Thursday: Hili dialogue

July 20, 2023 • 6:45 am

Welcome to Thursday, July 20, 2023, and National Lollipop Day (Americans usually call them “suckers”.) The name? Wikipedia says this about “the invention of the modern lollipop”:

According to the book Food for Thought: Extraordinary Little Chronicles of the World, they were invented by George Smith of New Haven, Connecticut, who started making large hard candies mounted on sticks in 1908. He named them after a racehorse of the time, Lolly Pop – and trademarked the lollipop name in 1931

To wit (with the horse):

But there are other explanations:

Alternatively, it may be a word of Romany origin, being related to the Roma tradition of selling candy apples on a stick. Red apple in the Romany language is loli phaba

It’s also National Fortune Cookie Day, Moon Day (marking the day that humans first walked on the Moon in 1969), Nap Day, Space Exploration Day, and International Chess Day  Here’s a good fortune:

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this by consulting the July 20 Wikipedia page.

And the Google Doodle today celebrates the FIFA Women’s World Cup (click on Doodle below). Here’s how to watch it.

Da Nooz:

*As time goes on, and Trump accumulates more and more indictments, fewer and fewer readers think he’ll go to jail. Here’s the results of yesterday’s unscientific poll.  I guess most people think that the Orange Man will be above the law.

*So if, as seems likely, Trump is indicted in Washington for his attempt to reject the election results and for formenting insurrection, what will be the charges be? The NYT suggests three.

Now, Mr. Trump appears almost certain to face criminal charges for some of his efforts to remain in office. On Tuesday, he disclosed on social media that federal prosecutors had sent him a so-called target letter, suggesting that he could soon be indicted in the investigation into the events that culminated in the riot.

Mr. Trump did not say what criminal charges, if any, the special counsel, Jack Smith, had specified in issuing the letter.

But since the Capitol attack — in part because of revelations by a House committee investigation and news reports — many legal specialists and commentators have converged on several charges that are particularly likely, especially obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the government.

A person briefed on the matter said the target letter cited three statutes that could be applied in a prosecution of Mr. Trump by the special counsel, Jack Smith, including a potential charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States.

. . . These are some of the charges Mr. Trump could face in the Jan. 6 case.

Corruptly Obstructing an Official Proceeding

Both the House committee that scrutinized Jan. 6 and a federal judge in California who intervened in its inquiry have said that there is evidence that Mr. Trump tried to corruptly obstruct Congress’s session to certify Mr. Biden’s Electoral College victory. Under Section 1512(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code, such a crime would be punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Conspiring to defraud the government and to make false statements

Both the federal judge in California and the Jan. 6 committee also said there was evidence that Mr. Trump violated Section 371 of Title 18, which makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conspire with another person to defraud the government.

Wire and Mail Fraud

A constellation of other potential crimes has also surrounded the Jan. 6 investigation. One is wire fraud. Section 1343 of Title 18 makes it a crime, punishable by 20 years in prison, to cause money to be transferred by wire across state lines as part of a scheme to obtain money by means of false or fraudulent representations. A similar fraud statute, Section 1341, covers schemes that use the Postal Service.

That’s a lot of crimes and a lot of years. And you’re telling me he won’t do jail time?

*Stanford University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne has just stepped down—under a cloud.

Stanford University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne announced Wednesdayhe will resign after an investigative report found he had failed to correct mistakes in years-old scientific papers and overseen labs that had an “unusual frequency” of manipulations of data.

The dramatic fall from the top of one of the world’s most respected research institutions followed a months-long inquiry prompted by allegations of research misconduct reported by a Stanford campus newspaper late last year.

A panel of experts concluded that Tessier-Lavigne, a neuroscientist who has been president of Stanford for nearly seven years, did not engage in any fraud or falsification of scientific data. It also did not find evidence that he was aware of problems before publication of data.

But the review provides a portrait of a scientist who co-authored papers with “serious flaws” and failed on multiple occasions to “decisively and forthrightly correct mistakes” when concerns were raised.Tessier-Lavigne said Wednesday that he would ask for three papers to be retracted and two corrected. A panel of prominent scientists, engaged by a special committee of the private university’s board of trustees, examined a dozen of the more than 200 papers published during his career.

