The Frankish Reich

Well, I don't know if every single one is, but there sure are a lot. When I was a kid in a Catholic High School, they invited this guy to come talk to us about his mission rescuing NYC street kids: https://nypost.com/2018/09/13/this-nyc-priests-dramatic-downfall-was-just-the-beginning-of-perv-priest-scandals/ My friends and I joked about how he seemed like a perv. Oh.

Hendon Hooker: 25 years old Sam Darnold: 25 years old

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/04/matthew-kacsmaryk-mifepristone-medication-abortion-supreme-court.html It is probably impossible to count how many errors, exaggerations, and lies Kacsmaryk, a Donald Trump appointee, put in his decision. The judge appears to have largely copied and pasted the briefs filed by the anti-abortion group that filed the suit, the Alliance Defending Freedom, rephrasing their arguments as his own analysis. (This was predictable—Kacsmaryk himself is a staunch anti-abortion activist—and might be why ADF handpicked him specifically to hear the case for them.) His decision repeats the ridiculous and objectively false conspiracy theory about mifepristone—that the FDA illegally rushed its approval in 2000 at the behest of former President Bill Clinton, the pharmaceutical industry, and population control advocates. Kacsmaryk flyspecked the FDA’s assessment of the drug, concluding that its studies were insufficient and that the agency “acquiesced to the pressure to increase access to chemical abortion at the expense of women’s safety.” And he claimed that he had authority to revisit an FDA approval that occurred 23 years ago because the agency happens to have changed rules around the dispensation of the drug several times since. This is all completely absurd, an outrageous abuse of power that no judge has ever even attempted before. Challenges to agency actions have a six-year statute of limitations. That means plaintiffs get a full six years to file a lawsuit, after which point they’ve waited too long. It has, just to reiterate, been more than two decades since the FDA approved mifepristone. Kascmaryk ignored that limitation in his quest to block the drug because, he insisted, the agency hadn’t responded quickly enough to citizen petitions opposing the drug. That is not the law. Mark Joseph Stern is a journalist with a law degree. He sometimes overdoes it, but I read the decision itself and I gotta say: his summary nails it. This is one of the most poorly reasoned, purely result-oriented decisions I've ever seen. The Republicans are now beating the Democrats at their own game: filing lawsuits in federal district courts where they can get a favorable judge. But its even worse now since they can game their lawsuits by filing in a location where there is just one judge on the bench - Amarillo, Texas. That's right. A single anti-abortion Trump appointed judge in Amarillo, Texas is now running abortion policy nationwide. Obviously we need to change the rule: this decision should, at most, apply to this judge's district in Texas.

Chan Gailey as OC would make this offense historically great.

There is no such thing as "The Commissioner." There are 6 Commissioners, 3 from each party. Guess which party this guy is from. There is no such thing as a "key member." There are 6 Commissioners. You could call the Chairwoman a "key member" but that's not this guy. This is the kind of crap people cite here. A poorly researched article, grossly misunderstood by a poorly informed reader.

Game 17. Bears playing for draft position, meaning "we want to lose." Bears Nation turns its lonely eyes to Nathan Peterman. And Peterman delivers! He plays conservatively, not obviously looking like they're trying to throw the game, but certainly not trying to win the game. Mission Accomplished. That's why coaches like him.

Tyreek just turned 29. So allow me to interpret: “I will be 32 after the 2025 season, and it’s unlikely that a receiver who depends on speed and quickness will still be a valuable commodity at that age.”

This is pretty shocking. I mean, I’m very familiar with the Washington Elite Way Of Accepting Favors, but to not disclose these super high-end travel gifts is …pretty shocking. (Said by a guy who has been required to do annual financial disclosures himself. No way anyone would be confused about whether these trips needed to be disclosed)

Agreed. It is basically uncontested (at least in all the pronouncements from Trump and his team) that he did falsify records. I’ll repeat my take: - this prosecution is unwise for many reasons - nonetheless, it is pretty clear that Trump violated NY law - whether it is chargeable as a felony based on campaign finance laws depends on unresolved issues of NY criminal law and on issues of federal supremacy (also an open issue) - whether it is chargeable as a felony based on anticipated NY state tax fraud depends on issues of fact that will be difficult to prove - there is a difference between an ill advised prosecution (this one) and an unfair prosecution

You mean I misunderstood the many Republicans who now say they are advocating for a nationwide federal abortion ban? Maybe if they’d stick to their old line - “but it’s an issue for the people of each state to decide!” - you’d have a point. But it turns out that whole states rights thing was bs, no?

You are playing a bizarre semantic game here. Let’s say OJ needs money (again). Let’s say someone pays him $10 million and he gives a detailed interview about exactly how he killed Ron and Nicole. I think 99.99% of us would say “he committed a horrific crime” notwithstanding the fact that he was acquitted by a jury and can never again be put on trial for that.

