Since the Alabama Constitution alleges that life begins at conception, then are the laws that the Alabama Legislature passed to protect IVF automatically unconstitutional? Because under their Constitution the act of discarding embryos that are not viable for implantation in a uterus would be regarded as manslaughter. Or murder. So do you see this entire shit situation headed to the US Supreme Court? Is the only outcome for this be for the conservative dickheads on the Court to decide if life begins at conception? Is there any other possible path out of this shit?
It seems obvious that the President of the United States was not meant to have the kind of unquestionable “divine” authority of a 18th century monarch. How is it possible that anyone on the Supreme Court, originalist or not, could consider saying that the president has absolute immunity? It boggles my mind.
Beginners' question: is there anything in the constitution that place a check on the Supreme Court? Or their appointment by the ex branch was supposed to he enough?
I tried to watch last night but could not find the Q&A anywhere. My wife and I are both paid subscribers to L&C, and I clicked on the email link that brought me here but it was not posted here. I ended up having to search Youtube (a platform that I don't use very often unless a link in an article takes me there) and found your page and waited for it to start. I assumed you scheduled it for 8 p.m. eastern time, so in Arizona that would have been 6 p.m. I finally gave up after about half and hour and watched basketball instead.
Where was the SNAFU? Am I just not very bright? Are you going to post it on one of the platforms (L&C, Patreon, Youtube) that carry these things?
On a side note, it gets very confusing and frustrating to us olds when we subscribe and pay money for content, but access it through a portal that we don't pay on and are treated like free subscribers (annoying that each platform has it's own money ask too. I run into that at Wonkette all the time). I'm done shaking my fist and yelling at the clouds, but hope I get a response. (I would have emailed directly, but that must not exist in this dimension.)
Love your work Liz and have been reading it since the Rude Pundit days...
I was wondering about that Florida anti-cross-dressing law. I don't remember what its status is. But supposing it actually had an effect, would it forbid
- a historical-practices performance of "Hamlet" with all the parts played by men?
- a modern-practices performance of "As You Like It" where cross-dressing is integral to the plot?
- any performance of Mozart's "The Marriage of Figaro", or any other opera which contains a mezzo-soprano trouser role in which a male character is played by a woman, whether or not the character is also 'disguised' as a woman for a small part of the action?
- any of the above, assuming all the cast wear Mao suits throughout the performance?
Question: Once it is established that the 32 documents in paragraph 93 of the superseding indictment are (1) indeed still classified (or were on the date they were recovered/date of the indictment) and (2) definitely found at Mar-a-Lago, what is the continuing need for *anyone* involved in the case to see those documents (or at least the sub-section for which (1) and (2) apply)?
Context: I am not a lawyer and everything I know about CIPA comes from podcasts featuring Liz Dye (and, probably Kel McClanahan). I have, however, worked with classified material my entire professional career. Given the way the document cover sheets were shown in the FBI photos and given how they are reported in the superseding indictment, these are actual classified documents (as opposed to classified notes) which means they all contain a classification authority block on the cover sheet, which includes who classified it, why it is classified, and instructions for its declassification. This gives easy traceability back to the individual (and organization) who classified the document who can answer (1) above. For further information, see:
(see page 40 of that reference for an idea of what an actually-declassified document should look like)
A distinction I haven’t seen made, but which Liz and Kel talked about in their recent episode, was that both the Reagan diaries and the Clinton recordings were personal reminiscences of the President as opposed to formal classified documents—what would be known as “working papers” that were not subsequently officially scrubbed for classified material and what showed up in the episode as personal records. The big distinction is both Reagan and Clinton wrote down stuff (or said stuff) based on classified in their head as opposed to just keeping official classified documents. [Side note: I’m surprised Trump hasn’t made the argument that he kept those documents for when he writes his memoirs, even though there probably isn’t enough Adderall in the world to get him to sit for a task like that.] Someone would have to dig through the diaries/tapes and identify which sentences/ideas were classified, and I could see wanting to have the source material accessible to go back and look at.
This is clearly not the case here. Those are cut-and-dried classified documents, or they were at the time of the indictment because they’re in the indictment. I would suspect the prosecution checked with the classification authority on all 32 of those to see that they were still classified. Also, it’s notable that some of the classifications themselves are redacted. That is some serious stuff.
I will also add that just being cleared to see the classified information does not mean you get to see the classified information: there is also a "need to know." I can see the Judge and prosecution, and I guess the defense lawyers, having a need to know to establish fact (1) above, at which point that need to know vanishes.
Love everything you do! But what is your take on the Fani Willis disqualification now vs Andrew Fleischman’s thoughts pre-hearing? I feel like it was a lot of build up to what ended up looking like a witch hunt of a black woman where, if this happened in any other case anywhere, these allegations would be handled in chambers by the Judge (I’ve been a prosecutor and a defense attorney).
Since the Alabama Constitution alleges that life begins at conception, then are the laws that the Alabama Legislature passed to protect IVF automatically unconstitutional? Because under their Constitution the act of discarding embryos that are not viable for implantation in a uterus would be regarded as manslaughter. Or murder. So do you see this entire shit situation headed to the US Supreme Court? Is the only outcome for this be for the conservative dickheads on the Court to decide if life begins at conception? Is there any other possible path out of this shit?