The “flawed paper” issue is, to me, less serious than the failure to correct mistakes. Tessier-Lavigne probably did what big famous scientist do: slap his name on the paper without reading it carefully (it’s reprehensible, but that’s the way science is these days). But failure to correct mistakes when pointed out? Unforgivable!

In a statement Wednesday, Tessier-Lavigne said, “the Panel did not find that I engaged in research misconduct regarding the twelve papers reviewed, nor did it find I had knowledge of or was reckless regarding research misconduct in my lab.”

“Although the report clearly refutes the allegations of fraud and misconduct that were made against me,” he wrote, “for the good of the University, I have made the decision to step down as President effective August 31.”

. . . In his statement Wednesday, Tessier-Lavigne acknowledged some missteps: In some instances, he wrote, “I should have been more diligent when seeking corrections. The Panel’s review also identified instances of manipulation of research data by others in my lab. Although I was unaware of these issues, I want to be clear that I take responsibility for the work of my lab members.”

Curiously, the Prez was brought down by reporting of Stanford’s student newspaper, the Stanfor Daily.  A search for a new President will soon be underway, in the meantime the acting Prez is Richard Saller, a professor of European studies and a former provost at the University of Chicago.

*A federal judge upheld the $5 million that Trump was ordered to pay E. Jean Carroll in her civil suit for sexual abuse and defamation.

A federal judge on Wednesday upheld a $5 million jury verdict against Donald Trump, rejecting the former president’s claims that the award was excessive and that the jury vindicated him by failing to conclude he raped a columnist in a luxury department store dressing room in the 1990s.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan said the jury’s May award of compensatory and punitive damages to writer E. Jean Carroll for sexual abuse and defamation in the civil case was reasonable.

Trump’s lawyers had asked Kaplan to reduce the jury award to less than $1 million or order a new trial on damages. In their arguments, the lawyers said the jury’s $2 million in compensatory damages granted for Carroll’s sexual assault claim was excessive because the jury concluded that Trump had not raped Carroll at Bergdorf Goodman’s Manhattan store in the spring of 1996.

. . .Kaplan wrote that the jury’s unanimous verdict was almost entirely in favor of Carroll, except that the jury concluded she had failed to prove that Trump raped her “within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law.”

The judge said the section requires vaginal penetration by a penis while forcible penetration without consent of the vagina or other bodily orifices by fingers or anything else is labeled “sexual abuse” rather than “rape.”

He said the definition of rape was “far narrower” than how rape is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes and elsewhere.

The judge said the verdict did not mean that Carroll “failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’ Indeed … the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

Although Carroll claimed that Trump had sexually penetrated her with both his fingers and his penis, the jury apparently found that the preponderance of the evidence suggested some form of sexual abuse but not penile penitration, which I think is that the judge is referring to in the last paragraph.

*Iran, which appears to have abolished the “morality police” to arrest or stop those who didn’t wear hijabs or engaged in prohibited activities like singing, now seems to have reinstated those police again.

It’s been more than six months since state officials removed Iran’s Guidance Patrol (nicknamed “morality police”) from active duty on the streets of Iran. On Sunday, the force returned to patrolling to enforce the country’s modesty laws.

Shariah in the country states that women must wear hijabs and loose-fitting clothing to maintain modesty, in accordance with Islamic tradition.

Since 2006, the Gasht-e Ershad, or Guidance Patrol, has enforced the law by monitoring that women cover their hair with a hijab. Men have also been targeted but not nearly as frequently, as reported by The New York Times. Punishments in the past have ranged from verbal warnings and fines to arrests and beatings.

On Sunday, police spokesperson Saeed Montazerolmahdi announced that the Guidance Patrol would once again be on the streets to “deal with those who, unfortunately, ignore the consequences of not wearing the proper hijab and insist on disobeying the norms,” per BBC.

