#This is a tricky one because ALL evidence is circumstantial

[miirshroom]

Controversial Elden Ring Character Thoughts that maybe someday I'll post the full analyses for:

The paradox of Radahn being "kind" vs. "desires eternal battle" is solved if he is half the man he used to be. Literally scooped out all of his gentle qualities and formed an entirely different character out of them.

Ranni's flesh that she abandoned was an animate carved statue. To be more specific - painted in the image of Rakshasa (based on the face model, that is. Eyes are spiritcaller green). When it burned the white paint at the head/hair turned red because it had lead pigment, which changes colour with application of heat.

The two above thoughts may perhaps be connected.

[fleetsonourgecentral]

ugh all I can think of lately is Fleetway!Sonourge. good job on spreading that to me

also thinking about the Freedom Fighters protecting Scourge from Zonic when he shows up. like, him trying to arrest all of them for hiding and protecting a criminal and all. how do you think the FFs would overcome him?

:3 it's spreading as planned

It would take a while for the zone cops to even come to the conclusion Scourge is hiding in the fleetway dimension, tbh. He's good at running from the cops, and knows lots of places to hide. It's difficult to track him down when he's not actively causing trouble, and the fleetway universe is quite a ways away from the dimensions he normally hangs around in. The zone cops are expecting him to show up in Moebius, or try to take over the Prime dimension again. They aren't going to be looking in the dimension with the evil Super Sonic that's thousands of miles away, because why would he be there? Even once they do investigate there, they're probably initially be inclined to take Sonic's word for it when he says Scourge isn't there. Zonic knows this Sonic hates lookalikes, after all. It would take a while for them to genuinely suspect the fleetway universe

Usually when Zonic shows up, the first thing they do is hide Scourge, which can range from hiding him elsewhere in the dimension (special zone included) or finding a way to get him out altogether, and he'll find somewhere else to hide until they leave again. The zone cops can't actually arrest him if he isn't there, and they can't prove the freedom fighters have been hiding him, since, well, he doesn't legally exist in the fleetway universe. The best they can do is ask around to see if anyone has seen him, but Sonic is always quick to point out that anyone could be a green hedgehog in a leather jacket. Metamorphia did turn into a green hedgehog, once. Without seeing Scourge with their own two eyes, the zone cops have no way to prove the green hedgehog in a leather jacket is Scourge and not someone else.

"Everyone around here is an idiot," Sonic will sneer if Zonic tries to point out that he showed a picture of Scourge to some civilians and they said they recognised him. "They'll mix any hedgehog up. Someone mistook Amy for me, once."

Technically, the circumstantial evidence is enough to bring Sonic and the other freedom fighters in, but there's always the risk of him turning into Super, if we pick the part of the timeline where they're one person. He's harmless if they get the collar around him, it's just getting the collar around him without being vaporised that's the tricky part. Even if they're separate people, well, if Sonic is gone, who will stop Super if he goes out of control?

If the zone cops decide to bring them in anyway, well. The freedom fighters are freedom fighters. They're going to fight, and they're going to fight dirty. Sonic alone is a pain in the ass (and, again, a huge risk if he and Super are one person) but everyone else will make it even worse. The cops could subdue them eventually, but... ultimately, I think they find it more trouble than it's worth to bring them in, especially when they have no surefire way to prove Scourge has anything to do with them. And if the freedom fighters were arrested, Scourge would work his ass off to bust them out. It could be a good way to trap him, but Scourge has escaped from prison once before, they don't want it to happen again

Ultimately, I think they decide to bide their time. There are other criminals to take care of, and they can't really spare the resources to go hunting for Scourge when he isn't even causing any trouble aside from "already being a wanted criminal", so they decide it's better to periodically check in to see if they can catch him unaware or wait until he causes a big enough problem to give them justification to go knocking on the door and arrest the lot of them. Unfortunately for them, the freedom fighters are protective, and will make sure that never happens

[a-secret-bolton-vampire]

Young Griff, Part 1: The Pisswater Prince

So, I know I haven't done a super deep dive in a while. I kinda got stuck, then binged Sense8, The OA, The Americans, and Dark. It just got hard to write, and I feel into a bit of depression. But I finally managed to complete this, something I've wanted to write about for a very long time. This is part of the Daenerys essays, but the main focus is not on her, but rather the enigmatic Young Griff who appears in ADWD. As he was never seen on the TV show, we have little to no idea of what his future holds. Personally, of all the characters cut from the show, I most wish they kept Young Griff, because his presence is quite interesting. The fandom (and the in-world characters) are highly skeptical of his identity, and think he is destined for major things in the future of the story.

There is no doubt his existence is tied heavily to Daenerys's storyline, although perhaps not the way that is often recognized. This was originally going to just be one long essay, but I uncovered more and more that I found compelling enough to write, and so it became split into two parts. The first part will be about Aegon's role in the story; his identity, what he represents, why he is here. The second part will be about Aegon's future; his next moves in the Stormlands, possible allies, and how he might meet his end.

The Dubious Prince

What's curious is that apparently, Aegon's return has been considered by GRRM for quite a while. A mere 2 days before the publishing of ASOS, in 2000, GRRM was asked a question by a fan:

Fan: I was wondering if you could answer (or take the "fifth") one teeny little question I've been dying to ask for the past year: Are Aegon and Rhaenys, Elia's children, well and truly dead? GRRM: All I have to say is that there is absolutely no doubt that little Princess Rhaenys was dragged from beneath her father's bed and slain.

And then when ADWD is published in 2011, it is revealed that in fact, Aegon isn't dead, but secretly alive. This is something that was actually rumoured in Westeros, according to this entry of Aegon VI in A World of Ice and Fire app:

Rumors persist, however, that it was not truly Aegon who was killed, but some other infant, and that Aegon has been taken away to safety.

Aegon literally tells Tyrion the story of how he was whisked away to safety:

"That was not me. I told you. That was some tanner's son from Pisswater Bend whose mother died birthing him. His father sold him to Lord Varys for a jug of Arbor gold. He had other sons but had never tasted Arbor gold. Varys gave the Pisswater boy to my lady mother and carried me away."

It's certainly a great story, that Aegon return from the dead, living in Essos waiting for the chance to take back his birthright. The fact Aegon is still alive is truly a miracle... but is he? Is this young boy who purports to be Aegon really Prince Aegon, son of Prince Rhaegar and Princess Elia? One of the most pervasive fan theories is that Aegon isn't a Targaryen at all, but secretly a Blackfyre, descended from the Targaryen bastard Daemon Blackfyre who rebelled and tried to become king (the Blackfyres are still Targaryens but don't tell them that).

It's such a popular theory that it is considered all but canon, as much as R+L=J is. Now, time for me to commit heresy: I do not buy this theory at all.

For those not in the know, some have pointed out potential circumstantial evidence of Aegon being a Blackfyre; he's supported by the Golden Company, a sellsword company that was made for the Blackfyres and ruled by them until Maelys died on the Stepstones. Dany sees a vision of a cloth dragon swaying on a pole in the House of the Undying, as the Undying call her the "slayer of lies". There is mention of Maelys being the end of male line of House Blackfyre, but no mention of what happened to the female line. There is a story about an inn that had a black dragon made of iron symbolizing the Blackfyres, and after Lord Darry (a Targaryen supporter in the Blackfyre rebellions) took it off, cut it apart, and threw it into the river, one piece showed up years later on the Quiet Isle, having reddened with rust (potentially symbolizing a Blackfyre returning disguised as a Targaryen). Illyrio is oddly emotional when talking about Aegon. Plus the entirety of the Pisswater Prince story sounds really out there and unlikely.

At first glance, I found this theory really compelling. There is all this subtext and reading behind the lines that you didn't see before, and on some level it makes some sense. Why introduce another secret Targaryen in book 5 out of 7 (8)? It also fits neatly with another theory I will talk about more in depth later. However, while it isn't a theory I think is necessarily 100% inaccurate and completely out there, I think it doesn't account for alternatives, and ultimately is an unnecessary plot twist.

The support of the Golden Company isn't all that suspect when you consider just what's been happening since Maelys died. The male line of House Blackfyre is over (who knows what happened to the female line), the Blackfyres no longer rule the Golden Company, they are gone. The Golden Company was also founded by Westerosi exiles who fled Westeros and supported the Blackfyres. The fact the Golden Company broke its contract with Myr and that "some contracts are writ in blood" more has to do with the fact that these people are mostly descendants of Westerosi exiles and want to return home. The idea of the Golden Company wasn't really to be a permanent thing, it was meant to be a means through which the Blackfyres had support when they invaded again, and when the Blackfyres were installed, those exiled lords would get their lost lands back.

With the Blackfyre cause gone, the only thing left for the Golden Company is home. And that's exactly what Aegon is giving them, regardless of him being Targaryen. The slayer of lies visions are implying Daenerys is going to be confronting people who are in some way not true. Stannis (who is the first vision) is not Azor Ahai. This probably means that the cloth dragon represents a fake Targaryen, and in comes Aegon, out of nowhere! The first issue I have is that the vision has to be literal. Prophecies are very tricky, and the House of the Undying prophecies are extremely finicky. What does slayer of lies mean? Does it mean she literally kills the lies? Is it more metaphorical that she exposes people to the truth? And if Aegon really is a true Targaryen, then why is he the mummer's dragon and considered a lie to slay?

Disregarding the fact Varys was a mummer and he is working for Aegon, even if Aegon is a Targaryen, it's very obvious that they need to do a lot to convince people he is one. He has to play the part of Rhaegar's son, because everyone thinks he is dead. Meanwhile, Daenerys has to do literally nothing of the sort, because she has dragons. She embodies what it means to be a Targaryen, she is about to embrace her house words. As Illyrio tells Tyrion, Daenerys is a true Targaryen. But Aegon doesn't have dragons, so he needs to play up his Targness in some other way. Rhaegar was called the Last Dragon. Viserys called himself a Dragon. Aegon is about to try to take Rhaegar's place. But neither Rhaegar, Viserys, or Aegon are the Last Dragon; Daenerys is, and the lie is that he is the last dragon, and that Dany's existence itself is the way she slays the lie. As Dany thinks to herself after Viserys dies, "fire cannot kill a dragon".

Look at Aegon being someone piggybacking off words and looks for his claims. Meanwhile, Daenerys has all the proof one needs. I think the vision is much more esoteric than literal. While Varys's story is suspect and even Tyrion finds it unbelievable, it's not entirely impossible. Hell, Mance Rayder climbed the Wall and went to Winterfell in disguise as a bard twice. It makes sense for Varys to take away Aegon and replace him with another child during Robert's rebellion, when things were going badly for the Targaryens and plans had to be made in case the worst came to worst.

Another popular interpretation is that Illyrio and his wife Serra are Aegon's real son, but I find this to be incredibly flawed. Not only does Serra not really look much like a Targaryen (blue eyes instead of purple), but Illyrio's somewhat emotional confession that he can't see Aegon before he drops Tyrion off doesn't mean he is the boys father. The idea that you need to be someones parent in order to have a strong connection completely holds disregard for other kinds of relationships. Aegon is implied to have been raised for at least a bit in Pentos. Illyrio probably felt some affection for him and genuinely enjoyed his company.

To me, however, it's not really the alternative explanations for the evidence of a Blackfyre conspiracy that convince me Aegon is in fact Rhaegar's son. It's rather simple; what's the point of yet another secret identity plot twist? Consider how we meet Aegon. We meet him through Tyrion's POV in his third chapter, under the guise of the son of a sellsword named Griff, called Young Griff, his hair dyed blue in honour of his dead Tyroshi mother. Tyrion is immediately suspicious, but he's not entirely sure what's going on. We then get two more chapters of him aboard the Shy Maid, and during that time we are meant to be a little confused and unsure what is going on. It's a mystery of why Tyrion is on this boat and who these people are.

