Joyce Vance expands on her point:

Today, Donald Trump issued what can only be construed as a shot across the bow, after the Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya admonished him during arraignment yesterday that he must not commit any new crimes while on a pre-trial bond—the thing that’s keeping him out of jail before trial—and that efforts to influence or intimidate witnesses, jurors or others involved in the case were illegal.

So, naturally, he posted a threat on his social media toy.

It couldn’t be more clear that this is a threat to Jack Smith and the prosecutors and investigators involved in the case against him. It’s readily construed as a threat against state court prosecutors like Alvin Bragg in New York and Fani Willis in Georgia and could even be seen as a threat to people like E. Jean Carroll who have the temerity to hold him accountable for civil misconduct.

That’s a threat, made by a defendant in a criminal case, after being warned by a judge that there were consequences for violating conditions of release. Trump may think he can be cute and deny it if confronted. 

He’ll throw every monkey wrench he can find into the works.

Prosecutors haven’t asked the court, at least not yet, to revoke Trump’s bond. That, of course, would be a step that would trigger prolonged litigation and possibly delay the trial. That seems to be the one thing Jack Smith is trying to avoid at all costs. He has made strategic decisions, for instance, only indicting Trump and leaving the co-conspirators unindicted, that streamline the process. He clearly wants his trial before the election.

So I’ll have to stop wishing they would lock him up. Or at least pretend to.

Joyce Vance thinks he should be locked up.

Former President Donald Trump has gone “over the line” and should be taken into custody for his latest apparent threat, according to former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance.

During an arraignment hearing in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Trump pleaded not guilty to four felony charges related to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election result and over his actions surrounding the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Approximately 24 hours later, the ex-president posted the following to his Truth Social account: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

Vance, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, said that the post went beyond “free speech” and Trump should be forced to “explain it to the judge” a short time later [in a tweet].

He should be locked up and made to eat dog food.

Reuters tells us:

 U.S. prosecutors flagged a threatening social media post from Donald Trump in a late-night court filing on Friday, arguing that it suggests he might intimidate witnesses by improperly disclosing confidential evidence received from the government.

On his Truth Social site, the former president wrote, “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” on Friday afternoon, a day after he pleaded not guilty to charges that he orchestrated a criminal conspiracy to try to reverse his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

In the filing in Washington federal court, the office of Special Counsel Jack Smith said Trump’s post raised concerns that he might publicly reveal secret material, such as grand jury transcripts, obtained from prosecutors.

Under the process known as discovery, prosecutors are required to provide defendants with the evidence against them so they can prepare their defense.

“It could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case,” prosecutors wrote, noting that Trump has a history of attacking judges, attorneys and witnesses in other cases against him.

At his arraignment on Thursday, Trump swore not to intimidate witnesses or communicate with them without legal counsel present.

And then promptly issued a threat. On social media.

Trump might find himself in prison to await trial.

It’s a threat, you see. It’s not clever to threaten when you’re out on bail.

The needle has moved a little.

British sports governing bodies are under mounting pressure to reform their policies after world swimming banned transgender athletes who reached male puberty from elite women’s events.

In a seismic move for Olympic sport which will mean that American swimmer Lia Thomas can no longer compete in elite races, swimming’s rulemakers announced that transgender women must now establish that they “have not experienced any part of male puberty”.

Finally.

Fina, world swimming’s governing body, also announced plans to establish a new “open” category of competition to include transgender women that, according to president Husain Al-Musallam, would involve “some of our biggest events”.

It’s unclear why anyone but men who claim to be women would want to race in the open category.

Al-Musallam said swimming’s new policy was “based on real science” and there is confidence it will prove robust against any legal challenge in being “necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate” objective. “Our athletes must come first,” he said. “Of course, I understand why transgender athletes would like to compete in a category of their choice. However, I have an obligation to every single one of our athletes.”

Yes we all understand why male transgender athletes would like to be able to choose their category: so that they will be assured of winning (until all the other guys do the same thing).

British swimmer Sharron Davies, who was denied Olympic gold in 1980 by state-sponsored doping in East Germany, called on other sports to follow swimming’s lead.