“If they disobey the orders of the police force, legal action will be taken, and they will be referred to the judicial system,” he said.

Some speculation exists as to whether the patrol will be able to impose the country’s dress code like they did before, as BBC reported, because as one college student told Reuters, “the number of people who do not obey is too high now.”

You can go to jail or even get killed for not wearing “the proper hijab”. No wonder Iranian women are protesting en masse!

*The kākāpō (Strigops habroptila) of New Zealand is the world’s only flightless parrot, and also the world’s heaviest parrot (weight: 1.5-2 kg.).. It’s also rare: as of this year, there were only 248 of them. 40 years ago they were all moved to an island off New Zealand to remove them from predators. Now, for the first time in four decades, they’ve been released on the mainland—the large North Island of New Zealand. Please excuse the Department of Conservation’s announcment, which uses a large number of Māori words that most Kiwis (and no non-Kiwis) can understand:

The Department of Conservation in partnership with Ngāi Tahu is moving four male kākāpō from Whenua Hou/Codfish Island near Rakiura Stewart Island to Sanctuary Mountain Maungatautari, Waikato today.

DOC Operations Manager for Kākāpō Deidre Vercoe says returning the critically endangered nocturnal ground-dwelling parrot to the mainland is significant for all New Zealand, and a shared success story for all partners involved.

“Kākāpō are one of Aotearoa New Zealand’s most iconic and rare species, recovering from a population low of 51 birds in 1995. Until now, kākāpō have been contained to a few predator-free offshore islands, so to have them now returning to the mainland is a major achievement for all involved.”

The translocation comes after decades of hard work by DOC and Ngāi Tahu through the Kākāpō Recovery Programme, utilising both science and matauranga Māori to bring the species back from the brink of extinction. Since 2016 the population doubled to reach a high of 252 birds in 2022, and their island homes are almost at capacity.

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Deputy Kaiwhakahaere Matapura Ellison says a key aspect of the translocation is the iwi ki te iwi (iwi to iwi) transfer of the four manu from Ngāi Tahu to Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, Raukawa, Ngāti Hauā, and Waikato.

“This is a milestone translocation, and we are thankful for our iwi partners who will keep our taonga (treasured) kākāpō safe at their new habitat on Maungatautari. The whanaungatanga between our iwi is strengthened further through the shared kaitiakitanga of these precious manu.”

This give me a chance to show one of the best wildlife videos ever, Sirocco, the “ambassador kakapo”, shagging Mark Carwardine’s head while Stephen Fry looks on. This is from the BBC show, “Last chance to see”:

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili’s plaint is explained by Malgorzata, “Andrzej is now used to having Hili on his desk and just continues working, but Hili interprets it as that he started to ignore her.”

Hili: Do not think I don’t see it.
A: See what?
That you more often do not even notice when I’m disturbing you.
In Polish:
Hili: Nie sądź, że tego nie widzę.
Ja: Czego?
Hili: Coraz częściej nawet nie zauważasz, że ci przeszkadzam.

********************

From Stash Krod:

From The Cat House on the Kings:

From The Absurd Sign Project 2.0):

A tweet from Masih (see Nooz above). The Iranian morality please have are BACK!

Lauren Boebert discarded a pin rememberine one of the victims of the school massacre (19 victims) in Uvalde, Texas last year. She could at least have waited until she was in the privacy of her office.

Boebert is a co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus, which is made up of members of Congress who support Second Amendment rights. Boebert’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Gina Gennari made the pins after members of Congress wore AR-15 pins on the House floor to symbolize their commitment to upholding the Second Amendment.

 

Now Marjorie Taylor Greene is in campaign ads for Biden! Funny caption, too.

From Malcolm: a trick about how to crack an egg without getting bits of shell in it. I’m trying it tonight!

From the Auschwitz Memorial, a 7 year old boy gassed upon arrival:

Tweets from the diligent Dr. Cobb. First, a high-fiving cat:

Here’s the first kakapo release on mainland New Zealand in forty years (see above):

A photo from yore, tweeted by Matthew:

41 thoughts on “Thursday: Hili dialogue”

  1. Lollipop vs. sucker seems to be one of those regional things in the US, like soda vs pop. I live in lollipop / soda territory.

