But, he's absolutely right about Pinot... most are middling and have an easier path to failure, but the best Pinot is miles better than the best Cab. Unfortunately, there are very few inefficiencies in the Pinot market to exploit. Mostly traps.
There's an apocryphal story in the wine biz that the reason Merlot took off in the 90s was because it was easier to say than Cabernet Sauvignon... this was before we'd all become pals with wine and called it Cab. We ruined an entire varietal over linguistic temerity. Side note, a few years back I had a Pahlmeyer Merlot (2006) and it was one of the best wines I've ever had... made me realize what people probably had access to in 1990 and decided... Hey, this Merlot shit is pretty good - like a cloud of blueberries and chocolate. Then they planted it everywhere and made it taste like tomato leaves and tin.
Anyhow... my faulty recollection of Lite beers from the 80s - 90s is that they went from being, I dunno, a category, like Light beer from Miller to being a brand: Miller Lite, then Bud Lite, then... it made grabbing the Lite beer a sort of adjacent to your favorite brand rather than a different choice. It was still Bud, just BudLite. Now, I don't know how Natty Boh became the beer of choice for our South Carolina roommate who had an ID, but he who has the ID drives the flavor bus... so Natty Boh was the beer of choice for our slice of Notre Dame - and they didn't have a Lite version.
"These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. In fact, the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue—often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts—and he deliberately disregarded the truth. "
Ok, I breezed through the doc... here's my 'explain it to me like I'm five' question for lawyers:
The co-conspirators seem to have all told Trump that nothing was true, there wasn't fraud; it would seem that to the extent that they persisted or made additional utterances contradicting what they told Trump they would definitely be guilty of defrauding (or whatever); I mean, seriously, the co-conspirators look dead to rights. Caught saying its a lie they then made public statements contrary to that. I get it... that seems very prosecutable.
My question for a five-year-old is: do they have Trump making the same statements? It's possible they do and I breezed over it... that and that alone would be the thing I'd put out there.
Otherwise, what does it mean to 'disregard the Truth' when it comes from unreliable liars? Or, are we relying on the 'common sense' understanding that if all of his top advisors said it was fake, then Trump also knew it was fake -- this is essentially what is represented in the indictment (as quoted at the top). If the latter and not the former... are we assuming that Trump won't simply say something like: 'I didn't know what to think... my advisors are all liars -- you've all seen Rudy lie in every possible way -- *I* was being told that there was fraud by people then some people would say no fraud, then they'd say in public fraud, then other people would say...."
This is, aren't we all metaphysically certain that Trump will throw every single advisor as a lying liar under the bus while all he was trying to do was get to the truth? Just because someone told you x was false, if you believe x is true and, if x were indeed true it's the legal path, where's the conspiracy? The plain reading of the Top Quotation is that they are going to prove that Trump *knew* right? Not that Co-Conspirator X knew, but that Trump did.
Don't misread, I know Trump was lying and he knew he was lying... help me understand how you make a conspiracy charge stick when the Liar lies and says the co-conspirators were lying to him and he didn't believe anything they said...? It would be Ironic, but would it be an actual defense play to agree that the Co-Conspirators were all liars whose advice couldn't be trusted because of all the public lying? In which case, all the Co-Conspirators go to jail but the defendant is defended by a sort of 'invincible ignorance'. Or is there some sort of 'preponderance of reasonable assumptions' standard that we can apply to a liar who's willing to sacrifice all the other liars around him?
It's totally possible that I missed the 'smoking gun' in the haystack of Co-Conspirator 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 all told him there was no fraud, and yet he persisted because (in a court of law) he can say he thought there was fraud -- and it's the requirement of the prosecution to prove his 'state of mind' in this regard? Or does it not matter at all?
If it matters, then I'd be a little nervous as a prosecutor knowing that the Defendant will casually and convincingly state that everyone around him betrayed his trust and lied -- and *they* should definitely go to jail if what the prosecution says is true. As I say, we all know he was lying, but what's the evidentiary standard of proving a conspiracy if the defendant persists in claiming he was deceived?
