Feed: TalkLeft - AggScore: 64.5

George Zimmerman's Bond Revoked

Even driving to Aspen I can't escape the news (I stopped for gas and turned on my iPad.)

Judge Mark Lester has revoked George Zimmerman's bond.

Here is the Motion to Revoke Bond filed today, and the partial transcript of his wife's testimony at the April bond hearing.

Aspen Bound and Another Open Thread

It's time for the Annual NORML legal conference in Aspen. As always, I'll be staying with Anita at Owl Farm in Woody Creek, just outside of Aspen -- and with the peacocks. (And, she tells me 29 other animals.)

I'll leave you with a note that Hunter had on his fridge. I have no idea what he meant, but it seems particularly topical. [More...]

Have a great weekend, I'll be checking in from time to time, but not before late tonight.

This is another open thread, all topics welcome.

Friday Morning Open Thread

I'm pretty busy and traveling the next few days. But I'll post a bit on the weekend as I believe J is busy all weekend.

Open Thread.

Bad Jobs Report, Unemployment Rate Inches Up To 8.2%

NYTimes tells me that only 69K jobs were added in May and U6 inched upped to 8.2%:

The United States economy gained a net 69,000 jobs in May, the Labor Department said Friday, a dismal showing that reflected mounting fears of a global slowdown. The unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent from 8.1 percent in April. April’s gain in jobs of 115,000 was revised down to an increase of 77,000.

The data is not expected to have a major impact on the monetary policy outlook. Economists said it would take a payrolls number below 100,000 to jolt the Federal Reserve into action.

We need fiscal stimulus, not monetary stimulus, imo. We needed more of it in 2009 and 2010. We needed it in 2011. We need it now.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if Obama loses this election, it will be because of what happened in 2009 and the advice provided him by the incompetent and corrupt Tim Geithner.

Britons Face Death Penalty in Bali for Drugs

Rachel Dougall and Julian Ponder are the latest victims of Indonesia's drug laws. They moved to Bali from Great Britain. They have a 6 year old daughter Kitty, who may soon become an orphan. [More...]

Last week, Bali police arrested a middle aged woman, Lindsay Sandiford (photo here), traveling from Bangkok with 5 kilos of cocaine. Facing the death penalty, Ms. Sandiford agreed to help police conduct what is known here as a "controlled delivery."

With police in tow, it took her six days to find someone to lay the drugs off on: Julian Ponder. Now police say she's just a mule and Ponder, Dougall and two others are part of a big international syndicate. Dougall and Ponder say the whole thing is a "fit-up", known here as a set-up.

After she'd been caught with the drugs at the airport, Lindsay Sandiford had offered to co-operate and, according to the police, led the authorities to the other suspects.

The sting operation lasted 6 days, a team of 20 police and customs officers put Lindsay Sandiford under surveillance as she was allowed to go ahead with pre-arranged meetings at hotels and villas across Bali.

She delivered the drugs/present to Julian Ponder. His lawyer said he didn't touch or accept the package. Julian Ponder's defence, according to his lawyer, is that he was told Lindsay Sandiford was delivering a present for his six year old daughter's birthday. When he met her to receive the 'gift' police officers who'd been watching her, arrested him.

They then searched Ponder and Dougall's house and found some drugs in a cigarette pack, and arrested Rachel.

What about six year old Kitty? She's left in the care of the maid and gardener, and if not made an orphan by the bust, is unlikely to see her parents for a very long time.

As for Lindsay Sandiford, the only person caught red-handed with the drugs, Bali officials say she is likely to avoid the death penalty due to her cooperation. She's apparently convinced them she was just a mule and she agreed to transport the drugs because she feared for the safety of her children.

The key to me is that it took her six days to deliver the drugs. I highly doubt any syndicate would leave their drugs in the control of a mule for that long. They would have figured out she'd been busted after an hour had gone by and she didn't connect with her contact. More likely to me: Ms. Sandiford is either protecting the real recipient, she was working for herself, or she was clueless as to who would be retrieving the drugs from her. Most likely it's the latter.