    Reply

    1. I call them lollipops. I lived in sucker territory in the US. I was a bit confused when a girl walked up to me and offered me a ‘sucker’. I was a bit confused until I saw what she had. Then I got one.

      Reply

      1. I live in Connecticut. We always called the regular-sized ones lollipops. The big ones are “all-day suckers.”

        Reply

    2. We call them stokkie-lekker here (yes even the English and Xhosa speakers use the word). Lekker is one of these elusive words that can mean good, agreeable, enjoyable, cozy and much more in Afrikaans, and in Dutch the word is just as volatile. There are also some sexual connotations in some contexts, like in ” ‘n lekker tydjie saam”.
      I like the Roma etymology more than the race horse, but what is liked better is not necessarily true.

      Reply

  2. The egg-cracking is a good tip! I’m glad he did it three times. I liked listening to his voice.

    Reply

  3. “The ‘flawed paper’ issue is, to me, less serious than the failure to correct mistakes. Tessier-Lavigne probably did what big famous scientist do: slap his name on the paper without reading it carefully (it’s reprehensible, but that’s the way science is these days).”

    It doesn’t seem uncommon to see academic research papers that have at least five authors listed. This situation raises this question in my mind: did each author actually make a substantive contribution to the article beyond saying something to the effect “the article seems great and I agree with it” or “the article is good, but here are a few suggestions to make it better?” And for such a minimal contribution to the article, the person expects to be listed as an author. I can see how this can puff up the resume of a junior researcher, but why would a senior researcher want this? Is it some ego thing to claim authorship of a multitude of articles or to give “weight” to a particular viewpoint that the person adheres to or to help the careers of junior researchers by associating them with the supposed work of a senior researcher? In any case, I would like to see a rule instituted by academic journals that any article that lists more than three authors will not be published until each author can demonstrate that he made a substantive contribution to its research. Such a policy would promote academic honesty and give full credit to those that actually did the research.

    Reply

    1. In the “publish or perish” world of today’s academia, publication numbers really matter a lot.

      Science is now pretty complicated, and it often takes five or more specialists to do all the correct data collection and analysis.

      Reply

    2. Fun fact: the Stanford student reporter Theo Baker who broke the story about Tessier-Lavigne is the son or journalistic royalty (Susan Glasser at The New Yorker and Peter Baker at NYT).

      Reply

    3. Yes lots of journals require all authors to state who contributed what to the research and to the article. But these are affirmations not demonstrations. Collaborating scientists in a research group have to trust each other (this was Tessier-Lavigne’s downfall, he trusted the wrong people and failed to check up on them), and they tend to want to trust each other when reading each papers and books from other research groups. Mostly that trust is warranted, but breakdowns can have spectacular consequences. Many examples here:

      https://retractionwatch.com

      Reply

    1. Yes, she was criticizing those achievements as leading to communism. To a very right wing audience at the Turning Point Action conference.

      Reply

    3. This is the problem with idiocy.

      Best I can tell, as best, Rep. Greene is making a case that Biden is effectively an LBJ. At best, she is claiming Biden is Democratic socialist like, AFAIK, LBJ.

      That is my most forgiving take – because to find what she said before and after is taking too long and polluting my computer account search histories. Maybe she dropped the “C” word. I can’t imagine scraps of genius were on either side of the banal statement we can easily read/hear.

      LBJ in his time was AFAIK a good thing. He did not turn the U.S. into a communist state. In fact that will never happen anywhere because True Communism has never been achieved.

      It is clever to use against a political opponent. But it is also true that even if every expenditure turned out to produce little benefit to any given resident of the U.S., it still would never “lead to” communism, nor would communism materialize. There would simply be no benefits given the costs.

      Reply

        1. Somewhere Helen Gahagan Douglas’s ears are still ringing with Richard Milhous Nixon’s traducement. 🙂

          Reply

    4. Indeed, to me it sounded if she was actually endorsing Biden. He is continuing the good works of FDR and LBJ? Great!
      But then the deep caves and grottos of MTG’s attic are somewhat out of my league, and I guess out of any normal thinking person’s comprehension.