This, but less cynically. Taking the shot here would be about taking down Trump and not turning it in to a referendum on Republicans or MAGA voters.
I will agree preemptively that the House moved with 'relative' speed and the article was to my mind reasonably narrowly framed. By the time McConnell had to formally take action in July 25 he clearly decided to postpone and triangulate. At which point, there was no containing the political narratives.
Yes, the only answer is a Westminster system... then we'd just have the Unitary Executive/Legislature we obviously crave. Nothing could go wrong with that model.
Mostly McConnell slow-walking via the 'pro-forma' position. But that's partly the point, we know the mood among republicans was different on Jan 6 vs. Feb 13.
There's also scope creep where impeaching for a riot is 'better' than impeaching for a coup/conspiracy, which is better than attempting to use impeachment to discredit a party and then an entire voting block of the population.
But, in the end, counterfactuals are counterfactuals.
I'd never bet on the outcome of our Judicial Process (tm), so I won't. Still think that Congress ought to have voted to Impeach in a continuous motion from certifying the election. Just on the simple grounds of inciting a riot and dereliction of duty once it was incited. 2-day affair while it was fresh. Simple exercise of Political Power by Congress. The constant temptation to turn everything into a courtroom drama run by lawyers is a mistake.
Been watching parts of ExileCon from New Zealand. Path of Exile 2 Open Beta doesn't start until June 2024... I was somewhat hoping that it was immanent for Dec2023 release to compete with D4. Oh well... assuming all goes well I'd assume DEC2024 release.
Interesting POE 2 design panel was obviously critiquing D4 mechanics in how they were going to avoid bad gameplay like excessive cooldowns, forced rotations, and resource generators. Amen brother, amen.
I agree with JB's synopsis... but I think the primary way to think of it is without any regard to Mission Impossible. It's purely a Tom Cruise Action/Spy movie that happens to have the words Mission and Impossible attached to it... and not much spying, and when you think about it, usually not a mission in the proper sense of a mission.
A slightly different flavor of Tom Cruise running really fast, leaping an impossible leap, helicopters helicoptering, and riding a Motorcycle in all the ways your mother told you not to.
Could be Knight and Day, Collateral, Oblivion, etc. The 'plot' that he's part of anything other than the Tom Cruise adventure brigade is stitched on with the delicate attention of a ballpark beer vendor.
But yeah, usually pretty harmless and stupidly fun.
Tom Cruise and I are of an age... well, he'd be more of an older brother; but where I grew up, some of my friends' older brothers were a little like Tom Cruise in Risky Business.
Anyhow... 40 years later, one of us grew up and the other is riding motorcycles over cliffs and parachuting into piles and piles of money that he uses to master the dark arts and grow younger each year.
So, to enable his bad behavior, we're going to snub the Barbenheimer nonsense and see Mission Impossible: 7(?).
Someday Jonathan Coulton will be proved correct, but not today Jonathan, not today.
Con-grats/dolences. The first month is always the hardest month from the new member of the household perspective. A happy mix of chaos, sleep, and no-sleep. Which is odd, because mostly the baby just sleeps, when you think about it.
I'm not bitter/jealous/old when I say that 20-yrs ago we tried to target a Thursday so we would have a long weekend to transition back home before work started...
I should add for clarity that the Tax issue clearly stems from activities relating to Foreign activities (China and Ukraine in particular) which made up the vast bulk of his $2M+ incomes in 2017/18 ... this isn't failure to pay on his $400k lawyer salary for Dewey, Cheatam & Howe.
If what other lawyers are saying about 'Statements of Fact' and Immunity... then a broad reading would be extremely important; assuming it would end further inquiry/prosecution into FARA for China/Ukraine.
So it seems to my non-Lawyer eyes that the facts are as surmised: a broad reading on Immunity by Biden on everything in Both Exhibit 1 (Attachment A) in the Plea and Diversion vs. the DA stating the scope was narrow. Agreement not to Prosecute is on Page 6 in the Diversion Agreement, the Plea Agreement is silent.