By the third chapter of Tyrion on the Shy Maid, the mystery is finally lifted, and all is revealed; Griff isn't Griff, he's Jon Connington, an exiled lord thought to have drunken himself to death. And Young Griff isn't his son; he's Prince Rhaegar's son Aegon, who was thought to have been killed by the Mountain in Robert's Rebellion. I think it's important to remember that it isn't just Aegon who is thought to be dead. JonCon is considered dead too! Two dead people aboard a boat plotting to retake Westeros. We already had a mystery handed to us, and the plot twist was already revealed. Another thing to consider is how thematically and symbolically important the journey down the Rhoyne is for Aegon. To me I think it makes a lot of sense for Rhaegar and Elia's son to be on the Rhoyne, especially since there is a lot of evidence that he and Dorne will eventually ally.

It's also important to remember that apart from a very few sly people, Aegon being secretly alive wasn't even a possibility on most peoples radar. It truly was something that came out of nowhere. While that can be used as a marker against him being Rhaegar's son, with the complaints of such a large character being revealed so late with seemingly no forewarning, I think that's honestly sort of the point.

Aegon's existence is already so large of a twist that it feels awkward to then put in another plot twist that he's actually a Blackfyre, something that really only has significance to the people who have read the Dunk & Egg novellas and know the history of Westeros very well. Although not entirely the same, it reminds me of "the Others are actually morally grey/the good guys" theories, which are in a similar vein of "George is always subversive and this is classic George". However, while the text does sort of lend credence to this theory being at the very most plausible, I feel it's ultimately an unnecessary plot twist built upon another seemingly unnecessary plot twist to try to justify his late entry and/or his significance (as can be noted, I detest calling him fAegon). The plot for Aegon isn't to be uncovered as this secret conspiracy of another ultra-double secret identity, it's about what his existence does to change the story.

Young Griff, Daenerys Stormborn, and Jon Snow

A large part of why the Blackfyre conspiracy theory is so popular is that it actually does have a compelling narrative link to the series. It's a simple progression; there are hints at a second Dance of the Dragons, vision of a mummer's dragon, a fake Targaryen, boom, Dany and Aegon fight. Dany thinks her claim is the best, but then someone appears who has an even better claim, and she fights thinking there's no possible way he could be real. It's an easy to follow trajectory. As always, people are welcome to disagree with my interpretation, but I think there is a far better reason for Aegon's role in the story; he's more foreshadowing for R+L=J.

For certain, there's more to him than just that, but I think this is something that simply cannot be ignored. He's another Targaryen. Yeah, it's kind of a meme to say X is a secret Targaryen, but I actually see the logic in why GRRM did this. Jon Snow is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, and most likely is a trueborn prince. He is the one destined to have an extremely significant relationship with Daenerys. I plan to eventually write an essay on how R+L=J effects the characters and story by itself, but for preface; I don't buy that R+L=J is there just to make Jon have an identity crisis. Something as significant as that is going to have a lot of consequences and reasons to be around, some more than others. I do think there will be people who will learn the truth and at the very least, some people will believe it.

This is where Aegon's appearance becomes more significant. Here is a Targaryen people had no idea even existed, let alone was still alive. It kinda opens the floodgates for the world to question what is known about Robert's Rebellion. It also serves as precedent for the reveal that Jon Snow reveal. One Targaryen we didn't know existed is suddenly here. Is there another nearby? You can't simplify such a complex plot quite that easily of course, but I think it's significant to think about how the Young Griff twist applies to the story as a whole, and specifically RLJ. George maybe thought of this as the initial purpose for Young Griff, but as per usual, he definitely has other reasons to exist.

In fact, Aegon is a perfect foil for Jon Snow. Both are the son of Rhaegar, both are disguised as someone else, both are thrusted into a leadership position at a young age. However, Jon is unaware of his true parentage, while Aegon is. Jon is reluctant to embrace his identity in general (especially as lord commander) while Aegon is embracing his identity to his fullest extent. In a way, Aegon represents what Jon's life could have become in a parallel world. Instead of being taken as Ned's bastard to Winterfell, he is educated and taught his role and origin in Essos as plotting begins for retaking Westeros. Aegon is literally parallel universe Jon Snow.

Aegon is also a foil for Daenerys (who in turn is a parallel to Jon Snow). Daenerys grew up poor, constantly visiting nobles in the Free Cities but never getting anything in return. She was sold as a marital slave to Drogo. Her brother resented and abused her, and anything she learned she learned from Viserys, who was very unreliable. Yet she climbs up and becomes an incredibly powerful figure, and is now one of the most powerful people in the world. In contrast, Aegon was always protected, given safety, care, education, train at arms. In fact, it might be accurate to say that Aegon is actually spoiled. His interaction with Tyrion while playing cyvasse is a good indication of this. After Tyrion defeats Aegon when he follows the bad advice he gave him (making a point to not always trust people), this happens;

Young Griff jerked to his feet and kicked over the board. Cyvasse pieces flew in all directions, bouncing and rolling across the deck of the Shy Maid. "Pick those up," the boy commanded.

This is quite an extreme reaction. It even reminds Tyrion of Joffrey, and I have to agree this is a very petulant, Joffrey-like outburst. I don't believe Aegon is really anything like Joffrey, but both kids were pretty spoiled and given so much safety and care that when things don't go their way they get upset. Aegon is used to having everything given to him, and Tyrion is the first to show that he won't always win. In contrast, Daenerys has suffered some pretty severe losses; Rhaego, Drogo's khalasar, Drogo, Jorah's betrayal, etc. I have a hard time seeing Daenerys react so badly to this the way Aegon did. It also casts doubt on the speech Varys gave to Kevan as he dies that Aegon was molded to be this perfect king. He may have been raised to be that way, but the opposite might be true instead.

In fact, this might really be the true crux and core of Aegon's storyline. He's touted as the rightful king, this perfect prince who has been taught everything he needs, ready to be this hero who returns to Westeros to reclaim the throne. But Aegon is a deconstruction of that trope. He seems to have everything going for him, and is touted as this great king, but the truth is he remains relatively untested. All the privilege he has been given has only made him spoiled. The game of cyvasse he and Tyrion play is a lot more significant than I think it is given credit for, but that will be saved for part two when I go in depth about his future.

Of course, there has been a lot of pushback against the idea that Aegon is spoiled and that he's no different from Jon and Dany and that it should be expected he react like that to losing cyvasse at his age. While the cyvasse outburst doesn't mean he is going to be evil or anything, I think the context about this is important, and there is a lot more stuff I think hints that Aegon is not really the prince Varys believes him to be. Again, this will be saved for part two.

The Dragons Will Dance Again

In 2003, a fan asked George:

Hi, short question. Will we find out more about the Dance of the Dragons in future books? GRRM: The first dance or the second? The second will be the subject of a book. The first will be mentioned from time to time, I'm sure.

This is further supported by a quote by Teora Toland in the first Arianne sample chapter for TWOW:

"It is dragons." "Dragons?" said her mother. "Teora, don't be mad." "I'm not. They're coming." "How could you possibly know that?" her sister asked, with a note of scorn in her voice. "One of your little dreams?" Teora gave a tiny nod, chin trembling. "They were dancing. In my dream. And everywhere the dragons danced the people died."

The use of the language of dragons dancing is very noteworthy, and when connected with the SSM show in-text hints that a second Dance is indeed going to happen. Various theories include that this refers to Jon vs. Dany, Dany vs. Euron, Dany vs. Aegon, or Jon vs. Aegon. The most common theory in the fandom is Dany vs. Aegon, with Dany believing Aegon to be a fake Targaryen and refusing to acknowledge his claim to the throne. Instead of facing Cersei as in the show, Daenerys will face Aegon.

The extension of this theory is that Dorne will ally with Aegon, with an ambitious Arianne marrying Aegon, and a burnt toast Quentyn showing Daenerys's rejection, turning Dorne against Daenerys. When Daenerys invades Westeros, Aegon is to be the perfect prince while Dany plays the role of the evil Mad King's daughter. In retaliation of Dorne siding with a false Targaryen instead of a true Targaryen, Dany will burn the Water Gardens. On a narrative level it kinda does make a lot of sense. In the first Areo chapter, Doran mentions that the blood oranges are well past ripe. He has waited for his vengeance for 17 years, because he's so careful about the cost, but in the end all that waiting will do him in and the second Daenerys will burn the Water Gardens that were built for the first Daenerys.

There is just a slight problem... someone talked about the theory that Daenerys will burn the Water Gardens in the comment section of a NotABlog post, and GRRM very quickly shut it down by saying "the Water Gardens bit... uh no". Not that we needed GRRM to debunk this tired theory, it didn't make much sense in the first place since the Water Gardens hold no strategic value and burning it would mean Daenerys has to do it for no reason other than needless cruelty.

The bigger issue I have is that of Dany and Aegon even fighting in the first place. Despite everything, what a "second Dance of the Dragons" even means is incredibly vague. A Targaryen succession crisis? A Targ succession crisis leading to war? A Targaryen man fighting a Targaryen woman? Does it need to be on the same scale as the original Dance? We have no context other than this and it could mean literally anything. What's more, there is a very often overlooked SSM that kinda puts the dampers on this theory a bit;

The second Dance of Dragons does not have to mean Dany's invasion. Geroge stopped himself short and said he shouldn't say anymore. The response came because of my question of whether the dance would take place in ADWD because AFFC and ADWD parallel.

We will definitely see more of Aegon in TWOW, and we'll probably get to know him better. I'm not going to argue that Aegon appearing in book 5 of 7 is bad writing, because I don't think it necessarily is. Perhaps he won't be as major a character as the fandom believes him to be. However, if Daenerys and Aegon are going to clash, there needs to be time for the characters to interact and establish any sort of relationship. I think the idea that Dany hears of Aegon's existence and immediately thinks he is a fake and goes to war with him completely disregards both Dany's character and how you establish a tragic event like this.

The first Dance of the Dragons was not something that happened on a whim. It was the result of decades of hatred built towards two factions. They weren't always antagonistic to each other, but as the years passed, the blacks and the greens grew to hate each other more and more and more until it took the death of the king that kept them at bay to start a devastating war. Dany declaring Aegon a fake without ever having met him and going to war with him is incredibly simplistic. Also, think about it from Dany's perspective.

Viserys was an abusive asshole to her, yet she still thinks about him and even feels lonely. It's natural to want to have a family and someone to feel close with. Dany is warned about the mummer's dragon, yes, but she is also lonely and thinks all her family is dead, that she is alone in the world. So what would really happen if she learned Aegon existed? For sure there would be intense skepticism, but I think there is a part of her that will at the very least want to believe it to be true. Daenerys is very ambitious yes, but I don't think she would simply refuse to believe someone is her nephew because that means he has a better claim to the throne.

Besides, kinslaying is a huge taboo, and killing someone who claims to be her nephew without being sure is definitely going to not be the best option in her mind. And also, Aegon hasn't done anything yet to earn Dany's resentment, unlike Viserys. There might be some anger at Illyrio, some serious shock, denial even, but at the end of the day, this is one more family member she didn't know she even had. The show portrayed Jon's parentage as being a bad thing for her since he would have a better claim, but I doubt that will be the first thing on Dany's mind. In fact, she thinks to herself what would happen if Aegon was alive:

Five Aegons had ruled the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros. There would have been a sixth, but the Usurper's dogs had murdered her brother's son when he was still a babe at the breast. If he had lived, I might have married him.

There is a good chance that the emotions she feels when learning about Aegon will be a precursor to the R+L=J reveal with Jon Snow. Just more reason Aegon is a big step towards R+L=J being confirmed.

Although Daenerys is quite ready to leave Slaver's Bay for Westeros at the end of ADWD, Aegon's existence might motivate her to leave even more quickly and solidify her goal to get the Iron Throne. However, I don't think that Aegon is going to become a new main character. His appearance and his actions I feel are more important than his actual character. And hey, maybe the second Dance will involved Daenerys and Aegon, but I think there is enough reason to doubt it.

Next up; the Golden Company landing, Dorne, and Aegon's game of cyvasse, detailed.

[thehoneybuzz]

Mirror, Mirror

I am about to deliver you a fact that is both shockingly terrifying and throughly liberating. Are you listening?...

Okay, then.

Here it goes.

The fact.

NOBODY IS REALLY LOOKING AT YOU.