It seems obvious that the President of the United States was not meant to have the kind of unquestionable “divine” authority of a 18th century monarch. How is it possible that anyone on the Supreme Court, originalist or not, could consider saying that the president has absolute immunity? It boggles my mind.
Beginners' question: is there anything in the constitution that place a check on the Supreme Court? Or their appointment by the ex branch was supposed to he enough?
I tried to watch last night but could not find the Q&A anywhere. My wife and I are both paid subscribers to L&C, and I clicked on the email link that brought me here but it was not posted here. I ended up having to search Youtube (a platform that I don't use very often unless a link in an article takes me there) and found your page and waited for it to start. I assumed you scheduled it for 8 p.m. eastern time, so in Arizona that would have been 6 p.m. I finally gave up after about half and hour and watched basketball instead.
Where was the SNAFU? Am I just not very bright? Are you going to post it on one of the platforms (L&C, Patreon, Youtube) that carry these things?
On a side note, it gets very confusing and frustrating to us olds when we subscribe and pay money for content, but access it through a portal that we don't pay on and are treated like free subscribers (annoying that each platform has it's own money ask too. I run into that at Wonkette all the time). I'm done shaking my fist and yelling at the clouds, but hope I get a response. (I would have emailed directly, but that must not exist in this dimension.)
Love your work Liz and have been reading it since the Rude Pundit days...
I'm sorry, Dick. I should have been more clear. Here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/live/yefcfyR-nRQ?si=bZigcX0hrDr3xzP4
Thanks Liz! You may have been clear but my mind may have been foggy!
I'll watch it and memorize the good parts...(-:
I was wondering about that Florida anti-cross-dressing law. I don't remember what its status is. But supposing it actually had an effect, would it forbid
- a historical-practices performance of "Hamlet" with all the parts played by men?
- a modern-practices performance of "As You Like It" where cross-dressing is integral to the plot?
- any performance of Mozart's "The Marriage of Figaro", or any other opera which contains a mezzo-soprano trouser role in which a male character is played by a woman, whether or not the character is also 'disguised' as a woman for a small part of the action?
- any of the above, assuming all the cast wear Mao suits throughout the performance?
How would that even work?
First my question; then, some context.
Question: Once it is established that the 32 documents in paragraph 93 of the superseding indictment are (1) indeed still classified (or were on the date they were recovered/date of the indictment) and (2) definitely found at Mar-a-Lago, what is the continuing need for *anyone* involved in the case to see those documents (or at least the sub-section for which (1) and (2) apply)?
Context: I am not a lawyer and everything I know about CIPA comes from podcasts featuring Liz Dye (and, probably Kel McClanahan). I have, however, worked with classified material my entire professional career. Given the way the document cover sheets were shown in the FBI photos and given how they are reported in the superseding indictment, these are actual classified documents (as opposed to classified notes) which means they all contain a classification authority block on the cover sheet, which includes who classified it, why it is classified, and instructions for its declassification. This gives easy traceability back to the individual (and organization) who classified the document who can answer (1) above. For further information, see:
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/520001m_vol2.pdf
(see page 40 of that reference for an idea of what an actually-declassified document should look like)
A distinction I haven’t seen made, but which Liz and Kel talked about in their recent episode, was that both the Reagan diaries and the Clinton recordings were personal reminiscences of the President as opposed to formal classified documents—what would be known as “working papers” that were not subsequently officially scrubbed for classified material and what showed up in the episode as personal records. The big distinction is both Reagan and Clinton wrote down stuff (or said stuff) based on classified in their head as opposed to just keeping official classified documents. [Side note: I’m surprised Trump hasn’t made the argument that he kept those documents for when he writes his memoirs, even though there probably isn’t enough Adderall in the world to get him to sit for a task like that.] Someone would have to dig through the diaries/tapes and identify which sentences/ideas were classified, and I could see wanting to have the source material accessible to go back and look at.
This is clearly not the case here. Those are cut-and-dried classified documents, or they were at the time of the indictment because they’re in the indictment. I would suspect the prosecution checked with the classification authority on all 32 of those to see that they were still classified. Also, it’s notable that some of the classifications themselves are redacted. That is some serious stuff.
I will also add that just being cleared to see the classified information does not mean you get to see the classified information: there is also a "need to know." I can see the Judge and prosecution, and I guess the defense lawyers, having a need to know to establish fact (1) above, at which point that need to know vanishes.
In case you were wondering how DoD is supposed to store classified material, it’s in here: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/520001m_vol3.pdf. The pool house is not mentioned.
Hey! Are you going to do a podcast about journalist Tim Burke being charged for the Tucker Carlson leak?
Love everything you do! But what is your take on the Fani Willis disqualification now vs Andrew Fleischman’s thoughts pre-hearing? I feel like it was a lot of build up to what ended up looking like a witch hunt of a black woman where, if this happened in any other case anywhere, these allegations would be handled in chambers by the Judge (I’ve been a prosecutor and a defense attorney).