“All the sports should be doing this,” she said. “I can’t tell you how proud I am of my sport for doing the science, asking the athletes/coaches, and standing up for fair sport. Biological females deserve the same opportunities of success in sport as their male counterparts.” 

Funny how recently this was just obvious.

So now he’s threatening us.

I wonder if he even understands that he’s out on bail.

The next thing I read after musing aloud whether Trump is so in the habit of lying that he doesn’t know what it is to know anything, is that William Barr says Trump knew he lost the election. Good enough for me! Barr knows the man and I don’t, so I’ll take Barr’s word for it (despite Barr’s squalid history of doing Trump’s foul bidding).

Former Attorney General Bill Barr on Wednesday undermined a key pillar of his old boss’ defense in the special counsel’s probe into 2020 election interference, telling CNN’s Kaitlan Collins that Donald Trump “knew well he lost the election.”

Barr went on to say he’s shocked, shocked.

The former attorney general also described Trump’s alleged actions as detailed in the indictment as “nauseating” and “despicable,” saying on “The Source,” “someone who engaged in that kind of bullying about a process that is fundamental to our system and to our self-government shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Office.”

Indeed not. Trump should never have been near that office for a long list of nauseating and despicable actions, which Barr was well aware of while he was Trump’s Attorney General. Despicables flock together.

Trump had to wait, just like any humble mortal waiting for a bus.

Donald Trump is not a man used to waiting.

But at a court hearing in the nation’s capital, the former US president found himself fidgeting in his seat while he waited 20 minutes for the judge to arrive.

Nobody thought to bring a coloring book and crayons?

The latest indictment stems from his alleged role in plotting to overturn the 2020 election results. He faces four counts: conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.

Federal prosecutors allege he knowingly and repeatedly spread false claims about the 2020 election, and, along with several unnamed co-conspirators, took unlawful measures in a bid to stay in power.

There’s a tricky element here, which is the question: can it ever be truly said that Trump knows anything? Is that a state of mind that even exists for him? Is it possible that he’s so entrenched in the habit of making shit up that he’s just not familiar with “knowing” something? That he’s not familiar with it in the same way humans are not familiar with what it feels like to fly?

Laurie Penny anthology recommendation:

Trans ideologist behaving badly.

After JKR tweeted that, he did remember to share the note…but that’s all he did: simply share it. No apology, no discussion…and he closed replies.

There are many many quote tweets pointing out what crappy journalism and crappy behavior this is.

Just one example:

Well this is the thing, isn’t it. Trans rights. What are they? What, exactly, are they? Is it a “right” to force everyone to agree that one is something one is not? If so, how do we know that’s a right? What chain of reasoning or history of injustices shores up the claim that that is a right? Is it a “right” for men to help themselves to everything set aside for women on the grounds that they are trans women? If so, how, why, on what grounds, and what about women who object?

Well I for one do indeed question both gender ideology and claims about “trans rights” that never ever ever explain exactly what these rights are and how they were discovered or established or justified or explained or anything at all besides asserted.

Is there a right for men to take everything women have on the grounds that the men are trans, i.e. that they claim to be women? Is there? Is that universally agreed to be a right? So universally that it fits seamlessly into the UDHR, the actual official written down Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Can Laurie Penny tell us where to find a record of this universal agreement? Can she explain how that can be a right without canceling women’s rights? Can she explain how and why that would be fair and just?

Many people have asked in reply to that tweet. Naturally she hasn’t responded.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Seeking to balance inclusivity.

It can’t be inclusive at all times though. Competitions can’t be inclusive. The whole point of competitions is that some people win and others lose.

Emotional blackmail using word games. Just as “inclusivity” is not necessarily good, “discrimination” is not always bad. Discrimination is choosing. Choosing a winner distinguishes the winner from all those who did not win, discriminating against them specifically, by design. Even before any official competition, a whole bunch of would-be competitors are removed because they are not good enough to participate. At all. Everybody knows this is how sport works.

Note that the only “inclusivity” trans activists are interested in is that which lets men compete against women in the women’s division. Are they interested in “including” children into adult leagues? No. Do they want to include athletes not good enough to make the cut? No. Do they want to include men not claiming to be “trans” into the women’s division? No. So all the bleating about “inclusivity” is for trans identified males and TiMs alone, so they can beat women and take women’s prizes. They want a special dispensation, a papal sporting indulgence that lets them officially cheat, as much as they want. Specifically, they want to cheat and win. They don’t want anyone else to benefit from the supposed openness and inclusivity they’re demanding for themselves.