Shocked? I certainly was when I realized how little I was being looked at having spent so much time and energy in desperation, trying to be seen. Shocked and insulted, I began to notice the lack of looking. It was everywhere - absent from banks, beaches, and bookstores alike. Nobody was looking over newspapers in judgment, there were no silent whispers or murmuring large crowds. I was terrified of the isolation. Why weren’t people looking at me?

Certain exceptions became evident, of course. Occasionally one may get notice, but only intense notice leads to looking. More often there is circumstantial notice where one is more likely unseen than thoroughly examined.

But I’m telling you... overall... nobody is really looking. At least not how you think.

And here’s how I know:

When I visit my parents home in Washington I am often trapped by a mirror. An incredible, illuminated, magnifying mirror owned by my mother. Incredible and yet common, this mirror is a staple of most homes and hotel rooms. You know the one. Every pore becomes a crater, every wrinkle line a canyon in your skin. Dark hair grows from corners of lips, on chins, and in all the wrong creases of the eyebrow. It is a mirror that lends itself to preening and plucking and perfecting. It is a mirror of strong jurisprudence delivering swift judgments on beauty and self-worth. It is a harsh mirror that seems to reveal you in each of your flaws magnified by 10 and illuminated, too. It is the mirror that you ask, “Is this really what I look like?” And it unflinchingly reflects the answer you dread.

“It is your reflection, isn’t it?” It says. The mirror is tricky that way.

Well...

I hate that fucking mirror.

I hate that fucking mirror because it has lied to you. Not outright - those pores are still there. Lines too. But nobody is really looking at you. I promise they don’t see craters or holes. Not like a mirror does. Nobody puts your face under a microscope (power set to 10X) and evaluates your imperfections in a cold, uninterrupted silence. Certainly this is not the practice of the people who really matter.

Imagine it. After one particularly eye-watering mirror episode, I sit nose-to-nose with my husband. Our foreheads touch as we laugh through our day and express the mutual weirdness we call love and he never once mentions my eyebrows. I search the annals of our relationship history and never once has he disparaged or praised them if I wasn’t explicitly soliciting feedback. Their existence has not once been mentioned organically over the course of our relationship, not even in passing. In fact without glasses, Ian is much closer to legally blind than freelance aesthetician offering discounted brow liner with consultation. He sees my smile, he sees my eyes, he feels my warmth, and that is what he consumes from me. Not my god damned eyebrows. Not what the mirror told me was important and jarring and resolute. The mirror cannot even perceive the things that matter - how could it, and why would we expect it to?

That is how I broke the spell of the mirror. I pressed my nose up to Ian and asked myself, “I wonder how he sees me” - and as though in answer to my question, silently posed, he squinted back.

The answer to my question: “Not well.”

Spell broken and fog lifted, I laughed, renouncing the mirror and all of its teachings. I would polish and preen my heart, instead. The invisible parts. The thoroughly liberated parts that recognize that by removing myself from the center of judgment I was free to express and be. To unapologetically exist. Those were the parts worthy of magnifying to examine, certainly more worthy than the cartilage of my nose.

Maybe... just maybe... the better way to say “Nobody is really looking at you,” is to say “The content of your character is far more important than your pursuit of physical beauty standards and you are free to care as much or as little about your eyebrows as is warranted by your soul.” But I like my way better. It can shock you out of your fear if only just for a moment.

The fights not over, though. Even now we are still entrenched in a contest against the mirror and all of its tyranny. The mirror has allies, formidable and intimidating.

“Everyone is looking at you.” They say.

The bathroom scale. The false friend. The grade point average. The salary. The happiness of others. The socially published highlight reels consumed en masse. These rogues! All the things we measure ourselves by form an army assaulting our worth and self-love - but we can expose the flanks of these enemies by dropping bombs of unabashed self-adoration. By recognizing that no one is really looking at us, sharing that secret, and building our worlds up around us we take away the power of judgment. We dismantle the power we have given tangible objects to measure intangible things. By asking, “How do I see myself?” Instead of “How do they?” We advocate for our hearts. We look at ourselves. We do this because no one else is really looking, and when no one else is really looking, we are free.

Be free.

[forestwater87]

Gwenvid Week Day 5

Day 5: Community Appreciation / Favorite AU

To celebrate the amazing Gwenvid community, I took the really fascinating Ghoul AU that @color-theorist (or @color-theorist-art ) created, which has no explicit Gwenvid as of yet, and then somehow accidentally created several pages of momgwen with very little Gwenvid in it. Oops. And probably fucked up the lore. Double oops. Oh well, I hope y’all have fun anyway! :)

It wasn’t anything like Buffy, was the first thing Gwen realized about fighting monsters.

For one thing, it was a lot less fighting -- she wasn’t exactly built for dealing out pain -- and a lot more researching. And not in weathered tomes blanketed with a thick layer of dust with crinkled pages full of secrets. Sure, there was some of that, but ghouls in particular seemed to be a relatively new phenomenon, or were just so uninteresting to the ancients that they didn’t bother writing about them. Mostly it involved trawling internet forums and trying to arrange interviews with the leads who seemed the most promising. Which in itself required a great deal of convincing paranoid heroin addicts that she was neither a ghoul intent on devouring their flesh or a member of the government who would haul them off to Super Guantanamo. All that work, only to have her work dismissed by every publisher she’d recommended it to, and a pointed recommendation by the History Department chair that it would be best for her career at Sleepy Peak Community College if she found another subject to focus her studies on.

“‘It’s really all about the branding,’” she mimicked quietly, shifting her weight in a futile attempt to get comfortable. ”’Just call it “folklore.”’ That’s academically dis-fucking-honest, Mr. Bishop.” Gwen grabbed her bag from where it was dangling off the arm of a marble angel and hauled out a binder and a flashlight. “I’m the only professor under thirty who hasn’t gotten the fuck out of here after three months, Mr. Bishop. This shitty school wouldn’t even have a goddamn newspaper if it wasn’t for me, Mr. Bishop. Fuck, this is cold,” she muttered, glaring down at the polished granite with distaste before sliding down onto the grass, leaning back against the tombstone she’d just climbed off of. “I’m doing important work, here.”

Gwen opened the binder, eyeing the hand-drawn map of the Long Sleep Cemetery and tracing the scraggly line of bright red X’s that marked out fourteen ravaged graves, then flipping to a map of the entire city, which was covered in yellow dates around the church, hospital, and veterinary clinic. She glanced from these to the mausoleum she was staking out, like the ghoul would just appear there if she looked hard enough.

“Come on, asshole,” she said, flopping back against the tombstone and turning off the flashlight. “I know I did this right, so just show up where you’re supposed to.”

It was crazy, she knew all that. Knew her meticulous tracking of local robberies and vandalism looked from the outside like the scribblings of a madwoman fraying her last nerve. It was why she took so much care in repackaging every piece of evidence into a series of respectable, ponderous, academic -- boring, if she was being perfectly honest with herself -- books.

A series of respectable, academic, unpublished books.

Because this was all crazy. Believing in undead monsters that needed to consume the living (or recently-dead) was crazy. Objectively, she was probably rather crazy.

The thing was, she was right.

She just had to find a way to prove it.

“You’re not good at this, are you?”

Gwen jumped at the voice and whipped around, brandishing her flashlight in one hand and her binder in the other -- before she overbalanced and had to drop both, catching herself before she fell flat on her back in the dew-drenched grass. “Whaatherfucke --”

So. Not much like Buffy at all.

Her attacker was thin, stretched out and lanky like a very short Slenderman. As he stepped around the gravestone and moved towards her, his eyes reflected the light from a nearby streetlamp like a cat’s, gleaming out from underneath the dark hoodie that obscured most of his features.

Human eyes don’t glow like that.

She snatched up her flashlight and flicked it back on; she tried not to shine it in his face, but he flinched away from it anyway, hunching his shoulders and shoving his hands into his sweatshirt pocket. The light revealed a narrow brown face that was sickly yellow underneath the eyes and nearly gray in the hollows of his cheekbones. “Kids aren’t supposed to be out after ten pm,” she said, narrowing her eyes. She took in the teenager’s slouchy grace, the way he walked as though every movement was both naturally easy and indescribably exhausting.

“No one’s supposed to be in the graveyard after it closes, but that didn’t stop you,” he replied, slumping against the marble angel and watching her with those unnerving catlike eyes.

She’d found her ghoul.

Gwen drew herself up, standing so she could look down at him. “I have permission,” she lied. “I’m conducting research on the series of grave-robbings in the last few wee --”

“My dad’s a cop with really shitty password protection. You don’t have permission for shit.” He wiped his mouth with the sleeve of his hoodie. “You’re one of those nuts who wants to hunt vampires.”

“Ghouls aren’t vampires,” she corrected before she could stop herself, the pedantic need to be right temporarily overpowering her common sense. “Blood is evidently not an essential component of their diet, and -- you know what, this is a stupid conversation and I’m not having it.” She settled back against her tombstone and turned her gaze to the mausoleum her ghoul was supposed to be raiding instead of making snide comments about her profession. “Go get your dead person snack.”

The kid jolted, and she watched his look of horror out of the corner of her eye. “How the fuck --” He shook his head, a shock of floppy black hair escaping the hoodie and falling over one of his eyes. “What the fuck are you talking about?”

She pulled her binder back into her lap with a small grunt of effort. Christ, this thing was getting heavy. “Whoever’s been raiding the cemetery’s been really smart about it,” she said, refusing to look up at him. “Always hits it just as the attention is beginning to die down -- pardon the pun -- and always far enough from the others that the area is totally isolated. But they do it without making it look like a pattern.” She glanced up at him, a little gratified to see him leaning over her map curiously. So this was what validation felt like! “I’d been wondering how they knew when to sneak back in here, but . . . having a dad in the police force might do it, if the cop was dumb enough.” She turned to another section of her notes, an alphabetical list of everyone in the SPPD. “I knew I should’ve paid more attention to their families,” she mumbled, flipping through the officers. “Which of you is the idiot with an undead son?”

“Hey, fuck you!” he snapped, stepping away from the binder and back to the marble angel. “You can’t just go around calling people monsters because they’re wandering around a graveyard. Hell, that makes you sound just as much like one of those things as me.”

Gwen ticked off on her fingers without looking up from the police directory: “Alarmingly thin, glowing eyes, a bit of a nasty undead pallor -- bet people are constantly asking if you’re sick --”

“Again, fuck you.”

“-- and a tricky-but-predictable pattern of raiding cemeteries, morgues, and . . . have you been eating dead animals?” She glanced up at him then with a frown. “I didn’t know ghouls could do that.”

“They can’t,” he muttered, kicking at the grass, “but it was worth a shot.”

She couldn’t help but feel a twinge of pride. This was her first legitimate monster sighting! She wasn’t crazy! “It’s all circumstantial, of course. You never really know if you’ve got a ghoul or just someone with, like, lupus. But the cat-eye thing was a big tip off. Also, you know, hanging out in the cemetery when no one in their right minds would go anywhere near the place.” He looked at her for a long moment, and she cringed. “Yes, fine, I heard it.”

“So you’re like an expert in useless information no one gives a shit about, huh?”

She thought about getting offended, but he was kind of right. At least, a boatload of publishers would agree with him. “Yeah . . .”

He looked back over at the mausoleum thoughtfully, and she couldn’t help but be curious. “Does it taste good when it’s been dead for a while?” she asked. She was sorely tempted to grab her pencil and notebook, but that might scare the kid off. “I’ve read it’s not supposed to be as . . .” Nutritious just felt gross, in this context, so she let the sentence trail off.

He shrugged. “A little bland, but I kinda like it better. Got this weird kind of . . . cheesy aftertaste? Not like I’ve had cheese since I was a kid, but like that really smelly stuff rich people put on everything.”

“That’s pretty disgusting.” She couldn’t quite keep the note of appreciation out of her voice. (She’d always been a sucker for gory movies.) “So what’s with the change?”

“What’re you talking about?”

That was in her other binder. Gwen rustled through her backpack until she found the right one and opened it up to a spread of newspaper clippings. “All the killings. Two this week, three in the last two months. I haven’t put a map together yet --” and god, she already felt tired thinking about it, “-- but they don’t seem to have any sort of pattern. I figure it can’t be you because, well, all my research suggests that if you were eating fresh kills you’d be a lot more . . .” She gestured vaguely at him. “Alive-looking.”

