Talk about an own goal.

FGM he says? FGM??????? GM is what trans ideology DOES to its believers. Trans ideology does “espouse” gender mutilation, along with breast removal and puberty blocking and related horrors. Of all things to choose to illustrate “You wouldn’t talk that way about _____” he chose genital mutilation. Think, man, think.

Interesting. Prosecutor Jennifer Rodgers in an opinion piece at CNN:

RICO also carries sentencing benefits. A conviction under Georgia’s RICO law would carry a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years, and most of the other 40 charges in the indictment likewise involve mandatory minimum sentences of one year.

None of the other charged cases include a mandatory minimum, upping the stakes for a Georgia conviction not only for Trump, but his co-conspirators, who will be deciding in the coming weeks and months whether they want to take a plea deal that might help them avoid this consequence by allowing them to plead to a count without mandatory minimum penalties.

Here’s hoping they all abandon him, every last one of them.

In another part of the Fringe…

So there! Nyah!

BBC insults women with a headline:

Celebrity MasterChef: Cheryl Hole on why LGBTQ+ representation is important

So the BBC is cool with calling women “holes”?

Drag artist Cheryl Hole said LGBTQ+ representation on shows like Celebrity MasterChef is important with “the community under attack”.

She appears in the penultimate week of heats of the celebrity cooking show.

Is “Hole” a drag artist or a she? He can’t be both, now can he – only males can do female drag, because that’s what drag means.

Why on earth does the WHO do this?

[Ignore the first tweet.]

That crap isn’t a “first stop for health and well-being,” it’s just woo.

Joan Smith asks what Humza Yousaf thinks he’s doing talking about toxic masculinity.

“Men cannot be passive bystanders when it is our actions that are causing such pain, suffering and misery,” he declares.

The pain of being punched in the face for supporting women’s rights, for instance? The suffering that comes from being locked up in a women’s prison with a convicted rapist? Or the misery of being forced to refer to the man who attacked you as “she” in court because he “identifies” as a woman?

Noooo. Women who don’t comply with the orders issued by men who claim to be women don’t count as women or as having pain.

Of course not. Giving a woman a black eye results in nothing worse than a caution in Scotland, it seems, if the woman in question happens to be a “terf”. And Scottish prisons policy allowed even violent male offenders to demand transfers to the female estate until January this year, when a disbelieving public was confronted with photographs of “Isla Bryson” arriving at court in a blond wig.

…

“As men, we must listen,” Yousaf says in the Guardian, but there is no evidence that he (or indeed the leader of Scottish Labour, Anas Sarwar) is listening to women who offer a compelling critique of the reckless Gender Recognition Reform Bill. The most minimal safeguards were voted down during the Bill’s passage at Holyrood, with supporters flatly denying that predators would ever take advantage of the legislation to get access to vulnerable women. Or “identify” as women in order to serve their sentence in a less scary environment. 

…

Politicians don’t get to pick and choose which types of misogyny, and which aspects of male violence, are beyond the pale. Trans activism has created a tidal wave of woman-hating — and the targets are the very campaigners for women’s safety that Yousaf should be listening to.

Should be but never will be.

A shocking headline:

Seven police interviewed, station raided over ‘false’ non-binary claims

Victoria Police officers have searched the force’s Frankston station and interviewed several officers accused of claiming to be non-binary to fraudulently claim more money for civilian clothing allowances.

You mean claiming to be non-binary when they’re not actually non-binary?

So…how can they tell? What’s the difference? What were they searching for when they searched the station? Binary fingerprints? Binary clothes, binary badges, binary socks? What? What exactly is there to search for? What is the difference between real non-binary and fake non-binary? What happened to “people are who they say they are”?

Chief Commissioner Shane Patton announced a probe into the issue in July, after reports that some male officers had been rorting a discrepancy in the force’s clothing allowance by identifying as non-binary.

But if they identify as non-binary they are non-binary. Does the Chief Commissioner not know that? It’s the rule, and it’s absolute.

Under the scheme, female officers are entitled to claim about $1300 more than male colleagues.