      Reply

  5. I’m not sure the picture of the cleaning lady and the Beatles is during a public performance. All the seats on the right of the aisle are empty and the visible audience members are all men in suits.

    I think it’s most likely a rehearsal.

    Reply

    2. I’ll back you up on this – I mean, I’m a Beatles fan, what can I say – it is a profound photo – given the “default” image of The Beatles in anyone’s head.

      Here, a strong contrast – attentively doing servant-level labor, and (ostensibly) utter disinterest – and The Beatles also somewhat aloof.

      Of course, in the previous moment, maybe she got their autographs and was going nuts. But we don’t know.

      But yeah – rehearsal, friends/guests admitted early, ..

      Reply

      1. I conjecture that the Beatles got to a point where they enjoyed and were grateful for a low-keyed conversation with anyone who didn’t go Ga-Ga over them.

        Those were mighty fine looking banisters.

        Reply

  6. Not to be nitpicky, but I’m pretty sure it’s a rehearsal, not a performance, by The Beatles. For the performance, they were filmed by Pathé News, for a newsreel titled “The Beatles Come to Town” (which I’ve always thought should have been included on the “A Hard Day’s Night” DVD). Still a cool picture, and one I haven’t seen.

    Reply

    1. Since that’s in the “substantially before any sort of video” era, Pathé wold have been filming on “film”. So a canny producer would have got a (short) reel “in the can” during rehearsals, which they might have time to get processed (“rushes”) before the show to check on the exposures they had been using.
      It’s not just the musicians and sound levels that need rehearsals. Lighting people, any props … given the Beatles reputation, probably the security staff … anyone else?

      Reply

  7. And you’re telling me he won’t do jail time?

    The charges still need to be proven, and prosecutors always present evidence in the light most favorable to themselves, especially where Trump is concerned. I think that, if there were real evidence that Trump committed these crimes, no one would have waited two and a half years to bring charges (and eight months after the January 6 Committee’s report). We’ve been told over and over again that they’ve “got him this time.” Since when do prosecutors start with their weakest case first, and then say, Okay, that didn’t work, time to try the more serious stuff? I don’t want Trump to be re-elected next year, but I object as a matter of fairness to the Biden Administration and its allies perverting the justice system to incapacitate a political opponent.

    In the meantime every week there is concrete evidence surfacing that the Bidens are corrupt and have been selling access. So far the tally is over $17 million. People say that things like the Trump charges are brought at a time to distract people from the Biden news, but we all know that the Press doesn’t need an excuse to help covering this up.

    Reply

    1. Spoken like a true republican. They waited this long because there is this great conspiracy. Lets go right up to the next election so he can put the whole thing off until after the election. If he gets back in it all goes down the tubes. Regardless of how many indictments and trials are coming concerning this creep, lets not forget about the Biden’s and all the terrible things they did. The dark state is after you. You have a great or maybe poor movie to be made from this.

      Reply

    2. Where is this “concrete” evidence you speak of? Is it with Gal Luft, who was indicted for being an unregistered foreign agent for China and is on the run from US law enforcement? Who is also an arms trafficker and has violated Iranian sanctions? Or is it from Rudy Giuliani and Lev Parnas? Lev Parnas says in a 10 page letter that he spent a year in the Ukraine looking for dirt on both Bidens and found nothing. Rudy Giuliani is in the process of being disbarred and will be indicted by Special Counsel Smith and Georgia DA Fani Willis for election fraud if he hasn’t already flipped on Trump. Such credible sources–NOT!

      You certainly didn’t hear about it from the two disgruntled IRS agents in the oversight committee hearing yesterday who are POed because they couldn’t get the special counsel to do what they wanted and give Hunter jail time for offenses that rarely get ANY jail time for anyone. Hunter Biden should pay for what he’s done but Joe Biden can’t be tarred with the same brush. In case you didn’t watch that pathetic excuse for an oversight committee hearing, Rep. Goldman got these “agents” to admit that Joe Biden was not involved in Hunter Biden’s business dealings, no matter how much you wish it was true. After which, Margery Taylor Greene posted pornographic pictures of Hunter Biden for everyone to see on television. I thought posting revenge porn anywhere was illegal.

