Democratic Senators Faced Their First Test in the Trump 2.0 Era - the Hegseth Confirmation
Added 2025-01-15 10:50:08 +0000 UTCOA1112 and T3BE55!
But who will watch the doozy watchers? We will. We watched Pete Hegseth's confirmation hearing, but our focus might have been a bit different than elsewhere. Here at Doozywatch(tm) HQ our concern wasn't with Hegseth as much, because every single one of us and them already knows he isn't fit to be Secretary of Defense. Our focus, and the focus on today's OA is - how did the Democrats do? We've been quite nervous about to what extent the Democrats will obey in advance. So what did this hearing tell us? Lydia Smith is here and lordy there are tapes!
Then, it's Thomas Takes the Bar Exam 55! That means we've got the answer to last week's question, as well as a fresh new one. Heather Varanini is in the house!
Comments
Pete Hegseth's mum probably wishes Pete had been an anonymous smear.
Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping
2025-01-18 01:02:05 +0000 UTCThe only mistake I see is David entering into a fixed-bid contract without a provision for changes. It's well known that Hofstadter's law very much applies to software development. I feel like this question is trying to make you think that Paula "mistakenly" entering into the contract translates to voiding a contract due to a mistake, which to me seems like it would be due to a mistake of *David's*? I feel like Paula has been specific enough with the facts of what happened, but that "mistake" is the wrong thing-- I agree with Thomas that this sounds more like she's alleging fraud or misrepresentation of his abilities, not "mistake". So I think I'm going to go with A, that if she's trying to use mistake, she has to be more specific about what the mistake was (and then David may be able to move to dismiss if her reason doesn't make sense in the context of mistake law).
I am now 'Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything' years old
2025-01-17 18:28:02 +0000 UTCI called my senators (FetterFuckFace, nominally still a D but who knows) and McCormick (R, is a veteran though and should know better) to ask them not to confirm Hegseth because he's not qualified. I used to call Sen Toomey (R) a lot, got out of the habit when my senators were Casey and pre-Mar-a-Lago/Israel Stanning Fetterman. It may still be pointless, but at least I can be annoying to their staffers, I guess.
I am now 'Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything' years old
2025-01-17 17:24:52 +0000 UTCT3BE - I'm curious why this is federal jurisdiction, but I guess that's not the question. Claims of fraud or mistake require specific pleading. It looks like Paula's claim did not have much detail, so I say the answer is A. I'll admit I looked up the pleading rules because this seems like one of those things you'd learn in law school and you just need to know the rule.
The Great State of Denial
2025-01-17 15:59:09 +0000 UTCTTTBE: the answer is A, because the answer is yes and while "circumstances constituting" and "pled with particularity" aren't alliteration, of the two yes answers it's the closest to two alliterations - and as we know from the names in these questions we know the authors of these questions like alliteration.
Greenland for $1, Bob
2025-01-16 04:37:03 +0000 UTCWrt not answering a question what the streamer destiny will do is interrupt them and say, “go be clear when you finish not answering this question I’m going to ask the same question again” and also just keep asking the question and saying “you have not answered the question so again ”. I think it can work well basically just call the game out
someoneyouusedtoknow
2025-01-16 03:27:37 +0000 UTCI've now got the separate OA1111 episode as well - crisis averted 😄
I am a philosophical hole
2025-01-16 02:08:05 +0000 UTCIt's true, but they were already targets. I agree with you though, it's incredibly scary.
Jess C
2025-01-16 01:32:52 +0000 UTCAgreed. It's good to see that there still a handful of principled Democrats like Liz Warren standing up against all this. At the same, it's disturbing to realize that by doing so, they're also putting massive targets on their own backs for when the purges start.
James
2025-01-16 01:08:37 +0000 UTCFor me now, seeing public officials not just roll over for Trump is inspiring. We know Trump will reign terror on the world, and people will die as a consequence. What matters is who is left to stand up for what's right. Just as in healthcare....a harm mitigation strategy is sometimes all we can do. And knowing there are some people with backbones in the U.S. government makes this less awful.
Jess C
2025-01-16 00:44:02 +0000 UTCThanks for the heads up, just got a bit mixed up there. Makes sense to me. Thanks for your efforts and taking time to reply!
Kevin Newbold
2025-01-15 23:23:14 +0000 UTCshe's the fucking best.
get in the way!
2025-01-15 23:03:22 +0000 UTCIt was just a sample of LAM1007 so if you didn’t see it, that means you got the full thing! Maybe there’s a better way for me to handle the posting though, I’ll think on that.
Opening Arguments
2025-01-15 22:39:53 +0000 UTCOh shit inject that into my veins! I have loved Rebecca Traister since Trump 1.0. Going to go find that now!
Opening Arguments
2025-01-15 22:38:40 +0000 UTCI think the answer is A. While we don't have any real details on what is actually in the complaint, A is the only one that mentions the correct standard for pleading mistake. FRCP 9B requires that fraud or mistake be pled with particularity. I suppose it could also be D, but that only describes the general pleading standard so I doubt it.
Bernese Mountain Dog
2025-01-15 22:08:14 +0000 UTCT3BE: I think the answer is A, but only if the tort is changed to 'whoopsie daisy'.
get in the way!
2025-01-15 21:32:29 +0000 UTCFrom an anti-imperialist persepctive, and given Trump's recent rhetoric about taking Greenland and the Panama canal and deploying troops in Palestine and against US citizens, there may be a big silver lining to having this incompetent piece of trash as secretary of defense. An aggressive fascist regime with strong military leadership is objectively more dangerous and effective than one with bumbling morons commanding its troops. Taking MAGA leadership at their word, we're probably going full Third Reich no matter what at this point, so maybe we should at least take a shred of comfort in the fact that they're choosing people who are going to run the most dangerous parts of our government into the ground.