The Judge also questions the 'constitutionality' of the Diversion Agreement? Is this because the immunity is conflated for both docs or something else?
What's also strange is that the Plea agreement explicitly states that they can raise New Tax charges for the period 2014-2019 -- which encompasses the 2017/18 plea? Obvs. there's some technical lawyering going on here above my head.
Agreed... everyone can infer what happened. Except Ken. he wants to make darn sure that it's not this:
"What this does not seem to suggest, at least based on the information we have, is that the judge has accepted GOP arguments that Hunter Biden is getting a sweetheart deal, or that she’s part of a GOP conspiracy, or that she’s ultimately going to tank the deal."
And basically, I'm saying that Popehat's WAR is very close to 0 these days.
Heh, say what you will about Alexander Acosta... but his plea deal would've stuck.
Popehat is a lot less interesting as a partisan than he used to be... I mean, he's giving the "this is not a virus that was specifically bio-engineered as a Chinese Military weapon of terror and intentionally released by the Chinese Government" reading to publicly uttered statements that he himself quotes.
"From press reports, it appears that U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika asked questions about the scope of the deal. Specifically, she asked whether the government was agreeing not to prosecute Hunter Biden further just on these tax issues, or on any other issues it was investigating, including the Foreign Agent Registration Act. The government responded that the deal only precluded the government from prosecuting any other tax crimes related to these facts; Hunter Biden’s lawyers said that was wrong and if that was the case there was no deal."
If only we could actually read the filing we *might* be able to connect a dot or two... as it is, completely opaque. Instead, all we've got is a judge clarifying the unclarifiable and the defendant's attorney stating that the clarification clearly violates the intent of the agreement... and when asked to clarify in private, everyone agrees that unless the bargain includes 'unknowable' other future immunities to investigations we can only imagine, the deal is off.
This is where an outsider needs a better guide ... does the court have any other standard besides 'reasonableness' ? Haaretz implies no, and honestly, that seems ... unlikely?
It states the bill abolishes the "reasonableness standard"
"The bill to abolish the reasonableness standard, which ends the High Court's authority to strike down government decisions that it deems unreasonable, passed the third and final Knesset vote needed to ratify it into law on Monday afternoon."
...and concludes
"Under the newly approved law, the Supreme Court is no longer allowed to invalidate any government decision, including those made by the prime minister, ministers, or Knesset members, such as appointments or dismissals."
Is there no other standard than reasonableness for the Judiciary to invoke?
I have no formed opinion of how exactly a Judiciary functions under a 'reasonableness' standard that isn't tethered to a written code which prescribes what is reasonable under the code. It's one thing to wave at common law that's built upon hundreds of years of case law... but for an 80-yo state? Maybe we just need a better explainer on what exactly 'Reasonableness' is and upon what it rests.
I certainly understand that in terms of power, some who have it feel they are losing it... it's unclear exactly how it would function as having no judicial review at all.
I'm vaguely reminded of how folks around heree joke about Originalists; and as I'm seeing the new Rightist Judicial theory of 'reasonableness' emerge (phrased over hear by LEFT and RIGHT as Common Good), it makes me paraphrase the old saw: If you didn't like the Originalist Judiciary, wait until you get the Common Good Judiciary.
Yeah, I think the treaty specifies mid-point for border; but yes, you'd think Abbott & Co. would put them at 33% rather than mid-point for just those reasons.
On “Making Love in a Canoe”
Eat, Pray, Love for men. Terrible movie.
But, he's absolutely right about Pinot... most are middling and have an easier path to failure, but the best Pinot is miles better than the best Cab. Unfortunately, there are very few inefficiencies in the Pinot market to exploit. Mostly traps.
On “Trump Indictment (Events of January 6, 2021): Read It For Yourself”
Eeep... it doesn't have to be unanimous does it?