NBC reported, confusedly, on the decision by British Rowing that has Peter Tatchell so distraught.

British Rowing has banned transgender athletes from competing in elite female races, but has created three different categories that allow transgender participation, with the policy set to come into effect on Sept. 11, the sports body said on Thursday.

British Rowing said only athletes who are “assigned female at birth” will be eligible to compete in its women’s competitions and represent Britain or England in international events.

Apart from the women’s category, all athletes will be eligible to compete in an ‘open’ category, while a ‘mixed’ category can be offered by organizers if 50% of crew are eligible from the women’s category.

Transgender rights have become a major talking point in recent months as sports seek to balance inclusivity while ensuring there is no unfair advantage.

…

“British Rowing is committed to promoting an environment in which rowing is accessible and inclusive and to ensuring that we provide opportunities and enjoyment for everyone,” the organization said in a statement.”

It can’t be inclusive at all times though. Competitions can’t be inclusive. The whole point of competitions is that some people win and others lose. Some people aren’t even qualified to compete. That’s just how it works. You can’t “balance inclusivity while ensuring there is no unfair advantage” because it’s unfair to include everyone.

Peter Tatchell got a “readers added context” on a dishonest tweet he dropped a few hours ago.

There is no ban on trans athletes, the note says. The tweet is an intentional lie, the note says.

Rev David Brindley tells us

A Tasmanian woman has been “outed” as a NAZI because she tweeted “DAY 88 of being investigated for ‘inciting hatred’ for stating the truth….”. Yep. 88 = HH so NAZI! Too bad for all those people filling out forms where their birth date is 1988, or who live at number 88, or perhaps even want to order 88 yards of curtains.

And it’s true!

How long do we have before all the numbers become Nazi numbers?

Laurie Penny getting things backward again.

Is she…unaware of the professional consequences for gender-critical women? Is she unaware of Kathleen Stock? Is she unaware of the actual police persecution of gender-critical women? Is she unaware of pretty much everything but herself?

A star is born.

In a conference room near the Capitol, young conservatives gathered in April to learn how to run for office — how to win and wield government power.

Among the keynote speakers at the summit, hosted by a group devoted to “training America’s future statesmen today,” was Jeffrey Clark, the former senior Justice Department official who in 2020 sought to use federal law enforcement power to undo then-President Donald Trump’s defeat.

Cool cool. Young “conservatives” gathered to learn how to seize power by force.

The criminal indictment of Trump unsealed on Tuesday depicts in vivid detail Clark’s alleged role in the conspiracy prosecutors accuse Trump of orchestrating. The indictment identifies Clark only as “Co-Conspirator 4,” but includes details that match existing reporting about Clark’s post-election role. It portrays him as a linchpin of plans to bypass the acting attorney general and use the imprimatur of the Justice Department to spread “knowingly false claims of election fraud” and deceitfully substitute legitimate electors for sham alternates supporting Trump.

That’s justice: do whatever it takes to win.

Last year, he landed a top job at a think tank laying the groundwork for a possible second Trump term. A once-obscure government bureaucrat, Clark now appears as a pundit on conservative television and podcasts. In July, he was spotted at a party celebrating the publication of an authorized biography of former Fox host Tucker Carlson at Washington’s swanky Metropolitan Club.

A biography of Tucker Carlson! Authorized no less.

Clark has not been indicted by the special counsel, Jack Smith, who brought Tuesday’s indictment. But Smith has said his investigation is ongoing. A district attorney in Georgia is also probing Clark’s actions. And a D.C. Bar disciplinary office is pursuing ethics charges against him that could ultimately strip him of his law license. The charges, filed by the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel last summer, allege that Clark engaged in dishonest conduct and attempted to interfere with “the administration of justice.”

Yeah but those are all deep-staters who think Covid is real.

Clark directed questions to a spokesperson for the think tank where he works, the Center for Renewing America. The spokesperson, Rachel Cauley, said, “The regime hates those who don’t blindly obey, it insists on criminalizing and destroying those who disagree, and when that doesn’t work, it uses its scribes at The Washington Post to further abuse and intimidate us into submission.”