If a syndicate was involved and Ms. Sandiford was a mule, the only information she would have been given before leaving Bangkok was that someone would meet her and pick up the drugs, and pay her for transporting them. At most she might have a phone number for her contact. More likely, he would just have her number. So, threatened with the death penalty when busted, she had to come up with someone and was unable to do so. It took her the next six days running around Bali contacting everyone she she had ever met, hoping to find one unsuspecting acquaintance to take the drugs. And unfortunately for Ponder, that happened to be him. That Dougall had some personal stash around the house is hardly evidence she's involved in an importation syndicate.

What else do police have? Suspicions of neighbors who said Dougall and Ponder didn't seem to have a job and stayed home a lot. Have they never heard of home-based businesses in Bali?

Another man arrested is Paul Beales, a British property developer who has lived in Bali for 15 years. He says he had only met Sandiford once, and has no idea why she targeted him in this:

"This is a nightmare. I've got two little girls of four and nine and I have no idea what they are thinking about why their dad hasn't come home."

He told the newspaper he had met Sandiford only once, adding: "I don't know why she's telling these lies. Probably so she can save her own skin."

It sounds to me like Sandiford called both Beales and Ponder, and hedging her bets, asked both to pick her up.

Beales said police found a small amount of hash(3 grams) at his house and he has no idea how it got there. Does 3 grams sound like a syndicate honcho to you? It doesn't to me.

Another version of the story in the Jakarta Post has Ponder and Dougall ratting on Beales and an Indian man living on Bali who was also arrested:

After arresting JAP, who had picked up the cocaine from Sandiford, JAP directed the police to his villa in Tabanan, where police discovered 48.94 grams of cocaine hidden in a black bag and arrested his wife, RLD. Given information extracted from these two suspects police were able to capture the other two suspects the next day, kompas.com reported on Monday.

They arrested NA, the Indian national, in a villa in Badung where they found 78 plastic bags filled with ecstasy. They also arrested PB in a villa in Kuta with 3.36 grams of hashish.

Rachel Dougall was put in a cell with 15 others and last night had to be taken to the hospital. The men are in similar hellholes. But not Sandiford. She was moved to her own cell over concerns for her safety.

The police have 60 days to finish their investigation. When they're done, Dougall, Ponders and the others will be moved to the infamous Kerobokan Prison, where it will probably take 2 to 3 years for their cases to be tried. The death penalty is likely to be sought. What happens to Kitty? Does this 6 year old English girl become a ward of Indonesia? It doesn't sound like Dougaall and Ponder have any other relatives on Bali.

These three Britons and the Indian citizen are hardly the only foreigners languishing in Indoneisan prisons. From Schapelle Corby to the Bali 9, to Edward Myatt (who I wrote about in March) there are dozens of them. There's also a movement growing in Indonesia to challenge Schapelle Corby's clemency grant:

Henry Yosodiningrat, the prominent lawyer who leads the National Anti-Narcotics Movement (Granat), said he would file a lawsuit against Yudhoyono to challenge his decision to grant Corby clemency.

“The President has been being inconsistent in handling drug-related crimes. He has previously said he would not be lenient with criminals convicted of drug-related offenses, but this time he reduced the sentence of a foreigner who has been convicted of smuggling a large amount of marijuana,” Henry said.

Why take a chance you could end up like this?

There's one way non-Indonesians can avoid these draconian laws: Stay away from Bali. There are beautiful beaches all over the world. Don't let a dime of your money go to countries like Indonesia that execute drug offenders. Visit the Seychelles, Mauritius, or the Maldives, to name just a few.

The Media 's Reaction to the John Edwards Verdict

Driving home from work, all I had for information on the reaction to the John Edwards' verdict was Sirius. Against my better judgment, I put up with the incessant commercials for debt and income tax relief. I was sorry I did.

On MSNBC, I thought the comments of Chris Matthews and his guests, including the authors of the Game Change, on John Edwards' post-verdict press statement, were appalling.

Matthews and his panel all agreed John Edwards was a delusional egomaniac with no particular political or social insight beneath the surface. One criticized his reading ability. One even called him a psychopath.

What was the basis for these attacks? According to Matthews & panel, Edwards had the audacity to suggest during his post-verdict press conference (you can view it here) that he might still have a political future. Matthews then aired his statements. I didn't hear Edwards say a word about re-entering politics. He talked about wanting to help children in poverty -- he may have been referring to a future public presence, but that's not even close to suggesting another run for political office. [More..]

While his "two Americas" platform was part of his presidential campaign, it also existed apart from it. It was the basis for his foundations. Bunny Mellon gave millions to his poverty-fighting foundations, donations that had nothing to do with his running for office.

