My History Can Beat Up Your Politics

An image of a load of Tory MPs and Councillors all in a line with an angry man shouting "I'm never voting for Tories again!" Above the same image of the reprobates all wearing Reform rosettes after defecting to the party and an image of a happy smiling man gleefully shouting "Yay! Reform!"

This image just gets bigger and bigger...

not only could we have had Lawerence we could have had Josh Allen in 2018.

Awful risk for him. He could be hurt, there could be other shining stars coming down the pike next year...

that being said, I'll provide my understanding on immunity from the past two days: it's not a matter under consideration with the state or fed prosecutor, but sure becomes important. Because if we shift to procedure, immunity is tested first (correct?) and if officer wins, there's no trial.

I guess I would say the only thing I have a license for is the history part. No expertise claimed, however reading/putting things together and trying to get to the best idea of what's going on. happy to stand corrected.

I'm only amazed that there are even debates on X anymore, but a few holdouts. Yes correct. It is entirely possible this Alito case never is uttered outside social media. As I understand it, it was 15 shots and officers pretty much in same positions. Case was on ground of "why so many shots"

(A rabbit hole in the Shot 2 and 3 theory is Plumhoff v. Rickard a case judge Alito (of course) ruled on which said "first shot justified than so is second." that is being hurled at me on X.
however in that case suspect sped off in car, then tried again, suggesting public safety. )

After immunity is lost, I do believe it would be MN prosecutors leading the case in federal court, with some role for the USAO but not the USAO trying. Of course welcome correction. The other notable thing is Arizona v. Maypanny says MN can appeal any of this it doesn't like, it has standing.

My own opinion is while it's a tough bar, shots 2 and 3 here, where he sidestepped the car and fired (to ensure death?), mixed with the general lack of threat of victim, mixed with contrary instructions from agents, you have a chance (more than a Jim Carrey chance) on letting the case through.

I'll poke around more recent cases for nuances but Neagle has not been overturned. So today it's the same as Marshall Neagle protecting Judge Field from a mad Copperhead has been politco: a) was the force necessary b) was it part of duties. so immunity is the fight.

"that Neagle was authorized to resist the attack of Terry upon him; that Neagle was correct in the belief that, without prompt action on his part, the assault of Terry upon the judge would have ended in the death of the latter; ..he was acting under the authority of the law of the United States "

this is where I hate to say it but it probably ends. But worth looking at: standard is from In re Neagle, which is actually a fascinating case where a CA Senator David Terry tried to kill a judge and was killed by a marshall. CA wanted to prosecute. Terry was a horrible Copperhead- CA had them.

My current understanding, admittedly non lawyer but one eyed man etc. MN will definitely have charges - even without FBI cooperation, based on eyewitnesses. Agent will remove and be successful b/c federal officer www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/... US judge than determines immunity before trial.

The wretchedness of his duty aside, he was acting while on duty under federal law, gets thorny for a Minnesota judge to decide if he was operating correctly under federal law, and determine liability. It will be removed to federal court, most likely by his side. Non lawyer answer.

all of them worse than a democracy.

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Monarchs & Dictators Society & Culture Podcast · Updated fortnightly · Season One of ‘The Presidents & Prime Ministers brought to life all 55 of Britain's Prime Ministers through interviews with the authors of all 55 essa...

Yes all sort of flavors. Green minded dictators, labor friendly dictators, professor dictators (Portugal), and some bonkers and maybe funny at times. hardily recommend Ian Dale's podcast on dictators. (also PMs, POTUS and Kings). Dictator part is good. podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/p...

But isn't the real story here the Times? Assuming he's a reasonable guy that just needs a video to see.

Conversion to statehood, oddly enough, may be the easiest way to make them citizens. Majority vote only. Signed by prez. It hasn't been done in a while, but it's harder to amend the constitution or to impeach.

As to doing it. In 2015, I would have said "Man are you crazy?" no way, not practical.

Today I say - do it on January 20th, 2029. And also I'd say MAGA would do it in a second, if they had new states in areas that would support them.

Puerto Rico has a Republican Governor (NPP but is GOP member), so could be concerning. Navajo Nation might raise Constitutional issues as part of AZ and NM and go to an unfriendly SCOTUS. But DC, UVI, Guam, NMI, Samoa. Good to go. President has to sign statehood bills so this is a Project 2029.

As a Constitutional Convention delegate Luther Martin predicted back in 1787, impeachment will not be not possible with the high standard of 2/3rds in the Senate and the Presidents control over his faction. The only thing you are seeing is the Clinton-era trend of feel good House vote.

"History doesn't say goodbye, it just says see you later" -Galeno

The 02 Midterms and 04 election is still strong in minds of consultant class if not current voters. It influenced the whole Obama administration. To the point when things switched from terrorism to culture war, Obama was still in the Middle eaast.

One of the troubles and easiest arguments I'd make is, "There is no upside on the other position." If people do really like GOP policy, they'll elect GOP rather than you. Opposition must oppose, or cease to exist. Argue for compliance if not against action.

Sadly in 2002 some of the spineful didn't make it through the midterms. Max Clealand for instance, even with service and severe wounds in Vietnam, got the unpatriotic label. Took another 24 years to get a D-Senate in GA.

Insist on proper War Powers compliance should never be a losing issue. But with a nod to history, it's OK to talk about long-term cost of wars. Increased expenses, human toll both in wounds and PTSD. Also remember lesson of 2003 - the capture is months, the transition is years.

It's enough in my opinion to oppose procedure and use counterfactuals - "If he sent troops to defend Ukraine or Taiwan" Just sucking up and in effect saying "Can we get into the war room with you guys" will not work. Individual Congressional districts, adjust to local conditions.

Got a little problem with your war room there.

Now cue the '02 midterms, Iraq Authorization, patriotism on the ballot, support of the war on the ballot.

Not to mention - am I crazy? Prices went waaaaay up, this is just slowing the rate (and it's biased dowward on top of that). They've already made the increases. We need them to lower. We need tariff reform, which would be deflationary.