On “Making Love in a Canoe”
There's an apocryphal story in the wine biz that the reason Merlot took off in the 90s was because it was easier to say than Cabernet Sauvignon... this was before we'd all become pals with wine and called it Cab. We ruined an entire varietal over linguistic temerity. Side note, a few years back I had a Pahlmeyer Merlot (2006) and it was one of the best wines I've ever had... made me realize what people probably had access to in 1990 and decided... Hey, this Merlot shit is pretty good - like a cloud of blueberries and chocolate. Then they planted it everywhere and made it taste like tomato leaves and tin.
Anyhow... my faulty recollection of Lite beers from the 80s - 90s is that they went from being, I dunno, a category, like Light beer from Miller to being a brand: Miller Lite, then Bud Lite, then... it made grabbing the Lite beer a sort of adjacent to your favorite brand rather than a different choice. It was still Bud, just BudLite. Now, I don't know how Natty Boh became the beer of choice for our South Carolina roommate who had an ID, but he who has the ID drives the flavor bus... so Natty Boh was the beer of choice for our slice of Notre Dame - and they didn't have a Lite version.
On “Trump Indictment (Events of January 6, 2021): Read It For Yourself”
"These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. In fact, the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue—often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts—and he deliberately disregarded the truth. "
Ok, I breezed through the doc... here's my 'explain it to me like I'm five' question for lawyers:
The co-conspirators seem to have all told Trump that nothing was true, there wasn't fraud; it would seem that to the extent that they persisted or made additional utterances contradicting what they told Trump they would definitely be guilty of defrauding (or whatever); I mean, seriously, the co-conspirators look dead to rights. Caught saying its a lie they then made public statements contrary to that. I get it... that seems very prosecutable.
My question for a five-year-old is: do they have Trump making the same statements? It's possible they do and I breezed over it... that and that alone would be the thing I'd put out there.
Otherwise, what does it mean to 'disregard the Truth' when it comes from unreliable liars? Or, are we relying on the 'common sense' understanding that if all of his top advisors said it was fake, then Trump also knew it was fake -- this is essentially what is represented in the indictment (as quoted at the top). If the latter and not the former... are we assuming that Trump won't simply say something like: 'I didn't know what to think... my advisors are all liars -- you've all seen Rudy lie in every possible way -- *I* was being told that there was fraud by people then some people would say no fraud, then they'd say in public fraud, then other people would say...."
This is, aren't we all metaphysically certain that Trump will throw every single advisor as a lying liar under the bus while all he was trying to do was get to the truth? Just because someone told you x was false, if you believe x is true and, if x were indeed true it's the legal path, where's the conspiracy? The plain reading of the Top Quotation is that they are going to prove that Trump *knew* right? Not that Co-Conspirator X knew, but that Trump did.
Don't misread, I know Trump was lying and he knew he was lying... help me understand how you make a conspiracy charge stick when the Liar lies and says the co-conspirators were lying to him and he didn't believe anything they said...? It would be Ironic, but would it be an actual defense play to agree that the Co-Conspirators were all liars whose advice couldn't be trusted because of all the public lying? In which case, all the Co-Conspirators go to jail but the defendant is defended by a sort of 'invincible ignorance'. Or is there some sort of 'preponderance of reasonable assumptions' standard that we can apply to a liar who's willing to sacrifice all the other liars around him?
It's totally possible that I missed the 'smoking gun' in the haystack of Co-Conspirator 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 all told him there was no fraud, and yet he persisted because (in a court of law) he can say he thought there was fraud -- and it's the requirement of the prosecution to prove his 'state of mind' in this regard? Or does it not matter at all?
If it matters, then I'd be a little nervous as a prosecutor knowing that the Defendant will casually and convincingly state that everyone around him betrayed his trust and lied -- and *they* should definitely go to jail if what the prosecution says is true. As I say, we all know he was lying, but what's the evidentiary standard of proving a conspiracy if the defendant persists in claiming he was deceived?
"
Next time you vote D, please try to do so with better intent.
"
*Jan 25
Darn it, I'm still writing Jan 6, 2021 on all my checks.
"
Heh, very few of our suits could handle PMQ... but for every dream of Dark Brandon, you know that's not what you'd get.