      How is it possible that any of these GOP clowns in the House have even one ounce of credibility at this point? Right now, I wouldn’t believe any of them if they told me the sky was blue. And I can’t believe anyone with a working brain could take anything they say or do seriously. Our democracy is at stake and all you want to do is ignore the crimes Trump did–crimes that all of us was with our own eyes on January 6, 2021, and instead prefer to point fingers at someone else to deflect from the fact that you are supporting a criminal who wants to destroy our country and our democracy. It’s pathetic to stand by with your fingers in you ears and pretending it’s not happening because you’re angry your guy didn’t win or you don’t like the other guys’ policies. Open your eyes and ears, grow up and see the BS you’re shovelling.

      Reply

      1. ‘Clowns’ is dead right. These are not serious people engaging with the serious issues of our time. They are performative clowns, pulling wacky stunts to get on TeeVee and stick it to the libtards. It’s very depressing. One would hope that folks would at least try to elect serious people. Guess they prefer the clowning.

        Reply

        1. Going all the way back to the voters who put these clowns in there is likely a bridge too far even Monti would not attempt. These MAGA nut balls are only available on conspiracy TV and secret edges of the Internet.

          Reply

    3. I’m sincerely curious: how do you explain the audio recording of Trump discussing what he says is a document from the defense department? Trump says he didn’t actually have such a document in his hands, but if that’s so, then the conversation between Trump and his aide is just bizarre.

      https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/politics/trump-classified-documents-audio/index.html

      And the Presidential Records Act is very clear on this:

      “The term ‘Presidential records’ means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.”

      But these are “Trumped up” charges because?

      Reply

      1. What’s “Trumped up” here are the Donald’s defenses to the charges pending against him .

        Take the obstruction-of-justice offense charged against Trump in the Southern District of Florida, for example. Trump was served with a federal grand jury subpoena calling for him to produce any documents he possessed that were marked classified. (It would not matter if the documents were still in fact classified, or if Trump had somehow declassified the documents through mental telepathy, as he has since publicly claimed. If the documents still bore the markings indicating that they had been classified, they would be responsive to the grand jury subpoena and, consequently, would have to be produced in response to the subpoena.)

        When the federal grand jury subpoena was served on Trump, Trump had well over 100 documents bearing such classification markings in his possession at Mar-a-Lago. Instead of producing these documents to the grand jury as required by the subpoena, however, Trump had the boxes containing these documents moved around Mar-a-Lago to keep them hidden from the feds (and from his own lawyers) to prevent the documents from being discovered and produced to the grand jury notwithstanding his legal obligation to do so. Despite his illegally withholding these documents, Trump also had one of his lawyers execute a declaration sworn to under the penalties for perjury falsely asseverating that all documents responsive to the grand jury subpoena had been produced as required. When the government executed a court-ordered federal search warrant at Mar-a-Lago a couple months later (in August 2022), 103 of the documents bearing classification markings that Trump had kept hidden in response to the grand jury subpoena were seized from Trump’s possession.

        There is no possible scenario in which Trump’s conduct regarding these documents seized from Mar-a-Lago does not constitute the federal crime of obstruction of justice under Title 18 of the United States Code section 1519. I dare say that, unless they were all to be forfeit to their oaths, even a jury of a dozen DrBrydons would have to return a guilty verdict against Trump on this charge in the SD Fla indictment. 🙂

        Reply

    4. I was listening to CNN radio the day they obtained the tape recording from Mar-a-Lago. They played it over and over and over. The journalists kept hyperventilating about how damaging it was to national security that Trump would tell unauthorized people that we had a war plan to attack Iran. Replay tape. Journalists: We have a war plan to attack Iran. Replay tape. Journalists: We have a war plan . . .