I suppose that’s because clothing manufacturers systematically price women’s clothing higher than men’s even when the clothing in question is identical.

Professional Standards Command detectives arrested a member of the Frankston crime investigation unit on Monday, according to a police source not authorised to speak publicly.

But people are who they say they are!!!

Patton announced the investigation after the force noted a sharp increase in the number of officers identifying as gender-neutral over the previous year.

The claims were first raised by the @discernibleofficial Instagram page in June, which posted: “We have unconfirmed ­reports from inside Victoria Police that management is pulling their hair out after a majority of a CIU (crime investigation unit) in southern region changed their profile in the HR system to be ‘gender neutral’.”

Because they are gender neutral. Who is this “management” who dares to question it?

Patton then told all members in a statement that “conduct of this sort, if validated, is not acceptable and falls far short of the standards I expect from Victoria Police members and standards of behaviour outlined in our code of conduct and Victoria Police values”.

He said the option to self-describe had been introduced about three years ago as an act of good faith to support gender diverse employees.

What does “gender diverse” mean? How, exactly, does anyone know which is real and which is fake?

“This behaviour has had a significant impact on our gender diverse employees and our reputation among the Victorian LGBTIQ+ community. 

Oh no!! Oh no oh no oh no!!!!!!!

How’s their reputation doing among the Victorian women community? Have they ever sought to find out?

Officers wanting to claim the allowance, which is paid fortnightly, must now make a sworn statement if intending to self-describe as non-binary.

And the brass will know when they’re lying about it by……………………….?

The Herald on Leith Arches and its smug abrupt rude cancellation of a scheduled event because Leith Arches doesn’t like its “views.”

An Edinburgh Fringe venue has axed a show involving Father Ted creator Graham Linehan following a number of complaints.

“You can’t have a show involving Graham Linehan, he knows which people are women!!!”

The writer was the “surprise famous cancelled comedian” at the night being promoted by Comedy Unleashed at the Leith Arches.

He was due to appear in the show alongside Bruce Devlin, Mary Bourke, Dominic Frisby and Alistair Williams on Thursday night.

Today is Tuesday. How charming of Leith Arches to do this with all of two days’ notice. What exquisite manners.

Taking to X, formerly known as Twitter, Mr Linehan pointed to the legal difficulty the Stand Comedy found itself in after cancelling an in-conversation event with SNP MP Joanna Cherry.

Earlier this year, the club said a number of “key operational staff, including venue management and box office personnel” were unwilling to work on the event because of “concerns about Ms Cherry’s views.”

However, after the politician obtained legal opinion from leading human rights advocate, Aidan O’Neill KC, The Stand backed down and admitted that the cancellation constituted “unlawful discrimination”.

And did the same thing all over again to someone else. Clever.

It may be unlawful but it’s super enlightened, so no one will mind.

It’s more coherent and human-grammar-based than the first frenzied Announcement, but it’s just as ridiculous.

Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey on Now ineligible.

Beware of anyone telling you there are clear answers here.

I’m sympathetic to the arguments in the paper, though I wouldn’t draw any conclusions without hearing an opposing view. But even the authors of that paper concede that the major precedent on the “self-executing” issue is a case from shortly after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it’s by the then-Chief Justice Salmon Chase (in his capacity as a circuit justice), and it comes out the other way.

I don’t want to get into a long discussion about stare decisis and such. Suffice it to say that it’s a perfectly acceptable argument to say that Chief Justice Chase got it wrong. And it’s possible that today’s Supreme Court would disagree with Chase and agree with the authors. But it’s not how I would bet, and not just because it’s a conservative court.

The article strikes me as a perfectly reasonable piece of legal scholarship, but I’ve seen it passed around recently as the 163rd version of “THIS time they’ve got Trump! Here’s the ONE WEIRD TRICK that will keep him from regaining the presidency!” (Not saying that’s what OB or HHO are doing here. This thing’s been making the rounds, and with people who are less restrained in their commentary.) And I just don’t see it happening.