Why is it delusional for him to think one day in the future he can return to this work? His remarks may signal his belief he can again be a force in the public arena, but he said absolutely zero to indicate he thought he had a political future, or that he would want one.

There was no delusion, no pathology, no egomania. There was a statement that he hoped to return to the cause for which he has always been the most passionate -- reducing poverty, particularly for children.

Would it have been better for him to say he intends to return to trial practice so he can get big judgments and recoup the millions he spent defending against the charges in this case? Should he have said despite the acquittal and hung jury, his life is worthless, he is going to go crawl under a rock?

I bet at least one person cheered when hearing what he did say: Bunny Mellon. And I'd bet she'd give money to his poverty foundations in the future. Were his comments directed at her? Maybe, but there's nothing psychopathic, delusional or ego-maniacal about them even if they were. And why would anyone complain that a private citizen with as much money as Ms. Mellon wants to give millions to help those less fortunate? Would it be preferable if she bought private islands for her heirs to vacation on?

Next Matthews & Co. trashed-- and I mean trashed -- Edwards for saying he loved and was close to Quinn, the child he fathered with Rielle Hunter. He also said he loved all his children, but to this group, that was an afterthought.

What's wrong with saying this? The child may be 4 years old now, but one day she will be old enough to read about this trial. She will learn that the Government presented evidence that her father denied being her father and tried to hide the fact. At least now she can also read that on the day the trial ended, he said he was wrong to do that and told the whole world he loves her and how important she is to his life.

America has pilloried and taken more pounds of flesh from John Edwards and the memory of Elizabeth during this trial than I can recall it extracting from any other public figure in recent memory.

Instead of crucifying John Edwards, who clearly was the victor in his fight with the Government, why isn't the media castigating the Government for bringing the case in the first place and relying on witnesses like Andrew Young, who are getting a pass for their own misdeeds? Why isn't it raising more questions about why charges were brought in the first place? And why these particular charges?

In one of Edwards' unsuccessful pretrial motions to dismiss the Indictment -- the one based on prosecutorial vindictiveness which I detailed at length here, his lawyers quoted a statement made in 1940 by then U.S. Attorney General Robert Jackson. (The Federal Prosecutor: An Address by Robert H. Jackson, 24 J. Am. Jud. Soc'y 18 (1940).)

The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations…. Law enforcement is not automatic. It isn't blind. One of the greatest difficulties of the position of prosecutor is that he must pick his cases, because no prosecutor can even investigate all of the cases in which he receives complaints….

If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.

It is in this realm -- in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.

That's one message the media should be driving home about this woeful, ill-conceived, prosecution.

Listening to the media today, they all gave no more than lip service to their belief this was an ill-founded prosecution, as if that was a given and didn't need to be further addressed. Apparently, it paled in comparison to the importance of trashing John Edwards some more. I can only imagine what they would have said if Edwards had been found guilty of even one count. As I wrote here,

When this trial is over, if Edwards is convicted, millions will believe the real reason he is being sent to the gallows has nothing to do with campaign contributions and everything to do with his having a child out of wedlock with a woman his friends and staffers found "kooky," while his demanding and unhappy wife was dying of cancer.

Or, they may believe that he's being punished for what in the eyes of the Government is apparently an even greater sin -- he had the gall to take the case to trial instead of kow-towing to the Government's demand he lie down and plead guilty to something he had no reason to believe he was guilty of.

Only if the trial is fair, can the public trust in the integrity of an ensuing guilty verdict. I don't see how anyone (other than a prosecutor or Republican) will have faith in the integrity of a guilty verdict in this case, should that occur.

If John Edwards is convicted, saying he'll win on appeal is little consolation. His life, already a mockery by the public shaming he was subjected to in this trial, will have been devastated.

When you break the law, the Government has the right to punish you. It does not have the right to destroy you. And if you are found not guilty, the Government should be obligated to help you restore your life.

John Edwards was not found guilty. Instead of recognizing this with anything more than a prefatory comment, the media that I heard was acting like a grand jury, making up a new crime based on its unsupported interpretation of his public comments. His new crime is egomania, delusion, and psychopathy. It's like a new chapter in Alice in Wonderland where instead of saying "Sentence first, Verdict Afterward" the Queen says, "Sentence anyway, Guilty Verdict or Not."