Dershowitz, for many reasons, has been marginalized. Did the Epstein thing drive him toward Trump? Or did his marginalization from the academic world do it? Who knows. Unpopular opinion: I think he still has it (the legal chops) as evidenced by the rather clever arguments he made at the impeachment hearings. Those weren’t popular arguments (they had kind of a “he’s a scoundrel but it’s not an impeachable offense” tone), but to my ears they were pretty well thought out. Kind of what Trump needs now. Politically, Trump understands his fanboys - “I could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and they’d still vote for me” - so is there really any downside to admitting his proclivity for hookers, err “adult film performers?” Admit you’re a creep but argue that there’s no chargeable criminal offense here. Yes! When you talk about so-and-so “committing a crime,” do you add the caveat “provided he’s arrested and charged before the statute of limitations runs”? Those are two different things. There’s a lot of people who committed crimes - even admitted they committed crimes - and then avoided criminal consequences because of a statute of limitations, illegal search and seizure, etc. Think Bill Cosby.

Yes, I am a lawyer. And yes, I understand this strategy very well: - get the felony charges dismissed - that leaves the DA with nothing since he can’t fall back on misdemeanor charges. Easier said than done! They alleged a nexus to campaign finance violations (a shaky theory on legal grounds, given that federal election law may be found to be exclusive here), but also a nexus to planned (apparently NOT claimed) NYS tax violations (shaky on factual grounds, although if proved the legal theory is fine). BUT you’re missing my point: no one is even arguing that he didn’t commit the misdemeanor offenses. It’s just that they’re not chargeable. That’s kind of different than “I did nothing illegal.”

Of course a crime took place. It doesn’t even appear that Trump’s defense team is going to argue that the falsification of business records didn’t happen. They’re already arguing that these were misdemeanor offenses and that the statute of limitations has long run on them (typically 2 years under NY law). Now as to whether they are provable as felonies? That’s a good (and open) question. As to whether the DA ought to be charging them at all? Even a better question. But that’s not the same thing as being innocent of all wrongdoing or lawbreaking.

1. The Ravens GM is clever. Maybe too clever. Lamar is stuck. No other team wants to go all-in on a contract offer that the Ravens could match if it’s team-friendly (you then have to start the QB search from scratch, having p’d off the incumbent), or that will cost 2 first rounders plus a ridiculously player-friendly guaranteed contract. Maybe too clever because they may get to keep an unmotivated Lamar. Do they really want that? 2. Lamar would be better off if he’d sexually harassed multiple massage therapists, not to the point of criminal liability, but to the point where he is not welcome in polite society. (Polite society does not include Cleveland) This is where we are as a culture.

Where's Barron these days?

Off topic, but maybe there’s one tiny thing we can all agree on? I have a kid in college in another state. Here in Colorado it’s all mail/drop-off ballot voting. I checked: she’s authorized to vote in Colorado. I also checked her college’s state: she’s authorized to vote there too. This isn’t a federal election so it’s no big deal. But when it is a federal election, what’s to stop her from voting twice? I’m a lawyer (I mention this only because I ought to be able to understand the laws here), but I honestly can’t figure out where she’s supposed to vote and where she’s not allowed to vote. I think (I’m not sure) that she’s gotta choose just one, but does that apply to local elections too? I mean, some municipalities let non-US citizens vote, so who knows? How about a little clarity in the law here.

Our friends the Saudis deliver again! Oh, and by the way: https://www.businessinsider.com/kushners-2-billion-investment-saudi-backed-fund-concealed-sec-rules-2023-2?amp

That’s … Unpresidented!

Tre'davious White was never the "shutdown corner" we tried to convince ourselves he was. And now his ceiling is as an average CB.

Agreed. And that’s kind of my point in my long post. I started off thinking, “surely there’s an example out there of a great QB (HOF level) who got stuck on such poorly run teams that he produced a long streak of uncompetitive seasons.” That’s simply not the case in the modern NFL. Rosters churn like never before. Coaches get hired and fired. And the great ones lead their team back to the upper tier routinely. In fact they do it all the time. And then those great QBs go to new teams when they’re old. And guess what? Those new teams get good. Brett Favre: twice (Jets, Vikes. I know they both ended badly, but the teams were better with them than they were before them). Joe Montana. Peyton. Kurt Warner. Even Warren Moon. Other than Russell Wilson, you’ve gotta go back to the 70s to find notable late-career Great QB/New Team failures, but those were essentially basket cases like Namath and Unitas. (This is why I am not joining the chorus of “Aaron Rodgers; Bring It On! posters we seem to have now.)

I know it's long, but read my OP! I am putting Josh Allen in the same elite group as 1 current HOFer, 2 no-doubt first-ballot HOFers, and one likely HOFer. And I'm saying as long as Allen is healthy we will be in the playoff (and yes, SB) hunt. If your expectations are that this team will go 14-3 or 13-4 every season, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. You're right ... that old Bills PTSD. It probably will take one Super Bowl win for us to get past that. But hey, until then we get to watch some pretty fantastic football 17 times a year, and then at least a couple times in the playoffs, right?

We’ve been through this many times before, but maybe our best window (to grab a Von or a similar game changer) was in 2021. But that time should come again. More than once. I meant it to be “it’s really hard not to be a consistent winner when you have a HOF level QB.” Glass half full guy here …