I strongly suspect that the Biden campaign is not going to get behind any effort to block Trump from being on the general election ballot, and even the few Republicans (Christie, Hutchinson) who have criticized him aren’t going to try to get him disqualified from the primary ballot. Yes, it’s possible that some activist groups will sue on their own, or some enterprising Secretary of State or other election official will decide to act on his or her own. Then you’ll have counter-demands from the GOP that Biden be disqualified from the ballot because, I don’t know, his border policies are aiding and abetting an invasion and insurrection or whatever. And the courts are going to be strongly motivated to say “no, we are not having this election decided by individual state officials taking it upon themselves to declare what an insurrection is by watching some videos and reading some tweets. If someone actually gets convicted of something, maybe then.”

There is no Adult in Charge who is going to step in and assert his or her (supposed) authority to make sure Trump can’t be president again because he was naughty. The American electorate is going to have to do their job again. And yes, that makes me nervous.

That’s just a prediction, and I could easily be wrong. But I’m going to need to see more than “a couple law professors came up with a neat argument.” There are law journals full of such neat arguments that will never be adopted by an actual court.

Sam Levine at the Guardian explains the “is he barred from running?” question this way:

Can Trump still run for president?

Yes. The US constitution does not prohibit anyone charged with a crime, nor anyone convicted of one, from holding office.

The 14th amendment, however, does bar anyone who has taken an oath to protect the United States and engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding office.

Relying on that provision, a slew of separate civil lawsuits in state courts are expected in the near future to try to bar Trump from holding office.

So agitated they can’t type a single coherent sentence.

“we would like to thank the public for bringing to our attention, about a comedian” – “via emails from, and rightly so, outraged members”

And they are an inclusive venue that excludes people who are accused of no one knows what via emails from, and rightly so, outraged members.

Timothy Snyder writes:

Section 1 of Article Two is one, but not the only, place where the Constitution defines who may run for president. Whereas Section 1 of Article Two has to do with a factors over which a person has no control, place of birth and legal status of parents, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment concerns how an American citizen behaves. It forbids officeholders who try to overthrow the Republic from holding office again.

It is obvious on a plain reading of this part of our Constitution that (absent a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress) Donald Trump is now ineligible for the office of the presidency. He took an oath as an officer of the United States, and then engaged in insurrection and rebellion, and gave aid and comfort to others who did the same. No one seriously disputes this. Trump certainly does not. His coup attempt after losing the 2020 election is the platform on which is he is now staging what he portrays as his campaign for the presidency. The big lie he told at the time he continues to tell. He defied the Constitution and is now running against the Constitution.

Well I’d say Trump does dispute that he engaged in insurrection and rebellion. He would call it something else – something much easier to spell, for a start. He certainly disputes that he did anything wrong.

I was heartened just now to read a comprehensive, powerfully argued (and beautifully written) article by the (conservative) legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen. It defends the plain reading of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment on what would seem to be every historical and interpretive ground. It was written with all possible objections in mind. Rather than belabor these, I suggest you read the article itself (which should be published as some sort free ebook.)

The authors conclude that Trump is “no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution. All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so.” Although I am focusing on Trump here, the authors of the article are concerned with insurrectionists in general. For them, Trump is one of many people who are now, given their participation in Trump’s coup attempt, ineligible for office.

I thought at first “But doesn’t he have to be convicted to make that true?” Then I thought no, maybe not. He has to be convicted before he can be sentenced and punished, but maybe not before he can be ineligible to run again. I don’t know what the facts are on this.

I worry that we will find some excuse not to draw the obvious conclusion about Trump, so well grounded in the article. It was troubling, for me at least, to see the New York Times coverage of the article relativize its central finding with this vague but suggestive formulation: “voters remain free to assess whether his conduct was blameworthy.” This wording suggests that Trump can run for president, and that we as voters can then consider his ineligibility for that office alongside his legal problems (which the Times article then rehearses). That is wrong, because it misunderstands what ineligibility is.

Snyder compares it to Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is ineligible to run for president because he was born a citizen of another country.

we cannot decide to elect a president who is not a natural-born citizen. This is not an issue we are “free to assess,” because we are governed by the Constitution. For the same reason, we cannot vote for oath-breaking insurrectionists such as Donald Trump. Such people are barred by the Constitution from running for president.