He bared his teeth, and if they were sharper-looking than normal she was almost positive that was just her imagination. “You don’t have a lot of friends, do you?”

She didn’t, but that was beside the point. “So do you know who’s doing this?” she asked, scrambling to her knees and finally giving in to the urge to grab her pen. “Can you tell me? I interned as a police sketch artist, so even if you just describe them I bet I could --”

“You expect me to narc?”

“They’re killing people!”

“Eh, I --”

“Max?”

They were both blinded; squinting past the flashlight, Gwen could barely make out a male figure. The newcomer lowered the light, stepping forward. His eyebrows drew together as he took in the scene: a kid lounging on a tombstone, having a conversation with a woman kneeling in the damp grass surrounded by open books and binders. “What are you doing out here? You know it’s past curfew!”

The ghoul -- Max, it seemed -- rolled his eyes and sighed. “It’s not like you’re gonna arrest me. I just saw this weird lady sneaking into the graveyard and wanted to see what she was doing.”

As surreptitiously as she could, Gwen glanced down at the list of police officers in her lap, comparing the smiling photos to the grim-faced man shaking his head at Max. Officer David E. Greenwood. On the force for about ten years. According to some gossip she’d scribbled in the margin, he’d turned down the opportunity to become a detective a few years ago, holding onto his lower-paying desk job for the sake of his --

His son.

“Miss?” Greenwood waved the flashlight, dragging her attention back to the conversation. “I’m going to need to ask you to leave the --”

“Yeah, fine,” she grumbled, shoving her work back into her bag. “You know, I should get a special pass or something for doing research,” she said, more to herself than to the officer.

He cocked his head to the side, looking for all the world like a big puppy wearing a police badge. “Well, I’m afraid we can’t do anything like that, but I’d be very interested in learning what you’re researching!” He frowned. “Actually, you look familiar . . .”

“I used to be the department intern,” she said with a shrug. She was a little older than Greenwood, so it wasn’t like he’d have been working there to remember --

“Oh, Gwen! Yes, of course I’ve heard all about you!” He took a step forward, like he was about to wrap her up in a hug, before his smile dimmed a bit and he coughed lightly into his fist. “Mr. Campbell speaks very highly of you! He’s been saying he wishes more people would be willing to work for no money, but I’m sure he just meant that you did such a fantastic job! You work at the college now, right? You know, I’ve been meaning to take some classes but I just haven’t had the time --”

“Dad,” Max interrupted, “it’s cold as fuck. Can we just go?”

“Right! Sorry, Max.” He shot his son -- though they really looked nothing alike -- an apologetic grin before turning the smile toward her. “If you’ll just follow me, ma’am. Goodness, isn’t it lovely out here at night? Sometimes I wish . . .”

When they were outside, Max broke through Greenwood’s stream of pleasantries. “Hey, can I talk to her for a second before we go?” When they both shot him a confused, surprised look, he shoved his hands in his hoodie pocket, hunching his shoulders defensively. “What? We were in the middle of a conversation.”

Greenwood hummed thoughtfully, glancing between the two of them. “Well, I suppose there’s no harm. It was a pleasure to meet you, Miss Gwen.” He shook her hand enthusiastically.

“You too, officer.”

“Please, call me David!” He winked, then strolled along the outer cemetery wall until he was well out of earshot, his hands clasped behind his back like a military at-ease. Max scuffed his shoe along the asphalt; Gwen had dealt with enough students to know not to push him, so she watched the clouds slide like molasses along the sky and waited.

“You know a lot about this stuff, huh? Like, it’s useless, but you still have a lot of research.” She nodded, watching curiosity wage war with misanthropy across his face. Finally he blurted out, “So can I read some of it sometime? I mean, it’s probably mostly bullshit, but . . .”

She’d given up on carrying copies of her books around with her, on the off chance that someone might be interested if it came up in conversation. “I’m usually on campus at noon,” she said. “Stop by my office. I’ve got a couple things you could borrow.” She fought to keep the eagerness out of her voice, but the thought of her self-bound books actually being read by someone was way too exciting.

Even if that someone was a moody undead kid with the most improbable home life she’d ever heard of.

He nodded, a little awkwardly, and started to walk away before she put a hand on his shoulder. “Hey, are you gonna be all right without eating?”

He shrugged. “Isn’t the first time.”

Gwen hesitated. It could get so so fired, but . . . “Listen, I work some nights at the hospital morgue. Just like, processing bodies and stuff.”

“I thought you were a professor.”

She sighed. “Adjunct,” she admitted. “Only part time. Anyway, I can’t always . . . like obviously we’d have to be really careful, and there’s no real good way to . . . but if there’s actual murderous ghouls around you probably shouldn’t be so hungry they’ll kick your ass or something --”

“How did you make offering help come out so insulting?” Max sounded impressed. He glanced over his shoulder at David, then raised one shoulder in a half-shrug. “We’ll work something out, yeah. Beats digging up coffins all night.”

David meandered back in their direction. “Would you like to be walked home, Miss Gwen? It’s not safe to be out alone at this time of night.”

She couldn’t help but smile. “Yeah, sure.”

She knew how dangerous it was. Had written hundreds of pages on the subject, in fact.

But it was nice, for the first time in her life, to feel like she’d actually accomplished something useful.

“Dad wants you to come over for dinner again.”

Gwen jumped; Max had an infuriating tendency to just appear in doorways without a sound, usually when she was deep in concentration doing something else. She thought maybe he enjoyed scaring her. “I have class tonight,” she said, taking the book he held out, “but tell him thanks.”

Max slouched into the chair on the other side of her desk, watching her dig through her books for the next one in the series. Over the past few weeks he’d been going through her research, and while his habit of writing corrections or commentary in the margins -- with pen, no less! -- was unbelievably annoying, she was making more progress in two months than she had in years. “Second time this week,” he observed.

It took her a second to realize what he was saying. “Huh? Oh, yeah, I appreciate it. Seriously, make sure you thank him for me.” Dinners with Max and David were a little awkward, mostly because only David seemed to really want to be there, but it certainly beat microwave dinners in front of her computer.

“I think he likes you.”

She made a dismissive noise. “He likes everyone,” she said. In fact, she’d made it a personal goal to hear him say something unkind about somebody. It was unsuccessful so far, but she had faith. She handed him the next book, watching him turn it over in his hands appraisingly with something almost like nervousness. It was one thing to have someone read your life’s work -- it was quite another when the person reading your work was also literally the subject of it.

“So you’re gonna stop by after class, right?”

“I -- no?” Sure, sometimes Gwen did, if she’d forgotten to give Max something or if David’s texts had seemed especially plaintive; she got the sense that his life wasn’t as sunshine-and-rainbows as he tried to make it seem, and watching TV or sitting out on the porch after Max had disappeared into his room wasn’t much of a sacrifice. But it wasn’t a habit or anything. “Maybe I have shit to do.”

He snorted. “No you don’t.”

She didn’t, but she didn’t need to be reminded of the life she didn’t have by an obnoxious kid who literally had no life.

When she didn’t respond he stood up, tucking her book under his arm. “So I’ll tell Dad you’ll be by after class. And I’m gonna be at Neil’s tonight.”

She raised an eyebrow. “So?”

“Ugh, don’t make me say it. It’s fucking gross.”

Gwen watched Max lope out of her office, wondering if he was aware that he’d just told her his father was lonely. And that it worried him.

“For fuck’s sake, just go out already!”

Her pen jerked a scraggly line across the paper, jagged and uneven like the sudden spike in her heart rate. “Why can’t you knock, you shitty excuse for a Halloween monster?” she growled, shoving her notebook aside and glaring up at him.

He set her book on her desk with surprising gentleness for someone who reportedly didn’t care about anything. “First, Dad is so goddamn annoying, and if I have to hear him talk about how ‘sweet that Miss Gwen is, don’t you think so, Max?’ one more time I’m gonna eat him. Second, it’d probably be easier to sneak me food if you were dating, since it’d be less weird for me to hang out with my stepmom.”

“I’m not going to ask David out so it’s easier for you to feed,” she said, bristling at “stepmom.”

“No, you’re gonna do it because you keep staring at him like a creep whenever you think he’s not looking. That’s third, by the way,” he continued, holding up three fingers. “The only thing more annoying than him being all moony and stupid is you being all moony and stupid.”

“That . . .” is not true was on the tip of her tongue, but somehow she just couldn’t bring herself to say it. The problem was, she’d gotten accustomed to spending more evenings a week at the Greenwoods’ house than her own, and had started to find it more comforting. Which didn’t mean that she was interested in David, of course, but she’d been . . . surprised, by him.

By his genuine interest in her, and his support of her research even though it clearly made him uneasy. (Which was fair; “hey I think those murders you’re investigating are undead monsters” was a pretty uncomfortable thing to talk about, but that didn’t mean he wasn’t willing to listen.)

By how he remembered stupid little things, like her favorite foods, and how even when he was thoughtless and absent-minded it never seemed to piss her off the way it should.

By his horrible sense of humor and his worse taste in TV shows. By how his eyelashes were longer than hers, and framed his eyes so prettily. By the freckles she could only see when they were sitting thigh-to-thigh on the couch, or when he pulled her in for a goodnight hug. By --

Well, fuck.

“Everyone I know is a fucking idiot,” Max groaned, tugging her out of her heart-attack-inciting epiphany. He ran his hands through his hair -- glossy and sleek because he’d eaten last night; everything about him was glowing and lively compared to usual, making him look almost human -- and stood. “Don’t even bother getting me the next book. You can drop it off with Dad tonight.”

“But he didn’t invite me to dinn --” She cut herself off at the look of pure exasperation he gave her, one that implied he couldn’t even deign that with a response.

“Fucking idiots,” he muttered, slipping out of her office.

“Okay, I know I basically made this happen because you’re both too dumb to function, but I’m hating every second of this. I take it all back.”

David practically leapt out of Gwen’s chair, almost knocking her out of his lap and face-first into a concussion courtesy of the corner of her desk. “M-Max! What are you doing here?!”

She just sighed, adjusting her position so she wasn’t in danger of falling and brushing her hair out of her eyes. “He does this.”

“I’m a student, Dad. I belong here.” He held up the binder -- Gwen’s most recent book in the making -- with a sharp, sarcastic grin. He was looking a little gray and drawn, and she made a mental note to grab him some intestines or something that wouldn’t be missed at work that night. When he was looking sick like this, his inhumanness stood out in stark relief, like the crisp lines of his teeth that were too big and too pointy for his supposedly-human mouth.

“In high school! Why aren’t you in class?”

He shrugged. “Lunch break,” he said. Gwen and David exchanged a look, because neither of them knew if that was true. It’d been a while since either of them had been students, after all. Dropping the binder on Gwen’s desk, he retreated to the door like he was afraid to coming too close to them. “What’re you doing here, anyway?”

“Um . . . lunch break,” David replied weakly, his face flushing.

Gwen picked up a stress ball and lightly tossed it at Max’s head. “Get out of here, you little shit.”

“I hate you both. See you at dinner,” he said casually, ducking out of the office and letting the door bang shut behind him.

David sighed, shaking his head. “Do you think he looks sick, Gwen? I’m worried he’s coming down with something.”

She winced. “Probably a 24-hour bug. Bet he’ll be fine tomorrow,” she said, ducking her face into the crook of his neck and kissing behind his ear. Sometimes she couldn’t fathom how someone who knew about ghouls could miss the fact that his own son was one.

But then again, David wasn’t an academic, and he certainly wasn’t trained in this kind of thing. And he had a tendency to ignore red flags when it came to people he cared about.

It was one of the things she loved most about him.

[larathia]

Alternate Keith theory

Honestly, I’ve thought this one for quite a while, but as all the evidence is circumstantial it’s really more of a headcanon I think explains everything.