Also remarkable: Not one show I listened to praised or expressed admiration for the work of Edwards' lead attorney Abbe Lowell and the rest of the defense team. Do they think this verdict fell out the sky and could have been achieved by anyone?

As I pulled into my garage and turned Sirus off, my last thought was that as between listening to the cable news shows and the debt relief commercials, the commercials were better. And they didn't raise my blood pressure.

Congratulations to Abbe Lowell and the rest of the defense team, and a word to everyone else: John Edwards is as entitled to breathe on this planet as you are. He can express his love and gratitude to his children and parents. He can express his hope to make a contribution to society in the future. He isn't a leper. He had an affair which produced a child -- a child he is providing for financially while trying to be part of her life in other ways. As Abbe Lowell said in closing:

[I]f what John did is a federal crime, let alone six felonies, then we better build a lot more courtrooms, hire a lot more prosecutors and build a lot more jails, because the government will always be able to find a way to turn an affair into a crime.

Guilt sells in the American media, even when the verdict is not guilty or the jury can't agree. The meaning of a "hung jury" has become lost in translation-- to the media it now means "hang him anyway."

Why the Jury Acquitted John Edwards on Count 3

Why did the jury unanimously agree John Edwards was not guilty on Count 3 charging illegal campaign contributions from Bunny Mellon in 2008, while it was hung on the other counts?.

This was the one count that they could reject before without even having to decide whether the money was a campaign contribution. They could reject it based on both or one of the following:

• Bunny Mellons' December, 2007 and January, 2008 payments were not deposited until after John Edwards withdrew from the Presidential race. Without those two checks, Bunny Mellon's contributions for the year did not exceed $25,000.

and/or

• Venue in the Middle District of North Carolina was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence on this count. The crime charged was illegal acceptance or receipt of campaign funds. The funds weren't deposited in the Middle District. They weren't even sent there. [More...]

From Abbe Lowell's closing argument:

You will see Rachel Mellon's December 2007 and January 2008 checks were not deposited by the Youngs in the 8 Middle District of North Carolina, and the Judge will give you an instruction on how to apply that issue. You will see that Rachel Mellon's December '07 and January '08 checks were not deposited by the Youngs until after the campaign ended, and you will see that Fred Baron's funds were not paid in the Middle District of North Carolina.

The Government even told the jury in its rebuttal closing that payments after January 30, 2008 aren't charged in the Indictment:

The point is not that those payments after January 30th are charged, because they are not. The point isn't that they can be a basis of conviction, because they can't.

From the Government's initial closing argument, it offered this weak argument on venue for Mellon's 2008 contributions: Fedex routed it through the Middle District before delivering it elsewhere and they were part of a plan developed in 2007:

For Mrs. Mellon, she wrote all her checks in 2007 except the one for $200,000. So in 2007 she gave $525,000, and in 2008 she gave 200,000.

Mrs. Mellon's money in 2007, it was all received and deposited here in the Middle District. And as to the checks, which were deposited in 2008, they were received initially here in the Middle District by Federal Express, and they were part of the plan which had been developed in 2007.

Ms. Mellon's December 2007 check for $175,000 was not deposited until February 2008. Her January 2008 check for $200,000 was not deposited until April 2008. From the hearing on the unsuccessful defense motion for judgment of acquittal:

[A] December 12th, 2007, check, which was received by Mr. Huffman in Monroe, which is in the Western District of North Carolina. It was sent to Ms. Young in Chapel Hill, where nothing happened with it for some time. She then came and picked up the check and moved it back to California where, if you remember, she attempted to deposit it there. It could not happen there, and so it was sent back to Mr. Huffman in Monroe, which is in the Western District of North Carolina, where it was deposited in Charlotte, also a place in the Western District of North Carolina, and that was deposited on February 20th, 2008.

Your Honor, Government Exhibit 166 is that check and the back and the deposit slip slowing those dates, and February the 20th, 2008, is a month after the campaign had ended.

The January 23rd, 2008, check was sent to
Mr. Huffman in Monroe, in the Western District of North Carolina, and he sent it to Chapel Hill to Ms. Young again where it sat for some time. Then she picked it up, and she brought it to California, and then she sent it back to Mr. Huffman, who deposited it in Charlotte at the same bank in April -- on April 17, 2008. That's Government Exhibit 168. And again, April 17, 2008, is after the campaign had ended.