H/t Harald Hanche-Olsen

Why would any radio personality bring in India Willoughby of all people to talk about hate?

James O’Brien spoke to former Loose Women panellist and trans woman India Willougby after two men were stabbed outside a Clapham gay bar in a homophobic attack, as police hunt for the knifeman.

Why? Why not talk to a gay man rather than a man who calls himself a woman? Especially when the man who calls himself a woman is the venomous misogyny-mongering horror show that is India Willoughby?

India said to James: “You see attacks on drag queens, drag queen storytime. Now drag is not trans. Drag is gay culture and for me, thugs and bullies, they do not differentiate when you’re out and about whether you’re gay or trans.

“They’re not checking who you are before throwing a punch, you’re all the same.”

Why get him in to change the subject to trans? Why get him in to bring the conversation around to himself?

India went on to say: “It’s all the responsibility of, to me as somebody who is trans, it’s the government, it’s British media who stand these flames in a horrendous way and unfortunately the gender critical movement.

“So it’s those three components that have all come together and you cannot control hate. Once you give permission to hate one group it goes elsewhere.”

Why bring him in to blame feminist women for male gay-bashing?

Detailed but irrefutable. Why “but”? Detailed and irrefutable are not incompatible or contradictory. He meant “and” but his brain tricked him, probably because he knows the “details” are inventions aka lies.

Norm Eisen and another lawyer (Amy Lee Copeland) on why the Georgia indictment is such a good thing.

Ms. Willis charges a wide range of conspirators from the Oval Office to low-level Georgia G.O.P. functionaries and is the first to plumb the full depths, through a state-focused bathyscope, of the conspiracy.

Her case also provides other important complements to the federal matter: Unlike Mr. Smith’s case, which will almost certainly not be broadcast because of federal standards, hers will almost certainly be televised, and should Mr. Trump or another Republican win the White House, Ms. Willis’s case cannot be immediately pardoned away. It offers transparency and accountability insurance. As Ms. Willis said in her news conference Monday night, “The state’s role in this process is essential to the functioning of our democracy.”

But the indictment stands out above all because Georgia offers uniquely compelling evidence of election interference — and a set of state criminal statutes tailor-made for the sprawling, loosely organized wrongdoing that Mr. Trump and his co-conspirators are accused of engaging in…

…The indictment charges 41 counts (to Mr. Smith’s four), among them Georgia election crimes like solicitation of violation of oath by public officer (for Mr. Trump’s infamous demand to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to just “find 11,780 votes”) as well as state offenses like forgery and conspiracy to commit forgery (for those fabricating the fake electoral certificates) and conspiracy to commit computer trespass (for defendants allegedly unlawfully accessing election machines in Coffee County to attempt to prove that votes were stolen).

…

There is one final important advantage of the Georgia case. It is shielded from what may be Mr. Trump’s ultimate hope: the issuance of a pardon should he or another Republican be elected in 2024 (or from a Republican president simply commanding the Justice Department to drop the case). A president’s power to pardon federal offenses does not extend to state crimes.

And pardons in Georgia are not an unreviewable power vested solely in the chief executive. They are awarded by the State Board of Pardons and Paroles — and are not even available until a period of five years after completion of all sentences.

It’s encouraging.

Racketeering.

• A Georgia grand jury indicted former President Donald Trump today, charging him with felony racketeering and numerous conspiracy charges as part of a sweeping investigation into the effort by him and his allies to overturn the 2020 election.
• The 41-count indictment also names lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro, Jenna Ellis and Ray Smith and several other people.
• Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis enlisted a special grand jury last year that heard testimony from 75 witnesses.
• Among the best-known moments in the pressure campaign against Georgia officials was a call in which Trump asked Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” the votes he needed to beat Joe Biden.

That was indeed a moment. I remember it – I remember listening to the phone call, dumbfounded.

Trump has seized the golden opportunity for more fundraising.

In an email to supporters late Monday night, Trump encouraged his supporters to donate and show that they will “NEVER SURRENDER.”

