It occurs to me there have been several interesting things happening the last few days that we haven’t talked about:
- Dylann Roof allowed to hire lawyers back, for now — Strange goings-on in Richard Gergel’s court.
- Mistrial declared in black motorist’s shooting by officer — We’re not there viewing all the evidence. But yeah, to those of us who have only seen the infamous phone video, this is hard to fathom.
- Trump chats with Taiwan — Remember how China was cheering for Trump to win the election? I wonder whether they’re kicking themselves now. Personally, I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, it just isn’t done. Harrumph, etc. On the other, there might conceivably be an advantage to having a president dumb enough to do something like this, just as a way of provoking a conversation about the whole one-China diplomatic fiction. But don’t worry. I haven’t lost my mind. I’m not about to say, as Marc Thiessen did, that “Trump’s Taiwan call wasn’t a blunder. It was brilliant.” I think the truth is somewhere between that and “bottomless pig-ignorance.” I’m just not sure exactly where….
- Trump’s Carrier deal could permanently damage American capitalism — Let’s use the headline from Larry Summers’ piece to kick off our discussion of this thing, which Trump’s supporter think was just awesome. Then we can segue into a discussion of his protectionist threats over the weekend.
- Ben Carson has been named to be the head of something — Doesn’t much matter what it is; I’m not sure I’d put him in charge of anything. But it might have seemed marginally less strained to put him over HHS rather than HUD. Maybe Trump figured, based on his assumptions about how black folk live, that Carson must have grown up in the projects. That’s what Mike Huckabee thought. Well, he didn’t.
Anybody have anything else to bring up?
When Trump and Carson first bonded: Remember THIS special moment?
Related Posts
I don’t think the goings on are *that*strange at the Roof trial. He’s hardly the first to fire his lawyers. The rehiring shows he’s not completely nuts. Apparently there is some potentially mitigating, but to him embarrassing, evidence that his lawyers want to bring out. Given the facts as we know them–he shot them and left witnesses, and no excuses I can think of come to mind (he wasn’t feeling theatened, say), his lawyers’ only hope on guilt is to introduce some exculpatory evidence of his incompetence at the time of the murders (Gergel has already ruled Roof competent to stand trial now). Roof wants to represent himself in the penalty phase, which is when evidence that mitigates his actions not arising to the level of exculpatory would be admissible. So…..he’s hoping to get exculpated because he was incompetent at the time, but there’s some mitigating evidence he’d rather die, literally, than have exposed….
What does being competent to stand trial actually mean? What is the criteria? Does it just mean you are oriented to time and space and can understand right from wrong? Could a person with an IQ low enough to be considered to have a mild mental disability still be considered competent to stand trial?
I was thinking about Trump’s morning rant about the cost of Air Force One’s replacement.
He has been getting hammered the last few days on the cost of securing Trump Tower – $35 million from Election to Inauguration Day – that NYC has requested of the Feds. And also about his suggestion that his wife and son stay at Trump Tower at least through next summer (or longer). That will incur not the same security cost but a huge number nonetheless.
So I’d call another Trump deflection “showing” how fiscally responsible he is being toward the taxpayers by going off on Boeing…
Think about it this way? The cost of each of those jets is the same cost as a Los Angeles class submarine.
Is this the latest spin rationalization, or your own postulation?
Because you are comparing apples and oranges. Or old apples and as-of-now imaginary oranges.
Just putting the cost into perspective. The cost of a Boeing 747-8 is $357 million. One AF-1 jet is slated at costing approximately $2 billion which means the upgrades will cost approximately $1.7 billion or more than 4 times the cost of the actual jet. To put that into perspective, that’s like buying a $200,000 Toyota Camry.
“We’ll take two please.”
Yeah. There’s a world of difference between a commercial 747 ferrying passengers from one city to another and an airplane that has to be able to serve as a mobile situation room. It’s not just a cosmetic makeover.
Really? So it’s more than just fancy paint and better carpet? $1.7 billlion in upgrades… Put it this way, there’s not a building project in Columbia that comes close to that amount? The new USC Law School for example is $80 million, you could build that building 21 times and still be under the budget just for the upgrades on the new AF-1 jets. I’ve spent my entire career around technology and know what things cost, but I can’t imagine a project in that small of a footprint costing $1.7 billion. I’ve worked on huge data centers that don’t even come close to that amount (building included).
Claus, you must not have seen “Independence Day.”
Remember Judd Hirsch’s character? This is how we finance secret stuff like Area 51: “You don’t actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?”
#3 Messing around with the one-China policy is self-defeating. Right or wrong, China won’t stand for it, so any effort to try to “impose” a change would just isolate us, not them. And it does nothing to address the real issues we have with China. Which makes this call just a gimmick.
The bigger issue, though, is whether this “signal,” if that’s what it was, was planned or just a product of happenstance. Some in Trump’s entourage say it’s one, some say it’s the other. So which is it? Or could it be both. In other words, are we looking at an example where an erratic man’s actions, his whims or momentary urges, along with his lack of understanding and experience, produce new “policies” that are nothing more than after-the-fact backtracking by staff aimed at making their boss look good – especially since this particular boss doesn’t like to admit error. The danger in that is that these new “policies” take on a life of their own without being properly thought through. At a minimum it invites confusion.