In the final jury instructions as to Count 3, the Court told the jury :

First, the government has to prove that Mr. Edwards accepted or received, or willfully caused another to accept or receive on his behalf, contributions that totaled $25,000 or more during calendar year 2008....

...the only thing that has to happen in 2008 is the acceptance or receipt of a contribution, and of course it must have been accepted or received while Mr. Edwards was a candidate for the presidency, not afterwards.

...So, on Count 3, before you can find Mr. Edwards guilty, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, while he was a candidate for president, Mr. Edwards knowingly and willfully accepted or received, or knowingly and willfully caused another to accept or receive on his behalf, contributions from Ms. Mellon that totaled $25,000 or more during calendar year 2008.

On venue for Count 3, the judge instructed the jury, that as with count 2:

[T]he government must prove by the preponderance of the evidence that an act in furtherance of the crime occurred in the Middle District of North Carolina. The crime is the acceptance or receipt of excessive campaign contributions....

The government need not necessarily prove that the crime itself was committed in this district or that Mr. Edwards was present here when the crime was committed. It is sufficient to satisfy this element if Mr. Edwards’ act causing the crime or causing any other act in furtherance of the crime occurred within this district. If you find that the government has not established this by the preponderance of the evidence, then you should answer this sub-issue “No,” which will result in acquittal

And specifically as to Count 3:

[T] he government must prove by the preponderance of the evidence that an act in furtherance of the crime occurred in the Middle District of North Carolina.....

....you will need to decide if the government has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that an act in furtherance of the crime in Count 3 occurred in the Middle District of North Carolina. If so, you will answer this issue Yes, and if not, you will answer the issue No, which will result in acquittal.

So the jury agreed that that Mellon's 2008 deposits were not received while Edwards was running for President and/or that venue was not established for those checks in the Middle District of North Carolina. Thus, the monies she provided that year did not exceed $2,300.00

Team Edwards repeatedly made this argument in pre-trial motions. They set forth case law that says a campaign contribution is not deemed accepted until it is deposited. (Until then the donor could change his mind.) There was no case law to the contrary.

Even though the judge refused to expressly say that in her instruction (which in my view was clear error), she said enough for the jury to accept Team Edwards arguments on the point, while the Government had no valid retort. This count should never have survived to go the jury in the first place.

John Edwards : Not Guilty on One Count, Mistrial on Others

Bump and Update: Huge loss for the Government. The verdict is not guilty on one count, jury deadlocked on others. Edwards spoke after court:

While I do not believe I did anything illegal, or ever thought I was doing anything illegal, I did an awful, awful lot that was wrong and there is no one else responsible for my sins," Edwards said on the courthouse steps.

"I don't think God's through with me. I really believe he thinks there's still some good things I can do and whatever happens with this legal stuff going forward, what I'm hopeful about is all those kids that I've seen, you know in the poorest parts of this country and some of the poorest parts in the world that I can help them," he said.

[Original Post Below:]

The jury in the John Edwards trial has reached a unanimous verdict on Count 3 charging receipt of illegal campaign contributions from Bunny Mellon in 2008.

It did not reach a verdict on other charges. The defense has asked for a mistrial on the other five charges, and for the Court to accept the verdict on Count 3.

The Judge has told the jury to keep deliberating on the other five charges. She will give an "Allen Charge" also known as a dynamite instruction.

What's the difference between Bunny Mellon's contributions in 2007 and 2008 that cause them to reach a verdict on one but not the other? And not reach a verdict on the Fred Baron counts, the conspiracy count and the false statement charge?

George Zimmerman: Adds a Lawyer to Team

Update: Just heard from the state's attorney's office, nothing was released today. But, Mark O'Mara said a former federal public defender has been added to his defense team.

Today is the day new discovery should be available in the George Zimmerman case. Since I'll be at work, readers will likely see it before I do.

Here's an open thread to discuss it, and other matters pertaining the evidence and law in the case. Please, no references to negative information on character that has not been released by the state and which neither party has indicated it will seek to admit.

John Edwards : Juror Issues

Predicting what is going on behind the closed doors of jury deliberation is like reading tea leaves. Something is going on behind the scenes with the jurors in the John Edwards trial. What that might be is unclear.