My theory goes like this:

* The reason Galra are so into racial purity is that millenia of quintessence exposure has made them hyper-interfertile with other species. We see so many different shapes and colors of galra BECAUSE THERE ARE. Over the millenia there have been/remain billions of galra subspecies, developed from this interbreeding. You need a minimum percentage of your genetic code to be ‘galra’ before things like the Marmora blades or Galra handplates will work for you - but it’s probably not a high percentage. I’d guess 25-33 percent.

* We know that Alteans can shapeshift. As far as we know they are the only species that can. It’s not an ability limited to Mystic Alteans. We also know that many Alteans were not on or even near Altea when it was destroyed, and that many Alteans went into hiding using their shapeshifting during the following diaspora.

* THEORY: There is and remains a ‘galtean’ subspecies of galra. They retain just a few Altean characteristics - a small degree of shapeshifting, a small degree of quintessence sensitivity - but in the main look or choose to look as galra as they can.

* THEORY: Krolia is one of these galteans. This is where it gets tricky because the only actual evidence I can give for this is she’s kinda on the small side for a galra, and seems to be rather more flexible of thought than most ‘pure’ galra.

This would make Keith, also, Galtean.

I’m not saying Keith could have flown the castleship. Or that Oriande would’ve Chosen him. I don’t make any claims that he could work a teludav. (If the show decides to show him doing that I won’t be surprised. But I feel it’s a stretch to claim any of that without some sign that his abilities go beyond the typical altean.)

But he can shapeshift - he doesn’t seem to realize he’s doing it, but he can.

And he is sensitive to quintessence.

These are both traits that up to now have really only been associated with Alteans. (We have no evidence as yet whether the human concept of chi lines up with quintessence’s reality. I wouldn’t be surprised if it did, which would mean that humans also have the potential to manipulate quintessence. But as yet we haven’t seen sign one that this is the case.) The show may yet pull something out of its hat to explain why Keith can do these things - or it may choose to leave them unknown.

But my theory is, he’s not just galra. He’s also part Altean. Maybe just a tiny part. Or maybe he’s a throwback, taking after one of Krolia’s parents, the way some traits skip generations. And that this is why he was small for his age, and why he was born looking fully human, why he shapeshifts under stress, why he’s quintessence-sensitive.

[anonymouscrocodilefan]

Addendum: Ex-Slave Croco Theory

LONG TIME NO POST, and not quite a shower thought, but it occurred to me at one point that I never actually debunked the other common theory about Croco’s secret (the one Ivankov has on him).

The major theories I’m aware of (all of which I find flawed):

1. FTM Croco (Croco was a woman & other gender/sexuality-related variations). This is the immediate conclusion most people jump to, and I’m pretty sure it’s a red herring. Although, as I’ve mentioned, I wouldn’t mind if it were true. I pretty thoroughly debunked this in one of my first posts: http://anonymouscrocodilefan.tumblr.com/post/132946232157/2-crocodiles-past

2. Croco was on Whitebeard’s crew (in some variations the chopped off hand was to remove WB’s tattoo). And is for some reason ashamed of that and/or left for reasons related to his weakness. This has been completely debunked by Word of God. See my very first post: http://anonymouscrocodilefan.tumblr.com/post/132880323933/1-crocodile-the-warlord

3. Croco’s missing hand originally had a different power from the “drying” ability of his right; the secret behind this removed power is related to his other weakness. I don’t think this theory is as widespread as the others, nor am I particularly against it. But I don’t really buy it either. Plus I think with the advent of “awakened” powers as a concept, this idea is getting less and less likely. I’ve only ever tangentially discussed this though (never directly addressed the specifics of this theory): http://anonymouscrocodilefan.tumblr.com/post/135195626561/shower-thought-handedness

4. An actual physical/power-related weakness (aside from the water weakness and the obvious existence of haki). Discussed this in the same post as FTM Croc. This one seems to make sense in context, but is narratively unsatisfying to me. I can kinda imagine it though – if water is a weakness, I wonder about wind (water clumps sand, but wind does the opposite)? Still, Oda could’ve easily done the same scene with something along the lines of “no worries, I know how to defeat him” – so the specific and somewhat ambiguous use of the word “weakness” and Iva promising not to give him away if he behaves is... interesting.

5. Croco is a former slave (like Hancock and Fisher Tiger). I can’t believe I never discussed or even brought up this theory... because it’s actually one of the earliest ideas I personally considered (along with “Croco has revolutionary connections [beyond the acquaintance with Iva]”, which I’ve long since discarded).

Like the “revolutionary” theory, I discarded it very early on (and didn’t see it discussed nearly as often), which is probably why it slipped my mind.

Also, my arguments against this particular theory are mostly circumstantial, like my arguments against the missing hand/physical weakness theories (but unlike the FTM/WB theories, which have fairly solid textual evidence working against them and in the latter case has been explicitly contradicted by Oda’s statements).

Still, it’s probably worth discussing. So here are my thoughts.

First of all, it’s a tempting theory on the surface. Unlike the FTM and WB theories, it also gives him a valid motivation for his dislike of the government (and apparent desire to create a Utopia [we are soooo short on details there, including how seriously he meant it]). It would also fairly neatly explain his trust issues, although maybe not why he’s so adamant at first about human connections being worthless (the WB theory probably does the best on that one, but like I said, it’s total bunk).

Nonetheless, it doesn’t really “feel” right, either.

As I’ve previously noted (see the post with FTM Croco), Crocodile’s reaction to Iva’s threat is actually relatively subdued despite the way the whole thing’s been blown up in the collective fandom consciousness. Sure, it pisses him off, but he’s not upset or anything either. We have several known ex-slave characters whose behavior can be easily contrasted with his, in fact. Fisher Tiger’s undying hatred. Hancock’s deep shame. Koala is the most well-adjusted one we’ve seen so far, but I think that’s probably down to the fact that she was still very young at the time (much younger than Hancock!) and has since grown up in a very supportive environment. For all three though, there is that underlying sense of having been betrayed by the government and its support of an inherently unjust system, and moreover by humanity itself. On the other hand, Croco’s scorn for the Marines and the government overall seems more akin to Law’s feelings on the subject, i.e. they’re useless assholes. In other words, yes he has trust issues, but he never comes across as traumatized. (Law maybe isn’t the BEST comparison there.)

The timing is tricky. Surprisingly, we know a handful of solid dates for Croco, despite the fact that he’s never gotten a backstory flashback. All of which I’ve discussed before, but again – he was at age 22 present for Roger’s execution. He became a Warlord shortly thereafter, with his defeat by Whitebeard presumably marking his first real setback as a pirate. Around age 30 he was featuring in newspapers for his “heroic” acts. By the time the series starts, he’s been a public figure for 20 years or so. Basically, he could’ve only been a slave during his child/teen years... and couldn’t have been part of the big breakout all the other known ex-slaves escaped during. That is, he would’ve had to escape on his own, or I suppose potentially with Revolutionary aid (which maybe accounts for the eventual Iva meeting when he’s a rookie). The former seems unlikely, no matter how clever the dude is. But the latter would have more naturally led to him being involved in the Revolutionary faction sooner or later rather than setting sail to compete with Roger and Whitebeard and coming up with his own grandiose schemes.

I talk about this all the time, but if we can trust his SBS child illustration – and I think we can, based on past experience – he was already toting around a real gun as a kid. And in fact it seems like he was probably already fairly skilled in its usage (mentioned this in the handedness post, but I have a feeling that his gun is holstered in a cavalry draw position rather than the more typical cross draw). His expression and stance also already lack that veneer of innocence that many (not all) of the child illustrations tend to have. From that (among other things), I’ve always gotten the sense that he was a street kid who pretty much raised himself/grew up in the underworld... and would have been far too careful and shrewd to have been captured by anyone.

If his missing hand was the one with the tattoo (kinda has to be, since he had to get undressed for the Impel Down “baptism”)... well, Croco’s much too pragmatic to have chopped it off just because of a tattoo. Especially when there are more obvious ways of subverting or hiding the symbol (see also: Sun Pirates). No matter how well he’s adapted to the lack of it, he is NOT the kind of man who would have willingly given up the practical benefits of having two working hands, imo. Even to escape (he’s no Zoro lol).

I dunno, even if all the above points can technically be written around, it feels kind of redundant to have another ex-slave Warlord in the mix. Sometimes redundancy is good, and adds thematic texture due to the different nuances. But I think we’re already pretty well covered.

(The remaining variations on this theory that I actually think are kind of viable but require way too much guesswork: he betrayed his allies into slavery [after being betrayed by them first, I’m thinking], OR he attempted to pull a rescue but failed [again, perhaps due to treachery] and chose to abandon them/save his own skin. These not only fit what we know about his personality, but also provide a decent explanation for why Iva specifically would be involved/aware, and suit the context of the exchange during Impel Down. Like I said though, way too much guesswork, especially re: what exactly in this scenario would serve as a hold over him.)

As for what I personally think the actual secret is, if not those two above options – my thoughts haven’t really changed that much since I originally wrote the FTM debunk post. In my view the three main options are 1) the backstory behind him obtaining his fruit; 2) whatever backstory there might be regarding his hook/scar (assuming they’re not just design elements like Doffy’s sunglasses LOL); and 3) the backstory behind his knowledge of Pluton and the poneglyphs (plus I assume he’s one of the few who knows the truth behind Ohara). Possibly those options might even be related to each other.

The only somewhat new addition to my thoughts: since Oda’s made the parallels between Croco and Luffy* even more explicit than before, I suspect Croco had a similar experience as Luffy/Sabo/Ace did in the Gray Terminal. (Remember that I think Croco was a street kid.) Only his reaction was something more along the lines of Sabo’s, if Sabo hadn’t gotten proper guidance in form of Dragon and had turned pirate instead.

(… I can’t be the only one who can imagine alternate universe Sabo going the evil mastermind route, can I?)

* The Croco/Luffy parallels are key to the Alabasta arc, and Oda then brought them up again with the SBS about Croco’s pirating history. And as I’ve argued in my MBTI posts before, their personalities are mirrors of each other (rather than “in opposition”).

But I’ve also seen people point out that there’s an interesting parallel to be found between Croco and Ace as well. (Both talented and ambitious young Logias who challenged WB early on in their pirating careers; one submitted, one picked himself back up to attempt his own path.)

Which I think makes it not unreasonable to eventually see an echo of Sabo in Croco as well. (Although I have previously thought the more explicit Sabo foil was Doflamingo, hence him turning up specifically during Dressrosa.)

I mean no matter what, the weirdly romantic vibe of Baroque Works and the idealism implied in “Operation Utopia” have been cracking me up for ages. And that’s gotta have its roots in something, right? Odd to think about, but we actually know way more of what makes Doflamingo “tick,” what his driving motivations are. We never got a true explanation for Croco. Just like Big Mom’s yearning for family and belonging is a corrupted version of Whitebeard’s family ethos (and note apparently SHE wants to construct a “utopia” of sorts as well), Croco’s stubborn opposition to the government strikes me as a corrupted version of the Revolutionary stance. That’s like the one thing we’ve known about him all along, the one reason we know he was after Pluton – and Marineford only further supported this. I mean yeah, no pirate actually LIKES the government for obvious reasons, but Croco’s disdain has been consistently highlighted in particular.

I’m convinced it means something.

[daisyfornost]

a thought about The Boscombe Valley Mystery

I mentioned a while back that reading Graham Robb’s “Strangers: homosexual love in the nineteenth century” changed the way I read Arthur Conan Doyle. (Me, last summer: “[ACD has] blossomed from whatever he was to me before (charming) into Master of Unsubtle Winky Victorian Gay Comedy (delightful). Here is the last paragraph of The Noble Bachelor: "Ah, Watson,” said Holmes, smiling, “perhaps you would not be very gracious either, if, after all the trouble of wooing and wedding, you found yourself deprived in an instant of wife and of fortune. I think that we may judge Lord St. Simon very mercifully and thank our stars that we are never likely to find ourselves in the same position. Draw your chair up and hand me my violin, for the only problem we have still to solve is how to while away these bleak autumnal evenings." I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE GOOD SIR. *applause*)

And now here we have The Boscombe Valley Mystery, and damn if it doesn’t read like a big pile of metaphors for gayfolk surviving Victorian England. Like, so much so that I hesitate to even start quoting, ‘cause jesus tldr. Heck, parts of it read like they’re about Oscar Wilde (or any similar case) disguised as a murder mystery. Below are just eight examples. There are plenty more.

"Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing,” answered Holmes thoughtfully. “It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.”

"It must be confessed, however, that the case looks exceedingly grave against the young man, and it is very possible that he is indeed the culprit... Lestrade, being rather puzzled, has referred the case to me, and hence it is that two middle-aged gentlemen are flying westward at fifty miles an hour instead of quietly digesting their breakfasts at home."

"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact,” he answered, laughing. “Besides, we may chance to hit upon some other obvious facts which may have been by no means obvious to Mr. Lestrade."

“On the inspector of constabulary informing him that he was a prisoner, he remarked that he was not surprised to hear it, and that it was no more than his desserts.”

“However innocent he might be, he could not be such an absolute imbecile as not to see that the circumstances were very black against him. Had he appeared surprised at his own arrest, or feigned indignation at it, I should have looked upon it as highly suspicious, because such surprise or anger would not be natural under the circumstances, and yet might appear to be the best policy to a scheming man. His frank acceptance of the situation marks him as either an innocent man, or else as a man of considerable self-restraint and firmness.”

I shook my head. “Many men have been hanged on far slighter evidence,” I remarked. “So they have. And many men have been wrongfully hanged.”

Sherlock Holmes was transformed when he was hot upon such a scent as this. Men who had only known the quiet thinker and logician of Baker Street would have failed to recognise him. His face flushed and darkened. His brows were drawn into two hard black lines, while his eyes shone out from beneath them with a steely glitter. His face was bent downward, his shoulders bowed, his lips compressed, and the veins stood out like whipcord in his long, sinewy neck... I watched my friend with the interest which sprang from the conviction that every one of his actions was directed towards a definite end.

“Why does fate play such tricks with poor, helpless worms? I never hear of such a case as this that I do not think of Baxter’s words, and say, ‘There, but for the grace of God, goes Sherlock Holmes.’"

Oh. I made myself sad.

[ladyadalicialove]

PART 2 OF THIS THEORY BECAUSE I AM AWARE OF IKARI GOZEN BUT I DIDNT CARE ABOUT IT BUT I GOT A FEW PEOPLE ASKING ME ABOUT IT.

Here’s the thing I wrote this theory after the airing of Bakerix back in July of 2019 so no information regarding Marinette's birthday had been unveiled, only slight hints which I discussed. However it has since been revealed that Marinette was born in the year of the Snake, probably 2001 and is supposedly a Leo as stated in the French and English versions of Ikari Gozen. These facts sorta align with the theory but it needs an update to fit this new info in.

SO HERE WE GO PART TWO

If Marinette is born to the zodiac year of the snake then it’s a safe bet to assume that it’s 2001. Meaning that when Marinette turns 14 in Befana it possibly the year 2015.

Thus the wedding theory year has now been changed to 1995. To give the twenty year time gap for the anniversary.

Continuing on with the birthday thing, we know now that as a Leo her birthdate will be between July 23 – August 22. And we know as stated that Befana takes place in July~! Assuming the the year of the webisode is tricky, as we know in Befana Marinette receives a suprise party but in the webisode she talks about inviting people to her birthday.

If it’s still in 2015 the only July date that falls on a Saturday is the 25th. Which I can imagine that prior to finding out about her party Marinette was planning her birthday or imaging who she would invite.

If the webisode takes place in 2016, her birthday could either be 23rd or the 30th. As I did state in part one of this theory that I believe the webisode takes place in 2016...

Though this makes Mari 15, and that is how old she is during season 3. I doubt this diary entry is referring to her fifteenth birthday. I originally assumed she was 13 turning 14 in the episode due to Befana and that feels right to me. So I’m sticking with the 25th of July.

However this all doesn’t add up. Because France started their school holidays on July 8th in 2015 aka Marinette could not have seen Nino listening to her favourite at school as she said in Befana if her birthday is towards the end of July aka the 25th.

Did the class get extra tutoring from all the missed classes due to akuma attacks? Very possible honestly lol.

If they had two weeks more of school in theory than the 25th of July in 2015 is the only candidate that fits the circumstantial evidence given by the show.

In conclusion...

Sabine and Tom Dupain-Cheng got married on April 6th of 1995.

Marinette is most likely born July 25th of 2001.

There is no concrete evidence but only speculation around Marinette's birthday. The best evidence is summarised here:

- Marinette is born in the year of the snake according to the english dub of Ikari Gozen.

- Marinette according to the French version of Ikari Gozen is a Leo.

- The webisode states her birthday was on a Saturday. It is unclear what year this episode takes place, though is most likely 2015

- Befana takes place in July of 2015. We know this from the very detailed Miraculous Ladybug timeline.

I would love to hear your own theories about where exactly her birthday lies..

...but I do ask that if new information or an actual confirmed date of her birthday come out please do try to tell me. I watched Ikari Gozen as soon as it premiered and was disappointed that my theory wasn't correct but I didn't expect it to be right in the first place.

Theories are just that, speculation until there is undeniable proof. And I am always aware of new information when concerning these things. So now we wait until season 4 does something wild and once again screws with me lmao.

"Part 2" was posted on 31st December 2019, Season 3 at this time is finished. Waiting on Season 4.

MLB Dupain-Cheng Wedding and Marinette’s Birthday theory!!

Here I have developed two theories; when Sabine and Tom got married and Marinette’s Birthday. I have finalised two dates as to when they got married and when Marinette was born. This is pure speculation by the way, so take what I say with a grain of salt!!! 

The Dupain-Chengs Wedding Date THEORY:

To figure out when they were married I gathered clues from all available episodes.

Lets start with “Timebreaker”! In this episode Sabine says they are celebrating their 20th wedding anniversary with a special dinner. And since “Timebreaker” was in season 1, this episode is speculated to have occurred sometime sometime in February-April.

I have theorised that “Backwarder” is set in either April of 2011 or May of 2018 This is because Adrien, Gabriel, Kagami and her mother are going to attend a Royal Wedding in England. And Thomas Astruc must have been inspired by a royal wedding and since this episode aired in 2016, Astruc would not have known about Harry and Meghan meaning that Kate and William was probably his source of inspiration.

So if Tom and Sabine are celebrating their twentieth wedding anniversary in February-April 2011 or 2018, that means they were married in 1991 or 1998.

However in consideration to the style of Sabine’s dress, it is more likely to be in 1998. 1991 Wedding dresses were extremely puffy, most likely due to the after effects of the 80s fashion. Sabine’s wedding dress actually closely resembles the wedding dresses of the 2000s. Meaning that it is highly likely the wedding happened in 1998, here’s a photo comparison.

(Credit: Me, I googled some pics of both 1991 and 1998 wedding dresses and created this collage.)

Basically since Sabine doesn’t look like any of the snow beast brides of 1991 and closer to 1998 wedding dresses, I think it’s a safe bet that it was set in 1998. FYI: I did loads of wedding dress research and her dress is closest to the 2002 bridal styles, especially with the BOHO-chic fashion trend. 

Now fun fact, this means we actually know when the exact date they were married because of Marinette’s calendar (which is basically Adrien’s Schedule) back in “Timebreaker”. The episode as we know starts off with Sabine talking about their 20th wedding anniversary. However in this episode, Alix and Kim have their rollerblade race, This is the only episode we know of to have rollerskating in it, and in Marinette’s calendar April 6th is marked as “Roller Time”.

(Credit: https://amour-chasse-croise.tumblr.com/post/142955283453/miraculous-ladybug-timeline-complete )

This means that April 6th is the day that Tom and Sabine were married!! (And Alix’s birthday lol)

So this concludes that…

Tom and Sabine were married on April 6th of 1998.

Also this means that Tom married Sabine when he was twenty!!! Because he turned 40 in Bakerix which is set in 2018, we knows this because the events in “Bakerix” happen before “Backwarder”, as the inauguration of Startrain is shown. And we know “Backwarder” is set in May of 2018, meaniNG BAKERIX IS HAPPENING IN EARLY 2018!!!!

Our bakery boi snatched his wife with that broom-stache at 20 holy moly. I wondered how old Sabine was, I think she might have been 19, making her 39 in “Bakerix”. Love to hear anyone’s theory on Sabine’s age.

This means that Tom and Sabine totally dated in high school. oMG SO CUTE!! Can’t wait to draw the art for that one!

The Date of Marinette’s birthday THEORY:

This theory isn’t as concrete as the previous but I had to do some hard core predications and assumptions!! So don’t take my word for it!

It took Tom and Sabine a couple of years before they had Marinette. Because we know she is 14 in “Befana”, that means she was born in 2003 or 2004 if this episode took place in 2017 or 2018. And according to the MLB wiki timeline, Befana takes place in July, meaning Marinette is born in July. No joke the wiki has a timeline. 

If we look at her personality we can actually determine what part of July her birthday is on with zodiac signs!! July 1st to July 22nd are members of the Cancer zodiac sign, and July 22nd to July 31st, are a part of the Leo zodiac sign.

I did a little research for Cancer because as a Leo myself, I know that sign pretty well. And guys, “Cancers are born people-pleasers and emotional caretakers.” and not just that but “You’ll often see Cancer women busting their butts behind the scenes building props on theatre or movie sets, or as head chefs making magic in the kitchens of busy restaurants. These women prefer to work with their hands, and do work that they feel emotionally connected to, rather than spending hours staring at spreadsheets or mathematical abstractions.” (source:https://www.astrology.com/cancer-woman.html)

MARINETTE IS A MEMBER OF THE CANCER ZODIAC SIGN CONFIRMED SHE IS A CRAB!!!!! CAN YOU IMAGINE HER LIKE THAT I CAN 

So we can confidently say her birthday is between July 1st and 22nd, we just gotta find the specific date!! Here’s another clue I found thanks to another birthday theory on Amino; In the Webisode “My Birthday Party”, Marinette’s voice over says “It’s my birthday on Saturday”. (In the English Dub)

Now the webisode was released in 2016, while “Befana” was released in 2017. In 2016 would have been 12 if Marinette was born in 2004, which is inaccurate as she was 13 when she received the miraculous. Meaning she is born in 2003 making her thirteen in 2016 the year of the webisode aired!!

Now if her birthday in that webisode was set in 2016, the Saturday’s between between July 1st and 22nd land on three dates. The 2nd, 9th and the 16th of July.

How do we narrow the three dates down to one I hear you ask? Well Kung Food is set sometime after July 14th according to this tumblr user, meaning we can eliminate the 16th because her Great Uncle would have mentioned her birthday but he didn’t.

(Credit: https://ladybug-x-chatnoir.tumblr.com/post/138842131342/here-is-a-visual-timeline-based-off-of )

Now that means it’s either the 2nd or the 9th. I think if we look at the school dates when the year “Befana” takes place we may determine her birthday.

So if Marinette is turning 14 in “Befana” and if she is born in 2003, that means “Befana” occurs in 2017. In the episode she talked about being at school that week, and “yesterday” she caught Nino listening to her fav song at school , however she did not mention being at school on her actual birthday. Which in 2017, Mari’s birthday is on a Sunday and I had to check but France does have Middle and High schools that choose to have courses on Saturdays. So we are deficiently in the right timeframe!

It occurred to me that July is when Summer Holidays begin for France. And according to this website, France’s summer holidays begun on July 8th in 2017.

(Credit: https://www.renestance.com/blog/2017-school-holidays-in-france/ )

Now if we rewatch “Befana”, we can see that the classroom is bare of any school work or posters. Now everyone who has been to middle or high school knows there are big clean ups that happen the day Summer Holidays begin. And that’s what I think we are seeing here. A completely clean classroom ready for a new year.

(Credit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTz8SC39s24)

I can conclude then that Marinette’s Birthday is on the 9th of July, and she was born in 2003!! THE PROOF IS IN DA PUDDIN THAT IS ADRIEN LOL!

So to quickly resummarise this double theory of mine:

Tom and Sabine were married on April 6th of 1998.

and

Marinette’s Birthday is on the 9th of July, and she was born in 2003.