Trump’s fundraising appeal claimed that “Deep State thugs” were attempting to “JAIL me for life.”

Previous Trump indictments have led to similar fundraising emails for the Trump campaign. In the first week after Trump’s initial indictment, in Manhattan, his campaign brought in $13.5 million in donations. The first seven days after the second indictment, in Florida, brought in $5.8 million.

Profit! Sadly, though, the legal bills are cutting into the profits some.

Trump’s attorneys in Georgia blasted the indictment and the witnesses who testified before the Fulton County grand jury.

“The events that have unfolded today have been shocking and absurd,” attorneys Drew Findling, Jennifer Little and Marissa Goldberg said in a statement where they also argued that the witnesses who testified before the grand jury were biased.

No you are – Trump is shocking and absurd.

Forbes:

Former President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social, his social media platform, on Monday saying Georgia’s former Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan “shouldn’t” testify in grand jury proceedings this week regarding allegations that Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 election results in the state—and some legal analysts are saying the post could be witness intimidation or tampering.

…

Ryan Goodman, former special counsel in the Department of Defense, tweeted a screenshot of Trump’s post alongside a screenshot of a Georgia law requiring that a judge find the defendant “poses no significant risk of intimidating witnesses” before approving bail.

CNN’s top legal analyst, Elie Honig, said the post is “straight-up witness tampering, witness intimidation.”

…

Per Georgia law, anyone who attempts to influence a witness is subject to felony charges and, if convicted, can face one to five years in prison; anyone who threatens a witness is subject to felony charges and, if convicted, faces 10 to 20 years in prison.

Trump’s request for Duncan not to testify comes just days after Judge Tanya Chutkan—who is presiding over the federal case against Trump for his alleged involvement in trying to overturn the 2020 election—said that if more “inflammatory” statements are made about the case, she’ll have more urgency to move quickly so as to prevent witness intimidation. The Associated Press reported Chutkan—who has been the subject of Trump’s posts—also said it’s possible for “arguably ambiguous statements” to be understood as intimidation of potential witnesses.

And they’re not all that ambiguous, especially coming from Trump.

Victoria Smith on Mhairi Black’s contempt for women who are older than she is:

Ageist sexism is central to trans activism. The idea of “womanhood” that it promotes is bound up in the social construction of femininity, whilst utterly dismissive of the material reality of ageing female bodies. Through history, patriarchy has not just sought to define and exploit women as a sex class; it has done so in different ways depending on where women are in the female lifecycle. Trans activism, as an expression of patriarchy, does this, too.

…

Ageing female bodies interrupt the pornified fantasies of the likes of Andrea Long Chu, Julia Serano and Grace Lavery. They spoil the self-pitying narrative that depicts “cis women” as eternally youthful mean girls who’ve been handed “femininity” on a plate and, to quote Serano, “sadly take their female identities and anatomies for granted”. When Long Chu writes of transitioning “for Daisy Dukes, bikini tops and, my god, for the breasts”, it’s pretty obvious that the bodies being pictured here haven’t yet seen thirty.

No woman fully conforms to the male fantasy of untroubled “cis womanhood”, in which an ungrateful cohort of sexy ladies walk the world at peace with their bodies, secretly thrilled at objectification, only ever complaining to make those excluded from femininity (that endless Barbie dream house pool party) feel extra bad. It’s older women who offer the most direct challenge to the myth. Why don’t those bitches just, like, not age? I swear they’re only doing it to annoy India Willoughby. It’s bad enough that we carry on existing, but then we go and have opinions as well.

…

Trans activism is just a variation on the theme of “if men see no obvious use for women, women don’t have any business existing”.

We have plenty of business. That is what, from one century to the next, misogynists struggle to tolerate. Karens, hags, shrews, mothers-in-law, witches — we’re not going anywhere. For the younger woman, there is a status boost in positioning yourself against us, but it’s all so obvious and so repetitive. If you really wanted to redefine what it means to be a woman, you’d join us. Why cling to borrowed time?

Aha.

Does Donald Trump pose no risk of intimidating witnesses? Apart from the fact that he does it in public and in all caps every day?