The judge held another closed conference yesterday after a juror submitted a note. She also told the alternates they no longer have to report every day, they are now on "standby."

For once, the media seems to be unwilling to speculate. Why? Absence of facts has never stopped them before, especially if they can create a story that someone will be found guilty. [More...]

While its next to impossible to predict what a jury is thinking, maybe there are clues from the reactions of the lawyers.

The Judge's jury instructions went against John Edwards on every key issue. They fought tooth and nail to get the Judge to see the law the way they did, and failed. Given the judge's instructions, they have to fear a guilty verdict on at least a few counts.

If there were even a single hint of juror impropriety, I would expect Team Edwards to be filing motions daily, asking for a mistrial or at least for particular jurors to be excused and replaced with alternates. Now that they know how the judge sides on the key issues, they could better tailor their defense strategy at a retrial to fit the instructions.

The public hasn't seen the notes or been told the nature of the jury problems. But the judge has held at least three closed conferences with the lawyers, so they know what's afoot. They know whether the problems favor or go against their side.

Team Edwards hasn't filed a single motion or brief about the jury issues. (Had they filed something under seal, the docket should reflect it. And the docket shows nothing filed by either party since before any juror issue arose last week.)

Could Team Edwards' silence about the juror issues mean they believe they work in his favor? I think it's a fair possibility.

Wednesday Open Thread

Busy day. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Great Britain High Court Okays Assange Extradition

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has lost his appeal on extradition to Sweden. The British Supreme Court says he can be extradited to face charges there.

In a 5-2 vote, the British Supreme Court upheld the validity of an arrest warrant made by a Swedish prosecutor to question Assange over accusations by two Swedish women that he sexually assaulted them.

The ruling is here. The Court's press summary is here [More...]

His lawyers have been granted 14 days to seek reconsideration. They will argue that:

[T]he majority of the Court appear to have based their decision on the interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, on which no argument was heard.

It's Official: Obama v. Romney

According to the LA Times, 40 states won't matter much in the November election. Obama v. Romney will be decided by voters in 10 battleground states. Here's the map. Colorado is among them.

Yesterday, Mitt Romney officially won the Republican nomination. Election season has begun.

I think President Obama will win. I know that Big Tent Democrat and I intend to do our part by urging people to vote for him here on our tiny corner of the Internet. Why? The most important reason I can think of is to avoid saddling our children with decades of bad rulings by the conservative federal court judges and Supreme Court Justices that Romney would appoint to lifetime judgeships. That just about trumps every other issue for me. (I'll let Big Tent Democrat speak for himself as to his reasons.) [More...]

While I've been ignoring politics for the last year or so, focusing only on crime issues and cases, we seem to have attracted a lot of Obama-bashers in comments.

It's time to re-establish some ground rules for comments. I have my hands full with moderating comments on my criminal law threads, and don't want spend any more time than necessary moderating the political threads.

Big Tent Democrat's analysis is a gift here. I couldn't duplicate it, nor would I try. He doesn't have time to moderate comments, nor should he be expected to. Blogging is a hobby for both of us, not a job.

Neither of us wants to write posts, only to have people in comments go off on some tangent, ignore the points we've raised, and then initiate an attack against someone or something we support.

So here's a fair warning to anyone reading what we write who does not support President Obama's re-election for President: You will be limited to four comments per thread expressing your disapproval of Obama. You must still comply with our other comment rules. And you may not shill for an alternative candidate or urge other readers not to vote.

Elections are important. TalkLeft is a Democratic site. We may be harsh in our criticism of specific Administration policies -- even I have given Obama a pink slip notice a time or two over the past four years -- but now it's election season and it's very important to Big Tent Democrat and me that the Democrats keep the White House and hopefully win control of both houses of Congress. You can't work at cross-purposes to this goal in comments at this site.

During the 2007 primary season, TalkLeft gained thousands of new readers because I supported Hillary. When she didn't get the nomination and I threw my support to Obama, thousands of new readers left. It was okay then, and it will be okay if it happens again.

What makes independent blogging so rewarding is that we get to choose the topic, when and how often to write about it and advance our own agenda. We don't have to worry about maintaining or increasing traffic levels -- we aren't selling anything. And we can write unfiltered, free of editorial control.

While we are not a neutral site, we are a professional one. Our information is factual, we do a lot of research, and if we make an error we fix it. We don't allow profanity, personal attacks on other commenters or insults to the authors or friends of the authors.