Wow I spent six hours researching all this and now I’m super tired, I’m posting these theories because I will be MIA during May and possibly June because of Exams and Assignments for Uni. Enjoy reading this and I hope to hear your opinions and thoughts!!

REMEMBER THIS IS JUST A THEORY

[shanedakotamuir]

How Trump and Republicans are obstructing the impeachment process

President Trump is pictured in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on November 15, 2019. | Zach Gibson/Getty Images

And why it’s a problem.

What is obstruction of justice?

The question has been asked countless times since special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe was released, but today it’s relevant for another reason: the impeachment inquiry.

It’s become clear that Trump’s strategy — and by extension, the GOP’s strategy — is to stand in the way of the House’s impeachment investigation by preventing key witnesses from testifying and by flooding the proceeding with bad-faith claims, personal attacks, and conspiracy theories.

Last week, for example, during the testimonies of State Department officials Bill George Taylor and George Kent, Republicans repeatedly claimed that the testimonies they were hearing were unreliable because they came second- or third-hand.

What they didn’t say, however, was that most of the people with firsthand knowledge of Trump’s actions were being blocked from testifying by the administration. In other words, Republicans are saying that people without firsthand knowledge can’t be trusted and that those with firsthand knowledge can’t testify.

Does this qualify as obstruction of justice? And if it doesn’t quite meet the legal definition of obstruction, is it an impeachable offense?

I asked Brianne Gorod, who serves as chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, to explain what obstruction of justice actually means, when it does and doesn’t apply, if the president has committed it, and why we should be worried about the precedent Republicans are setting during this impeachment trial.

A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

Sean Illing

What is obstruction of justice?

Brianne Gorod

Obstruction of justice occurs when you corruptly influence or endeavor to corruptly influence a pending or official proceeding. That can be a court proceeding or a criminal investigation or a congressional investigation.

For purposes of criminal law, there are a number of questions that you have to ask.

One, was there an official proceeding? Two, was there an attempt to obstruct it? And three, did the person act with a corrupt or improper state of mind? That’s the criminal law.

Totally separate and apart from that, there is obstruction of justice as an impeachable offense. In the Constitution, the framers use the language “high crimes and misdemeanors.” And this can be a little confusing because they used that word crime, but they’re not referring to provisions of the US criminal code.

What they were talking about there were abuses of the public trust. Officials, including the president, using their powers in an effort to benefit themselves rather than the nation. And so it’s important to keep those two things separate because there can be obstruction of justice that is impeachable and warrants an official’s removal from office, totally apart from the question of whether the criminal law has been violated.

Sean Illing

What sorts of actions would be considered obstructing justice?

Brianne Gorod

It can be attempting to get an investigation to narrow its scope. It can be attempting to interfere with witness testimony. It can be attempting to interfere with evidence that the investigation may be trying to uncover. Basically, anything that can prevent investigators from doing their work, or anything that can prevent a proceeding from being carried out, falls under the umbrella of obstruction.

Sean Illing

Everything seems to turn on this notion of “improper purpose,” or the other phrase I hear often is “corruptly influence.” What are the kinds of things that prosecutors would look at to determine whether someone was “corruptly” influencing an investigation or acting with “improper purpose”? How do you prove intent?

Brianne Gorod

That’s a tricky question across the span of criminal offenses. After all, how do you prove what was going on in someone’s mind?

But courts can also look at circumstantial evidence to understand what was motivating the person. And so the question at the end of the day is, in the context of a criminal prosecution, can the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person was acting with an improper purpose? Were they trying to prevent this investigation from going forward in the way that it should have with an improper reason in mind?

Sean Illing

The obstruction statute doesn’t require that justice was actually obstructed — only that the person endeavored to impede justice, right?

Brianne Gorod

That’s absolutely right. And it’s true for the criminal code and it’s true for impeachment as well. There’s certainly no requirement that the person who was trying to object instruct justice had to be successful. The point is that they were trying to interfere with an investigation.

In the case of Trump, for example, there are a lot of indications that he tried to obstruct and his subordinates didn’t listen to him and didn’t follow his commands. But that doesn’t matter. The American people should not have to hope that the president’s subordinates won’t listen to his directions.

Sean Illing

Is obstruction of justice impeachable on its face?

Brianne Gorod

Yes. It’s something that we saw in the Nixon impeachment. It’s something that we saw in the Clinton impeachment articles. And it’s something that has regularly come up in this context because it’s a prime example of the president using the powers of his office to benefit himself rather than the American people.

It’s incredibly important that we have this check on obstruction of justice because it goes to the integrity of our justice system, both within the courts and within the political process. It goes to the integrity of our constitutional system. If there have been allegations of wrongdoing, if there have been allegations of abuses of the public trust, it’s crucial that the American people be able to know the truth of what happened.

And so if a president is willing to abuse the official powers of his office to prevent the American people from knowing the truth, from knowing what happened, that’s deeply corrosive to our system of government.

Sean Illing

Let’s talk about this impeachment inquiry. Trump and many Republicans are asserting two things at the same time. First, that any testimony from witnesses who heard second- or third-hand about Trump’s alleged extortion scheme against Ukraine is unreliable. Second, that officials with firsthand knowledge of Trump’s alleged extortion scheme are immune from congressional subpoenas because the president has the right to executive privilege.

If you accept both of these claims, then a reliable testimony isn’t possible at all. Is that obstruction of justice?

Brianne Gorod

What we’ve been seeing repeatedly from this White House are really unprecedented attempts to interfere with congressional oversight and now to interfere with the House’s ongoing impeachment inquiry. And it’s really quite stunning. We’re seeing abuses of executive power and an attempt to obstruct the very process that the Constitution set up to check abuses of executive power.

Under the president’s view, this impeachment inquiry is an illegitimate process even though it is in the Constitution, even though it is something the framers believed was critically important to act as a check on the presidency. And he’s engaging in all manner of efforts to undermine the investigation — calling into question its legitimacy, trying to pressure witnesses not to cooperate, making clear that he will not participate. That in itself is obstruction of justice.

Sean Illing

The president uses the media (Twitter and Fox News, in particular) to control the news cycle, to dictate coverage, to shape the narrative. If the president intentionally floods the public space with misinformation and lies intended to subvert the impeachment inquiry by poisoning public opinion — is that a form of obstruction?

Brianne Gorod

It’s certainly a very 21st-century form of obstruction. I think it’s something that has to be considered in conjunction with all of the other claims of obstruction of justice that we know about and are learning about. The president has been engaging in tweets and an effort to intimidate witnesses, to try to encourage them to not give testimony that would be unfavorable to him.

At the same time, there are indications that he has been willing to use the official powers of the office, like dangling the pardon power, in an effort to encourage witnesses not to give testimony that’s unfavorable to him. I think in considering whether the president has engaged in obstruction of justice, it’s important to consider the entire course of conduct, both the use of official powers and the bully pulpit of the presidency.

Sean Illing

There are a lot of arguments being thrown around that make the case that the president cannot be charged with obstruction of justice. The president is the chief law enforcement officer in the country. He or she has the authority to hire or fire subordinates. He or she has the authority to tell those subordinates to pursue or to not pursue investigations.

Do you buy that in any way?

Brianne Gorod

Absolutely not. I think that gets it fundamentally wrong. The founders included impeachment as a check on the presidency precisely because they recognized how many powers the president had and they recognized that those powers could be subject to abuse.

There are any number of powers that the president has that are lawful, but if you use them for improper purposes, if you use them to try to impede an investigation, to try to prevent the American people from learning the truth, that can itself be impeachable and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a power that the president could use for a lawful purpose.

Sean Illing

If I am a Republican voter or lawmaker who generally approves of the job that Trump is doing, why should I be concerned that he is obstructing justice? Why, in other words, is this a problem worth worrying about?

Brianne Gorod

Because the kind of abuses that the president has engaged in are deeply corrosive to our system of government. And I would imagine that Republicans, if the party labels were turned around, would be deeply disturbed by the idea of a Democratic president trying to encourage foreign interference in our elections, trying to encourage or prevent an investigation designed to uncover the truth of that.

Our constitutional system depends on checks and balances. It depends on the precept that no one including the president is above the law. And that’s something that everyone across both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2Xv21aQ

[timalexanderdollery]

How Trump and Republicans are obstructing the impeachment process

President Trump is pictured in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on November 15, 2019. | Zach Gibson/Getty Images

And why it’s a problem.

What is obstruction of justice?

The question has been asked countless times since special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe was released, but today it’s relevant for another reason: the impeachment inquiry.

It’s become clear that Trump’s strategy — and by extension, the GOP’s strategy — is to stand in the way of the House’s impeachment investigation by preventing key witnesses from testifying and by flooding the proceeding with bad-faith claims, personal attacks, and conspiracy theories.

Last week, for example, during the testimonies of State Department officials Bill George Taylor and George Kent, Republicans repeatedly claimed that the testimonies they were hearing were unreliable because they came second- or third-hand.

What they didn’t say, however, was that most of the people with firsthand knowledge of Trump’s actions were being blocked from testifying by the administration. In other words, Republicans are saying that people without firsthand knowledge can’t be trusted and that those with firsthand knowledge can’t testify.

Does this qualify as obstruction of justice? And if it doesn’t quite meet the legal definition of obstruction, is it an impeachable offense?

I asked Brianne Gorod, who serves as chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, to explain what obstruction of justice actually means, when it does and doesn’t apply, if the president has committed it, and why we should be worried about the precedent Republicans are setting during this impeachment trial.

A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

Sean Illing

What is obstruction of justice?

Brianne Gorod

Obstruction of justice occurs when you corruptly influence or endeavor to corruptly influence a pending or official proceeding. That can be a court proceeding or a criminal investigation or a congressional investigation.

For purposes of criminal law, there are a number of questions that you have to ask.

One, was there an official proceeding? Two, was there an attempt to obstruct it? And three, did the person act with a corrupt or improper state of mind? That’s the criminal law.

Totally separate and apart from that, there is obstruction of justice as an impeachable offense. In the Constitution, the framers use the language “high crimes and misdemeanors.” And this can be a little confusing because they used that word crime, but they’re not referring to provisions of the US criminal code.

What they were talking about there were abuses of the public trust. Officials, including the president, using their powers in an effort to benefit themselves rather than the nation. And so it’s important to keep those two things separate because there can be obstruction of justice that is impeachable and warrants an official’s removal from office, totally apart from the question of whether the criminal law has been violated.

Sean Illing

What sorts of actions would be considered obstructing justice?

Brianne Gorod

It can be attempting to get an investigation to narrow its scope. It can be attempting to interfere with witness testimony. It can be attempting to interfere with evidence that the investigation may be trying to uncover. Basically, anything that can prevent investigators from doing their work, or anything that can prevent a proceeding from being carried out, falls under the umbrella of obstruction.

Sean Illing

Everything seems to turn on this notion of “improper purpose,” or the other phrase I hear often is “corruptly influence.” What are the kinds of things that prosecutors would look at to determine whether someone was “corruptly” influencing an investigation or acting with “improper purpose”? How do you prove intent?

Brianne Gorod

That’s a tricky question across the span of criminal offenses. After all, how do you prove what was going on in someone’s mind?

But courts can also look at circumstantial evidence to understand what was motivating the person. And so the question at the end of the day is, in the context of a criminal prosecution, can the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person was acting with an improper purpose? Were they trying to prevent this investigation from going forward in the way that it should have with an improper reason in mind?

Sean Illing

The obstruction statute doesn’t require that justice was actually obstructed — only that the person endeavored to impede justice, right?

Brianne Gorod

That’s absolutely right. And it’s true for the criminal code and it’s true for impeachment as well. There’s certainly no requirement that the person who was trying to object instruct justice had to be successful. The point is that they were trying to interfere with an investigation.

In the case of Trump, for example, there are a lot of indications that he tried to obstruct and his subordinates didn’t listen to him and didn’t follow his commands. But that doesn’t matter. The American people should not have to hope that the president’s subordinates won’t listen to his directions.

Sean Illing

Is obstruction of justice impeachable on its face?

Brianne Gorod

Yes. It’s something that we saw in the Nixon impeachment. It’s something that we saw in the Clinton impeachment articles. And it’s something that has regularly come up in this context because it’s a prime example of the president using the powers of his office to benefit himself rather than the American people.