“It’s a good thing Jeff Clark and the Center for Renewing America are made of tougher stock than that,” Cauley added. “We are fighting alongside every American who has been taunted, abused, tailed, and staked out by our regime media and federal government.”

So it’s a think tank for lunatics.

How they will do it if and when they get the chance:

Out of the many new details revealed in former President Donald Trump’s third indictment, the most chilling one may be a discussion between Trump’s White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin and “Co-Conspirator 4” — who, based on the Jan. 6 Committee report, appears to be Jeffrey Clark, a former top Justice Department official in the Trump administration. That discussion, in which the man believed to be Clark suggests using the Insurrection Act, underscores how Trump’s inner circle wasn’t simply seeking ways to delay Trump’s departure from the White House, but actively gaming out how he could stay in power even in the face of a mass movement to restore democracy — using military force.

That is, even if he simply unmistakably “stayed in power” by naked force, he could make it stick despite mass resistance. How? The Insurrection Act.

According to the indictment, Philbin repeatedly discouraged Trump and his loyalists from trying to stay in the White House beyond the end of his term. In December, he allegedly told Trump, “There is no world, there is no option in which you do not leave the White House [o]n January 20th.” Then on the afternoon of Jan. 3, Philbin apparently tried to dissuade “Co-Conspirator 4” from trying to assume the role of acting attorney general as part of a reported bid to overturn the election results with Trump. He allegedly told that person that “there had not been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that if the Defendant [Trump] remained in office nonetheless, there would be ‘riots in every major city in the United States.’” The indictment alleges that Clark responded, “Well … that’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.”  

Why there’s what? Why there’s an act empowering the president to send troops to shut down protests.

This stunning statement marks not just an authoritarian posture, but an authoritarian strategic vision. The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy the military domestically to put down a rebellion or unrest. The law has been invoked a handful of times in the past century, most recently by then-President George H.W. Bush to put down the Los Angeles riots in 1992 after the police beating of Rodney King. Civil liberties experts have criticized the law for giving the president too much power: The Brennan Center for Justice’s Joseph Nunn has described it as “ripe for abuse,” cautioning against the president’s “almost limitless discretion to deploy federal troops in cases of civil unrest” under the law and Supreme Court rulings on presidential power. In many ways the American public is at the mercy of the president to use the law in discerning and limited ways to deal with emergencies, not as a tool for quashing dissent.

But when the president is Donald Trump, there is no such mercy to be at.

I can’t find any news coverage of this (yet) so the bird will have to do for now.

It’s not Nazism to know that men are men and not women.

Updating to add: wrong address in the tweet – correct one is the ipaper.

News from Ireland:

Dangerous inmate Barbie Kardashian has been transferred to a male prison – but remains under a restricted regime for the safety of others, we can reveal. Sources say that Kardashian, who identifies as a trans woman after she secured a gender recognition certificate, has been moved into Limerick Prison’s D block in recent days in the men’s side of the jail. The lag had been housed in an isolation unit of the now-old female part of the prison, which has since closed after the opening of a brand new facility there recently.

Golly, they don’t write very well at the Irish Mirror – but I guess we get the idea.

A factor behind the move to the male prison is because of Kardashian’s behaviour towards women. But measures are in place for the safety of others. This means that she is only allowed out of her cell when other inmates are locked into theirs.

More bad writing. I guess the point is that he was moved to the male prison because he’s dangerous to women, but he’s also just plain dangerous, so he can’t leave his cell unless the other male inmates are locked into theirs. Yer Hannibal Lecter type, who can break through all shackles.

A number of prison officers must also be present when she is outside her cell. A source explained: “This individual is an absolute nightmare to deal with. She is extremely violent towards women and poses a huge threat to inmates and staff. She is in the men’s prison now which is a change-up but it’s only recently. There haven’t been any incidents of note yet but there are still huge fears around her. So with that, staff are taking no chances and she’s on a restricted regime and there’s a number of factors around that. But it’s in place for the safety of prison officers and inmates, that’s the priority here.”

The pronoun nonsense is especially irritating here.