People can disagree, that's called spirited discourse, but they can't post demonstrable falsehoods or call other commenters liars or stupid. They can say things like "I disagree" and why, or "I don't think that's accurate" and explain. It's called civility. We don't aim for quantity of comments, we hope for an intelligent discussion.

In two weeks, Talkleft will turn ten years old. That's long enough to know that people of like minds will find their way here while others will complain we've lost our way and choose to spend their internet time elsewhere. It's okay.

So, as we begin yet another election season, please keep in mind that Big Tent Democrat and I support President Obama, and that while we will undoubtedly continue to criticize various policy decisions, we want him re-elected, and won't have the site used by others who are at cross-purposes.

We sincerely appreciate every commenter who has taken the time to contribute their thoughts at TalkLeft. We know there are thousands of places on the Internet to choose from. It's gratifying to know that so many of you have chosen us. We hope you stick around. If you don't want to, we understand. We thank you for reading and contributing your thoughts to our site in the past, and we wish you the best.

Short Fingered Vulgarian Trump Still A Birther

Mitt Romney supporter Donald Trump (The Donald is hosting a fundraiser for Romney tonight) still a birther (via Daily Kos):

Thank you Mitt Romney for giving me an excuse to ridicule Trump one more time.

Speaking for me only

David Brooks' Dishonest Invocation of Alexander Hamilton

In his column today, David Brooks invokes Alexander Hamilton in a completely dishonest way. Brooks writes:

[T]he federal role has historically been sharply limited. The man who initiated that role, Alexander Hamilton, was a nationalist. His primary goal was to enhance national power and eminence, not to make individuals rich or equal.

[... T]his nationalism meant that policy emphasized dynamism, and opportunity more than security, equality and comfort. While European governments in the 19th and early 20th centuries focused on protecting producers and workers, the U.S. government focused more on innovation and education.

[...]

Because of these priorities, and these restrictions on the federal role, the government could be energetic without ever becoming gigantic. Through the 19th century, the federal government consumed about 4 percent of the national gross domestic product in peacetime. Even through the New Deal, it consumed less than 10 percent.

[...] But this Hamiltonian approach has been largely abandoned. The abandonment came in three phases. First, the progressive era. The progressives were right to increase regulations to protect workers and consumers. But the late progressives had excessive faith in the power of government planners to rationalize national life. This was antithetical to the Hamiltonian tradition, which was much more skeptical about how much we can know and much more respectful toward the complexity of the world.

When Alexander Hamilton is invoked to support, in essence Herbert Spencer's Social Statics and Lochnerisim, as Brooks does today, it is an act of dishonesty. The reason is we think of Alexander Hamilton as the most important voice in defining the power of the national government as embodied by the Constitution. While Hamilton may have had policy views that mirror Brooks' embrace of Social Statics and Lochnerism, he was wise enough to help create a federal government that had wide power to address national problems in a manner which the national government deemed fit.

To invoke Hamilton in support of limited government, knowing his critical role as a Founding Father, is to write dishonestly. Brooks is dishonest here because his clear implication is that the Constitution itself reflects Brooks' Lochnerian constitutional views. It does not and Hamilton would no doubt be the person most surprised to see himself used as "a champion" of a limited national government. Consider Sandy Levinson's piece, also in today's New York Times. Levinson writes:

Advocating the adoption of the new Constitution drafted in Philadelphia, the authors of “The Federalist Papers” mocked the “imbecility” of the weak central government created by the Articles of Confederation.

Instead of being an advocate of a "limited" national government, as Brooks claims, Hamilton was THE champion of a strong national government. Brooks dishonest invocation of Hamilton for support of his vision of a Lochnerian relationship of government to the People is belied by two of the most famous passages in the judicial history of our country.

First, in McCulloch v. Maryland, John Marshall, who knew much better what Alexander Hamilton thought than David Brooks ever will, wrote:

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to the Articles of Confederation, which exclude incidental or implied powers. If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.

Hardly an argument for the "limited" government Brooks claims Hamilton helped to create. The other quote is from Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his dissent in Lochner:

The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics.

David Brooks has every right to advocate for a return to Lochnerism. But he should do so honestly and on the merits, not by dishonestly invoking Alexander Hamilton in support of his pernicious project.

Speaking for me only