      The supposed fact of such a war plan even existing is so damaging that . . . CNN reports it endlessly. Trump voters rightly roll their eyes when they are asked to then swoon over the seriousness of the offense of retaining and “sharing” documents, especially when Trump is tossing out bullshit terms like “highly confidential” document while he waves something in the air that just happened to be available on his desk. Assertions of “grave harm to national security” do, indeed, appear to be “trumped up.”

      I empathize with this view, but only to a degree. Until one can prove unauthorized disclosure (as opposed to the waving about of an unidentified document), intent to commit espionage or otherwise aid an enemy of the United States, or demonstrable harm to national security, then the document retention issue by a former president is a procedural foul. Everyone who has done so should quit spewing nonsense about “grave harm to national security.” That narrative line is utter poppycock, and Trump voters rightly see through it. Trump could have accessed those same documents at any time just by walking into the archives and requesting them. But retention and inappropriate storage are both reckless, even if he has Secret Service surveillance at his residence. I do not see jailtime as appropriate for this, but I do see a fine being in order. Nevertheless, if he had simply returned the documents when asked, then he would not be in legal jeopardy.

      That said, what Trump cannot legally do is share this information with others who do not have a proper need to know. As a former president who now lacks the authority to declassify materials or to designate someone as having a need to know, Trump cannot lean over and legally whisper sweet TS/SCI nothings into Bibi’s “unauthorized” ear as he could have done while in office. He certainly cannot do so with a reporter. What Trump also cannot legally do is obstruct—even if no harm was done to national security. That latter issue is my core concern.

      The man is his own biggest problem.

      Reply

  8. RE women’s soccer world cup: Residents of Canada can watch match summaries (about 7-10 mins long) on the YouTube channel of sports broadcaster TSN (usually up within an hour of the end of the game):
    https://www.youtube.com/user/TSNCanada/videos

    More generally:
    How can I watch the Women’s World Cup in Canada?
    Canadian fans can watch on TSN, and some matches will be available on CTV. This includes all three of Canada’s group-stage matches (against Nigeria, Ireland, and Australia). French-language coverage will be on RDS.
    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/article-womens-world-cup-how-to-watch

    Go Canada! Tonight (Canadian time) against Nigeria.

    Reply

  9. On this day:
    1807 – Nicéphore Niépce is awarded a patent by Napoleon for the Pyréolophore, the world’s first internal combustion engine, after it successfully powered a boat upstream on the river Saône in France.

    1848 – The first Women’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York, a two-day event, concludes.

    1871 – British Columbia joins the confederation of Canada.

    1885 – The Football Association legalizes professionalism in association football under pressure from the British Football Association.

    1903 – The Ford Motor Company ships its first automobile.

    1906 – In Finland, a new electoral law is ratified, guaranteeing the country the first and equal right to vote in the world. Finnish women are the first in Europe to receive the right to vote.

    1934 – West Coast waterfront strike: In Seattle, police fire tear gas on and club 2,000 striking longshoremen. The governor of Oregon calls out the National Guard to break a strike on the Portland docks.

    1944 – World War II: Adolf Hitler survives an assassination attempt led by German Army Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg.

    1949 – The Israel–Syria Mixed Armistice Commission brokers the last of four ceasefire agreements to end the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

    1950 – Cold War: In Philadelphia, Harry Gold pleads guilty to spying for the Soviet Union by passing secrets from atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs.

    1954 – Germany: Otto John, head of West Germany’s secret service, defects to East Germany.

    1960 – The Polaris missile is successfully launched from a submarine, the USS George Washington, for the first time.

    1968 – The first International Special Olympics Summer Games are held at Soldier Field in Chicago, with about 1,000 athletes with intellectual disabilities.

    1969 – Apollo program: Apollo 11’s crew successfully makes the first human landing on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility. Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin become the first humans to walk on the Moon six and a half hours later.

    1974 – Turkish invasion of Cyprus: Forces from Turkey invade Cyprus after a coup d’état, organised by the dictator of Greece, against president Makarios.

