EST
    been kinda following it but not as closely as obviously you have. Dave Aronberg's synopsis is what I have watched about the trial. However what I garnered from that is that the prosecution's facts were never that strong regardless of the witness issues.

    Parent