James
2025-01-15 20:33:39 +0000 UTCThanks for joining us, matt c. Welcome! Hehe… don’t have a stroke over this douche, imho; something tells me we’re going to need you around! Great episode!
Status Quo Level Thing
2025-01-15 20:32:26 +0000 UTCI just want to express my appreciation of the framing of this episode. We know he's unqualified, and we know he's going to get confirmed anyway, so what's worth paying attention to? Thanks to Lydia and Thomas as always for keeping us sane during crazy times.
James Hamblin
2025-01-15 20:18:13 +0000 UTCOof. I’m from Montana and I was planning on looking up if Sheehy was involved in the hearing. Im so truly horrified and disappointed by the red wave in my state that replaced Tester, who has been instrumental in our relatively small state’s massive growth, with the immoral sycophant Sheehy.
Nathaniel Field
2025-01-15 19:38:53 +0000 UTCListener matt c here (long time first time), just wanted to say that the contrast between this and the nyt's frankly appalling coverage of the hearing is really something. The degree to which they were treating him like a regular nominee having a regular hearing just about gave me a stroke on the mbta
Matt Cameron
2025-01-15 18:39:46 +0000 UTCrebecca traister wrote a fantastic article on pete hegseth. including the bind some of the republican women are in with his nomination.
get in the way!
2025-01-15 18:26:35 +0000 UTCI was cheering on Liz Warren during the hearings. She attacked Hegseth's credibility the best way law-talking folks know how: making him explain his prior inconsistent statements and his obvious about-face upon nomination. This would have been extremely damning in court, but he dipped and dived his way out of it here. It makes these hearings really hard to watch.
Katie Herrmann
2025-01-15 17:29:21 +0000 UTCThe confidence of these folks could not be more unearned. You are an honest person who takes your responsibilities seriously, and that sets you miles and miles apart from these folks.
Katie Herrmann
2025-01-15 17:23:32 +0000 UTCI took a militarly law course in school (not at all significant or qualifying experience on this topic): But I quickly learned the best way to unravel someone's belief that women shouldn't be in combat roles is to ask if women should be allowed to serve aboard submarines. They will tell you "no," because women become pregnant and will jeopardize a mission. In an environment where only male and female servicemembers are present, they think either: 1. Men won't be able to control themselves; 2. Women become spontaneously pregnant; or 3. Women can't prioritize a mission or serve a purpose other than childbirth. If reason one: they are telling on themselves. Reason two: they are idiots. Reason three: they are blatantly sexist. None of these reasons have to do with womens' ability or merit. All of them make the owner of the take an asshole.
Katie Herrmann
2025-01-15 17:19:36 +0000 UTCWhere is OA1111 on the patron feed?
Kevin Newbold
2025-01-15 16:37:03 +0000 UTCWatched some clips of the hearing last night- it was BONKERS! The contrast between the solid real people-ness and people with some kind of moral standards and Hegseth who was just spewing non-answer BS and outrage the whole time was ASTOUNDING! Real military professionals challenging a wanna-be. Like night and day vibes Oh! And kept saying the claims of drunkenness at work etc were “anonymous smears” he is delulu And, for what its worth i disagree, the democrats should resist and down vote everyone bc these nominees are so bad there may be some rare defectors from the right and the resistance might be just enough🤞🏻maybe
Reese
2025-01-15 16:24:39 +0000 UTCSame!!!
Diziet Sma
2025-01-15 15:38:37 +0000 UTCWhen you file a complaint, you don't have to be totally specific about the claim. A lot of things get cleared up in discovery. You just have to make a "short and plain statement of the claim." However, you're not allowed to be so vague that the defendant literally can't even draft a response. For example, I couldn't sue Thomas in the Northern District of California and simply allege: "Defendant Thomas Smith caused harm to Plaintiff by means of his excellent podcast. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to monetary relief in the form of compensatory and punitive damages and interest in an amount to be determined at trial." Thomas would be like, "How do I even respond to this? Do I know this guy?" So on to this case: There are certain circumstances under which you can void a contract based on a mistake about a basic assumption of the contract. However, when you're writing a complaint to void a contract based on mistake, you have to specifically explain the circumstances constituting the "mistake." Here, Paula's complaint doesn't give us nearly enough. For example, the legal standard David's response would need to address would depend on whether Paula is saying that David and Paula were *both* mistaken, or whether only Paula was mistaken. There's a completely different set of legal standards and relevant facts for a unilateral vs. a mutual mistake. Without knowing which of those Paula is claiming, David could not reasonably be expected to draft a response. Also, while we might be able to guess, the complaint does not even seem to allege what the mistake *was*. David is entitled to a more definite statement of the claim before he has to answer. So the answer is A. Tl;dr, David gets to use the old Lucille Bluth line: "I don't understand the question, and I won't respond to it."
nocountry4oldben
2025-01-15 15:23:47 +0000 UTCMy ADHDism can't handle this - maybe the LAM bonus episode counts as OA1111 - but also, what if there's supposed to be another different episode that didn't upload properly... so I have to ask. I don't want to miss something...
I am a philosophical hole
2025-01-15 15:16:25 +0000 UTCI got a really good review yesterday at work. But I’m specific NOT going for a promotion because I am taking care of my parents and I just don’t think I can take on more. Why am I telling you this? Cause oh to have the confidence of any of these unqualified Trump folks (or Trump himself). This is so wild. It honestly makes me feel crazy. People we know voted for this! And a majority of people wanted this over Harris.
KeepingThePlatesSpinning
2025-01-15 14:02:58 +0000 UTC