    1976 – The American Viking 1 lander successfully lands on Mars.

    1977 – The Central Intelligence Agency releases documents under the Freedom of Information Act revealing it had engaged in mind-control experiments.

    1982 – Hyde Park and Regent’s Park bombings: The Provisional IRA detonates two bombs in Hyde Park and Regent’s Park in central London, killing eight soldiers, wounding forty-seven people, and leading to the deaths of seven horses.

    1999 – The Chinese Communist Party begins a persecution campaign against Falun Gong, arresting thousands nationwide.

    2005 – The Civil Marriage Act legalizes same-sex marriage in Canada.

    2015 – The United States and Cuba resume full diplomatic relations after five decades.

    2017 – O. J. Simpson is granted parole to be released from prison after serving nine years of a 33-year sentence after being convicted of armed robbery in Las Vegas.

    Births:
    1304 – Petrarch, Italian poet and scholar (d. 1374). [Yesterday was the anniversary of his death.]

    1804 – Richard Owen, English biologist, anatomist, and paleontologist (d. 1892).

    1822 – Gregor Mendel, Austro-German monk, geneticist and botanist (d. 1884).

    1889 – John Reith, 1st Baron Reith, Scottish broadcaster, co-founded BBC (d. 1971).

    1919 – Edmund Hillary, New Zealand mountaineer and explorer (d. 2008).

    1933 – Cormac McCarthy, American novelist, playwright, and screenwriter (d. 2023).

    1938 – Diana Rigg, English actress (d. 2020).

    1938 – Natalie Wood, American actress (d. 1981).

    1943 – Wendy Richard, English actress (d. 2009).

    1947 – Carlos Santana, Mexican-American singer-songwriter and guitarist.

    1951 – Jeff Rawle, English actor and screenwriter.

    1956 – Paul Cook, English drummer.

    1962 – Julie Bindel, English journalist, author, and academic.

    1964 – Chris Cornell, American singer-songwriter and guitarist (d. 2017).

    1971 – Sandra Oh, Canadian actress.

    “In my humble opinion, dying is probably not as bad as you’re expecting.” [Dr Kathryn Mannix]
    1866 – Bernhard Riemann, German mathematician and academic (b. 1826).

    1922 – Andrey Markov, Russian mathematician and theorist (b. 1856).

    1923 – Pancho Villa, Mexican general and politician, Governor of Chihuahua (b. 1878).

    1937 – Olga Hahn-Neurath, Austrian mathematician and philosopher from the Vienna Circle (b. 1882).

    1937 – Guglielmo Marconi, Italian physicist and engineer, Nobel Prize laureate (b. 1874).

    1973 – Bruce Lee, American actor and martial artist (b. 1940).

    1994 – Paul Delvaux, Belgian painter (b. 1897).

    2011 – Lucian Freud, German-English painter and illustrator (b. 1922).

    2017 – Chester Bennington, American singer (b. 1976).

    Reply

    1. Paul Delvaux was famous for painting nearly medieval looking naked women in eerie environments, and trains.

      Reply

  10. “He named them after a racehorse of the time, Lolly Pop”

    I’m not sure many know this, but there’s an object with a nearly perfect homophonic name :

    “The Lally column is named after a U.S. inventor, John Lally, who owned a construction company that started production of these columns in the late 19th century.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lally_column

    Reply

  11. In The Far Side cartoon, I thought the light bulb hanging in the closet was a duck that had hanged itself. I’m not sure what that says about me.

    Reply

  12. Moon Day July 20, 1969 when men walked on the moon was the day my husband and I arrived in Cuzco, Peru as part of our three month trip around South America. In our hotel lobby we sat with local Peruvians and watched this event on a very very tiny TV screen, suffering from some altitude sickness and sipping coca tea which didnt seem to help much.

    Reply

  13. I missed the vote, but I think Trump will serve time in jail.
    If not, I’d see that a te beginning of the end as a democracy and hence a world power

    Reply

    1. That he would even be allowed to run after all he has said and done, means our democracy is at least at the middle, not the start of, decline.

      Reply

Leave a Reply