"
This, but less cynically. Taking the shot here would be about taking down Trump and not turning it in to a referendum on Republicans or MAGA voters.
I will agree preemptively that the House moved with 'relative' speed and the article was to my mind reasonably narrowly framed. By the time McConnell had to formally take action in July 25 he clearly decided to postpone and triangulate. At which point, there was no containing the political narratives.
"
Yes, the only answer is a Westminster system... then we'd just have the Unitary Executive/Legislature we obviously crave. Nothing could go wrong with that model.
"
Mostly McConnell slow-walking via the 'pro-forma' position. But that's partly the point, we know the mood among republicans was different on Jan 6 vs. Feb 13.
There's also scope creep where impeaching for a riot is 'better' than impeaching for a coup/conspiracy, which is better than attempting to use impeachment to discredit a party and then an entire voting block of the population.
But, in the end, counterfactuals are counterfactuals.
"
In our hearts, we're all Number 6.
I'd never bet on the outcome of our Judicial Process (tm), so I won't. Still think that Congress ought to have voted to Impeach in a continuous motion from certifying the election. Just on the simple grounds of inciting a riot and dereliction of duty once it was incited. 2-day affair while it was fresh. Simple exercise of Political Power by Congress. The constant temptation to turn everything into a courtroom drama run by lawyers is a mistake.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Dredge”
Been watching parts of ExileCon from New Zealand. Path of Exile 2 Open Beta doesn't start until June 2024... I was somewhat hoping that it was immanent for Dec2023 release to compete with D4. Oh well... assuming all goes well I'd assume DEC2024 release.
Interesting POE 2 design panel was obviously critiquing D4 mechanics in how they were going to avoid bad gameplay like excessive cooldowns, forced rotations, and resource generators. Amen brother, amen.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Batchin’ It Again”
Yeah, so many quotable lines. Shop Vac is my sleeper pick.
"
That sounds fun... haven't been tubing on a river in ages. Can you tube to a winery?
"
Shhh... it's embarrassing for him to have to admit publicly.
"
I agree with JB's synopsis... but I think the primary way to think of it is without any regard to Mission Impossible. It's purely a Tom Cruise Action/Spy movie that happens to have the words Mission and Impossible attached to it... and not much spying, and when you think about it, usually not a mission in the proper sense of a mission.
A slightly different flavor of Tom Cruise running really fast, leaping an impossible leap, helicopters helicoptering, and riding a Motorcycle in all the ways your mother told you not to.
Could be Knight and Day, Collateral, Oblivion, etc. The 'plot' that he's part of anything other than the Tom Cruise adventure brigade is stitched on with the delicate attention of a ballpark beer vendor.
But yeah, usually pretty harmless and stupidly fun.
"
Tom Cruise and I are of an age... well, he'd be more of an older brother; but where I grew up, some of my friends' older brothers were a little like Tom Cruise in Risky Business.
Anyhow... 40 years later, one of us grew up and the other is riding motorcycles over cliffs and parachuting into piles and piles of money that he uses to master the dark arts and grow younger each year.
So, to enable his bad behavior, we're going to snub the Barbenheimer nonsense and see Mission Impossible: 7(?).
Someday Jonathan Coulton will be proved correct, but not today Jonathan, not today.
https://youtu.be/6rwcNv3dhTM
"
Con-grats/dolences. The first month is always the hardest month from the new member of the household perspective. A happy mix of chaos, sleep, and no-sleep. Which is odd, because mostly the baby just sleeps, when you think about it.
I'm not bitter/jealous/old when I say that 20-yrs ago we tried to target a Thursday so we would have a long weekend to transition back home before work started...
On “Known Knowns, Uknown Unknowns, and Hunter Biden Plea Deal”
I should add for clarity that the Tax issue clearly stems from activities relating to Foreign activities (China and Ukraine in particular) which made up the vast bulk of his $2M+ incomes in 2017/18 ... this isn't failure to pay on his $400k lawyer salary for Dewey, Cheatam & Howe.