As David Ignatius put it: “The president-elect … stumbled into a pre-inaugural foreign flap, insulting Beijing and causing it to lose face, without having a clear, well-articulated plan for what he seeks to accomplish.
Worse, Trump’s fulminations about China come just as his plan to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership is undermining the United States’ standing with allies in Asia. Trump, in effect, is ceding economic ground to China at the very moment he claims to be taking a harder line. Is this a cool, calculating strategy from the dealmaker? It looks to me more like a hot mess.”
Current reports are that Bob Dole lobbied for the Taiwan call, at considerable profit to himself. From someone who won’t sit through national security briefings or talk to the State Department, it doesn’t come across as a well-considered strategy, but a question of who has his ear at the moment.
“The danger in that is that these new “policies” take on a life of their own without being properly thought through.”
I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, that is, depending on the breaks.
Bill, I quoted that same Ignatius piece elsewhere, and as I did, I was thinking “Where did I read that before?”
And it was here, in your comment. Duh…
By the way, when I read this the first time, and again when I encountered it today, I found myself wondering about the etymology of “hot mess.”
Here’s a little essay on the subject…
Re: Slager mistrial
I’ve always tried to maintain the position when viewing the outcome of a jury trial that, since I didn’t sit in the courtroom every day to hear the evidence, it’s not my place to second-guess a jury’s ultimate decision in a trial of this sort. But I gotta say the Slager mistrial certainly tests my resolve in that regard (though not nearly so much as if they’d come back with a not guilty verdict).
Even if one accepts Slager’s contention that he felt threatened after Scott tazed him, I can’t see how “feeling threatened” justified emptying his service pistol at the back of the unarmed fleeing man at a distance of better than 50 feet. I’m glad there wasn’t a crowd of locals or a playground 100 feet in the same direction. IF Scott had still had the taser in his hand, then maybe I might accept Slager’s other contention that he was justified because the man was a continuing threat to the officer or the community. But Scott’s hands are empty in the video and I have to believe that Slager knew Scott was unarmed as he picked up the taser from behind him…walked over and calmly dropped it next to Scott (“…because it would have been dangerous to leave it on the ground…”), even though that seems to be more like tampering with crime scene evidence to cover his actions rather than protecting the public.
Whatsay, Bryan, our resident legal scholar? Are you troubled by this one? What about retrial strategy?
One juror decided his own sense of obstinacy was a more important principle than justice.
I have served on juries and in high profile cases I think it would be better if we altered our process to the one used in sport – toss the high and low scores and average the rest. One juror spinning in their own quixotic quest for some kind of personal relevancy ought not to derail justice; and there are innumerable examples of this occurring time and time again. Now if two or more jurists have qualms, then I would call that a mistrial. But I’m just a number in the big rolling bin of eligible citizens…
There are some people who reflexively jump to defend police when there are police shootings, no matter the facts. On the other side of the coin, there are some people who reflexively jump to condemn the police in police shootings, no matter the facts.
As someone who carries a CWP from time to time, shoots regularly, and takes responsibility for my own safety seriously, I’ve thought about the use of force a lot. In fact, failing to think about the use of force is probably the biggest mistake that people make when they decide to carry a firearm. Like Gen. Mattis says, “Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.” Having the right mindset is probably the biggest single factor in staying safe and responsibly carrying a firearm.
With that context, I look at every police shooting in the following way: If I had had shot that person in that circumstance, would I, [Bryan Caskey] be in trouble?
That’s because police don’t get any special exception for using force. They aren’t a special category, and they don’t get any special legal privileges. So I look at cases by putting myself in the shooter’s shoes because that’s the best way to figure out (for me) what I think about the fact pattern.
With the Walter Scott shooting, I’ve seen the video, and that’s about it. But only looking at the video, I think that if I had shot someone in the back, at that distance, as they were running away from me, I think I would be in big trouble. I think that it’s a very big stretch to think that the police offer was in fear for his life when he pulled the trigger.
So yeah, if I were on the jury*, I’d be wresting with the voluntary manslaughter or murder charge, and probably leaning towards a murder charge, but very reluctantly. An acquittal wouldn’t be an option for me.
But as always, your mileage may vary.
*For whatever it’s worth, I’ve tried plenty of cases, but I’ve never been called for jury duty. I’ve never even received a notice – not once.
Actually, as long as you’re quoting Mattis, this one might be more appropriate in the context of carrying a concealed weapon: “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
Yeah, that’s a good one.
Mattis is just fascinating.
On the one hand, according to Wikipedia, “Before deploying to Iraq, Mattis had his troops undergo cultural sensitivity training.”
On the other hand, he is quoted as saying this to Iraqi tribal elders: “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”
And as for respecting the local culture, there’s this: “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people….”
Which in a way, I suppose, sort of makes him my kind of feminist…
Here’s an interesting piece about the general from one of the marines who served under him…
I don’t think that’s the right link.