If what other lawyers are saying about 'Statements of Fact' and Immunity... then a broad reading would be extremely important; assuming it would end further inquiry/prosecution into FARA for China/Ukraine.
"
Thanks for the link.
So it seems to my non-Lawyer eyes that the facts are as surmised: a broad reading on Immunity by Biden on everything in Both Exhibit 1 (Attachment A) in the Plea and Diversion vs. the DA stating the scope was narrow. Agreement not to Prosecute is on Page 6 in the Diversion Agreement, the Plea Agreement is silent.
The Judge also questions the 'constitutionality' of the Diversion Agreement? Is this because the immunity is conflated for both docs or something else?
What's also strange is that the Plea agreement explicitly states that they can raise New Tax charges for the period 2014-2019 -- which encompasses the 2017/18 plea? Obvs. there's some technical lawyering going on here above my head.
"
Yes, I think we can all agree that the judge was doing her job.
"
Agreed... everyone can infer what happened. Except Ken. he wants to make darn sure that it's not this:
"What this does not seem to suggest, at least based on the information we have, is that the judge has accepted GOP arguments that Hunter Biden is getting a sweetheart deal, or that she’s part of a GOP conspiracy, or that she’s ultimately going to tank the deal."
And basically, I'm saying that Popehat's WAR is very close to 0 these days.
"
Heh, say what you will about Alexander Acosta... but his plea deal would've stuck.
Popehat is a lot less interesting as a partisan than he used to be... I mean, he's giving the "this is not a virus that was specifically bio-engineered as a Chinese Military weapon of terror and intentionally released by the Chinese Government" reading to publicly uttered statements that he himself quotes.
"From press reports, it appears that U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika asked questions about the scope of the deal. Specifically, she asked whether the government was agreeing not to prosecute Hunter Biden further just on these tax issues, or on any other issues it was investigating, including the Foreign Agent Registration Act. The government responded that the deal only precluded the government from prosecuting any other tax crimes related to these facts; Hunter Biden’s lawyers said that was wrong and if that was the case there was no deal."
If only we could actually read the filing we *might* be able to connect a dot or two... as it is, completely opaque. Instead, all we've got is a judge clarifying the unclarifiable and the defendant's attorney stating that the clarification clearly violates the intent of the agreement... and when asked to clarify in private, everyone agrees that unless the bargain includes 'unknowable' other future immunities to investigations we can only imagine, the deal is off.
On “Open Mic for the week of 7/24/2023”
This is where an outsider needs a better guide ... does the court have any other standard besides 'reasonableness' ? Haaretz implies no, and honestly, that seems ... unlikely?
It states the bill abolishes the "reasonableness standard"
"The bill to abolish the reasonableness standard, which ends the High Court's authority to strike down government decisions that it deems unreasonable, passed the third and final Knesset vote needed to ratify it into law on Monday afternoon."
...and concludes
"Under the newly approved law, the Supreme Court is no longer allowed to invalidate any government decision, including those made by the prime minister, ministers, or Knesset members, such as appointments or dismissals."
Is there no other standard than reasonableness for the Judiciary to invoke?
I have no formed opinion of how exactly a Judiciary functions under a 'reasonableness' standard that isn't tethered to a written code which prescribes what is reasonable under the code. It's one thing to wave at common law that's built upon hundreds of years of case law... but for an 80-yo state? Maybe we just need a better explainer on what exactly 'Reasonableness' is and upon what it rests.
I certainly understand that in terms of power, some who have it feel they are losing it... it's unclear exactly how it would function as having no judicial review at all.
I'm vaguely reminded of how folks around heree joke about Originalists; and as I'm seeing the new Rightist Judicial theory of 'reasonableness' emerge (phrased over hear by LEFT and RIGHT as Common Good), it makes me paraphrase the old saw: If you didn't like the Originalist Judiciary, wait until you get the Common Good Judiciary.
On “DOJ Sues Texas Over Rio Grande Border Barriers”
Yeah, I think the treaty specifies mid-point for border; but yes, you'd think Abbott & Co. would put them at 33% rather than mid-point for just those reasons.