It’s incredibly important that we have this check on obstruction of justice because it goes to the integrity of our justice system, both within the courts and within the political process. It goes to the integrity of our constitutional system. If there have been allegations of wrongdoing, if there have been allegations of abuses of the public trust, it’s crucial that the American people be able to know the truth of what happened.

And so if a president is willing to abuse the official powers of his office to prevent the American people from knowing the truth, from knowing what happened, that’s deeply corrosive to our system of government.

Sean Illing

Let’s talk about this impeachment inquiry. Trump and many Republicans are asserting two things at the same time. First, that any testimony from witnesses who heard second- or third-hand about Trump’s alleged extortion scheme against Ukraine is unreliable. Second, that officials with firsthand knowledge of Trump’s alleged extortion scheme are immune from congressional subpoenas because the president has the right to executive privilege.

If you accept both of these claims, then a reliable testimony isn’t possible at all. Is that obstruction of justice?

Brianne Gorod

What we’ve been seeing repeatedly from this White House are really unprecedented attempts to interfere with congressional oversight and now to interfere with the House’s ongoing impeachment inquiry. And it’s really quite stunning. We’re seeing abuses of executive power and an attempt to obstruct the very process that the Constitution set up to check abuses of executive power.

Under the president’s view, this impeachment inquiry is an illegitimate process even though it is in the Constitution, even though it is something the framers believed was critically important to act as a check on the presidency. And he’s engaging in all manner of efforts to undermine the investigation — calling into question its legitimacy, trying to pressure witnesses not to cooperate, making clear that he will not participate. That in itself is obstruction of justice.

Sean Illing

The president uses the media (Twitter and Fox News, in particular) to control the news cycle, to dictate coverage, to shape the narrative. If the president intentionally floods the public space with misinformation and lies intended to subvert the impeachment inquiry by poisoning public opinion — is that a form of obstruction?

Brianne Gorod

It’s certainly a very 21st-century form of obstruction. I think it’s something that has to be considered in conjunction with all of the other claims of obstruction of justice that we know about and are learning about. The president has been engaging in tweets and an effort to intimidate witnesses, to try to encourage them to not give testimony that would be unfavorable to him.

At the same time, there are indications that he has been willing to use the official powers of the office, like dangling the pardon power, in an effort to encourage witnesses not to give testimony that’s unfavorable to him. I think in considering whether the president has engaged in obstruction of justice, it’s important to consider the entire course of conduct, both the use of official powers and the bully pulpit of the presidency.

Sean Illing

There are a lot of arguments being thrown around that make the case that the president cannot be charged with obstruction of justice. The president is the chief law enforcement officer in the country. He or she has the authority to hire or fire subordinates. He or she has the authority to tell those subordinates to pursue or to not pursue investigations.

Do you buy that in any way?

Brianne Gorod

Absolutely not. I think that gets it fundamentally wrong. The founders included impeachment as a check on the presidency precisely because they recognized how many powers the president had and they recognized that those powers could be subject to abuse.

There are any number of powers that the president has that are lawful, but if you use them for improper purposes, if you use them to try to impede an investigation, to try to prevent the American people from learning the truth, that can itself be impeachable and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a power that the president could use for a lawful purpose.

Sean Illing

If I am a Republican voter or lawmaker who generally approves of the job that Trump is doing, why should I be concerned that he is obstructing justice? Why, in other words, is this a problem worth worrying about?

Brianne Gorod

Because the kind of abuses that the president has engaged in are deeply corrosive to our system of government. And I would imagine that Republicans, if the party labels were turned around, would be deeply disturbed by the idea of a Democratic president trying to encourage foreign interference in our elections, trying to encourage or prevent an investigation designed to uncover the truth of that.

Our constitutional system depends on checks and balances. It depends on the precept that no one including the president is above the law. And that’s something that everyone across both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2Xv21aQ

[corneliusreignallen]

How Trump and Republicans are obstructing the impeachment process

President Trump is pictured in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on November 15, 2019. | Zach Gibson/Getty Images

And why it’s a problem.

What is obstruction of justice?

The question has been asked countless times since special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe was released, but today it’s relevant for another reason: the impeachment inquiry.

It’s become clear that Trump’s strategy — and by extension, the GOP’s strategy — is to stand in the way of the House’s impeachment investigation by preventing key witnesses from testifying and by flooding the proceeding with bad-faith claims, personal attacks, and conspiracy theories.

Last week, for example, during the testimonies of State Department officials Bill George Taylor and George Kent, Republicans repeatedly claimed that the testimonies they were hearing were unreliable because they came second- or third-hand.

What they didn’t say, however, was that most of the people with firsthand knowledge of Trump’s actions were being blocked from testifying by the administration. In other words, Republicans are saying that people without firsthand knowledge can’t be trusted and that those with firsthand knowledge can’t testify.

Does this qualify as obstruction of justice? And if it doesn’t quite meet the legal definition of obstruction, is it an impeachable offense?

I asked Brianne Gorod, who serves as chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, to explain what obstruction of justice actually means, when it does and doesn’t apply, if the president has committed it, and why we should be worried about the precedent Republicans are setting during this impeachment trial.

A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

Sean Illing

What is obstruction of justice?

Brianne Gorod

Obstruction of justice occurs when you corruptly influence or endeavor to corruptly influence a pending or official proceeding. That can be a court proceeding or a criminal investigation or a congressional investigation.

For purposes of criminal law, there are a number of questions that you have to ask.

One, was there an official proceeding? Two, was there an attempt to obstruct it? And three, did the person act with a corrupt or improper state of mind? That’s the criminal law.

Totally separate and apart from that, there is obstruction of justice as an impeachable offense. In the Constitution, the framers use the language “high crimes and misdemeanors.” And this can be a little confusing because they used that word crime, but they’re not referring to provisions of the US criminal code.

What they were talking about there were abuses of the public trust. Officials, including the president, using their powers in an effort to benefit themselves rather than the nation. And so it’s important to keep those two things separate because there can be obstruction of justice that is impeachable and warrants an official’s removal from office, totally apart from the question of whether the criminal law has been violated.

Sean Illing

What sorts of actions would be considered obstructing justice?

Brianne Gorod

It can be attempting to get an investigation to narrow its scope. It can be attempting to interfere with witness testimony. It can be attempting to interfere with evidence that the investigation may be trying to uncover. Basically, anything that can prevent investigators from doing their work, or anything that can prevent a proceeding from being carried out, falls under the umbrella of obstruction.

Sean Illing

Everything seems to turn on this notion of “improper purpose,” or the other phrase I hear often is “corruptly influence.” What are the kinds of things that prosecutors would look at to determine whether someone was “corruptly” influencing an investigation or acting with “improper purpose”? How do you prove intent?

Brianne Gorod

That’s a tricky question across the span of criminal offenses. After all, how do you prove what was going on in someone’s mind?

But courts can also look at circumstantial evidence to understand what was motivating the person. And so the question at the end of the day is, in the context of a criminal prosecution, can the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person was acting with an improper purpose? Were they trying to prevent this investigation from going forward in the way that it should have with an improper reason in mind?

Sean Illing

The obstruction statute doesn’t require that justice was actually obstructed — only that the person endeavored to impede justice, right?

Brianne Gorod

That’s absolutely right. And it’s true for the criminal code and it’s true for impeachment as well. There’s certainly no requirement that the person who was trying to object instruct justice had to be successful. The point is that they were trying to interfere with an investigation.

In the case of Trump, for example, there are a lot of indications that he tried to obstruct and his subordinates didn’t listen to him and didn’t follow his commands. But that doesn’t matter. The American people should not have to hope that the president’s subordinates won’t listen to his directions.

Sean Illing

Is obstruction of justice impeachable on its face?

Brianne Gorod

Yes. It’s something that we saw in the Nixon impeachment. It’s something that we saw in the Clinton impeachment articles. And it’s something that has regularly come up in this context because it’s a prime example of the president using the powers of his office to benefit himself rather than the American people.

It’s incredibly important that we have this check on obstruction of justice because it goes to the integrity of our justice system, both within the courts and within the political process. It goes to the integrity of our constitutional system. If there have been allegations of wrongdoing, if there have been allegations of abuses of the public trust, it’s crucial that the American people be able to know the truth of what happened.

And so if a president is willing to abuse the official powers of his office to prevent the American people from knowing the truth, from knowing what happened, that’s deeply corrosive to our system of government.

Sean Illing

Let’s talk about this impeachment inquiry. Trump and many Republicans are asserting two things at the same time. First, that any testimony from witnesses who heard second- or third-hand about Trump’s alleged extortion scheme against Ukraine is unreliable. Second, that officials with firsthand knowledge of Trump’s alleged extortion scheme are immune from congressional subpoenas because the president has the right to executive privilege.

If you accept both of these claims, then a reliable testimony isn’t possible at all. Is that obstruction of justice?

Brianne Gorod

What we’ve been seeing repeatedly from this White House are really unprecedented attempts to interfere with congressional oversight and now to interfere with the House’s ongoing impeachment inquiry. And it’s really quite stunning. We’re seeing abuses of executive power and an attempt to obstruct the very process that the Constitution set up to check abuses of executive power.

Under the president’s view, this impeachment inquiry is an illegitimate process even though it is in the Constitution, even though it is something the framers believed was critically important to act as a check on the presidency. And he’s engaging in all manner of efforts to undermine the investigation — calling into question its legitimacy, trying to pressure witnesses not to cooperate, making clear that he will not participate. That in itself is obstruction of justice.

Sean Illing

The president uses the media (Twitter and Fox News, in particular) to control the news cycle, to dictate coverage, to shape the narrative. If the president intentionally floods the public space with misinformation and lies intended to subvert the impeachment inquiry by poisoning public opinion — is that a form of obstruction?

Brianne Gorod

It’s certainly a very 21st-century form of obstruction. I think it’s something that has to be considered in conjunction with all of the other claims of obstruction of justice that we know about and are learning about. The president has been engaging in tweets and an effort to intimidate witnesses, to try to encourage them to not give testimony that would be unfavorable to him.

At the same time, there are indications that he has been willing to use the official powers of the office, like dangling the pardon power, in an effort to encourage witnesses not to give testimony that’s unfavorable to him. I think in considering whether the president has engaged in obstruction of justice, it’s important to consider the entire course of conduct, both the use of official powers and the bully pulpit of the presidency.

Sean Illing

There are a lot of arguments being thrown around that make the case that the president cannot be charged with obstruction of justice. The president is the chief law enforcement officer in the country. He or she has the authority to hire or fire subordinates. He or she has the authority to tell those subordinates to pursue or to not pursue investigations.

Do you buy that in any way?

Brianne Gorod

Absolutely not. I think that gets it fundamentally wrong. The founders included impeachment as a check on the presidency precisely because they recognized how many powers the president had and they recognized that those powers could be subject to abuse.

There are any number of powers that the president has that are lawful, but if you use them for improper purposes, if you use them to try to impede an investigation, to try to prevent the American people from learning the truth, that can itself be impeachable and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a power that the president could use for a lawful purpose.

Sean Illing

If I am a Republican voter or lawmaker who generally approves of the job that Trump is doing, why should I be concerned that he is obstructing justice? Why, in other words, is this a problem worth worrying about?

Brianne Gorod

Because the kind of abuses that the president has engaged in are deeply corrosive to our system of government. And I would imagine that Republicans, if the party labels were turned around, would be deeply disturbed by the idea of a Democratic president trying to encourage foreign interference in our elections, trying to encourage or prevent an investigation designed to uncover the truth of that.

Our constitutional system depends on checks and balances. It depends on the precept that no one including the president is above the law. And that’s something that everyone across both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2Xv21aQ

[gracieyvonnehunter]

How Trump and Republicans are obstructing the impeachment process

President Trump is pictured in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on November 15, 2019. | Zach Gibson/Getty Images

And why it’s a problem.

What is obstruction of justice?

The question has been asked countless times since special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe was released, but today it’s relevant for another reason: the impeachment inquiry.

It’s become clear that Trump’s strategy — and by extension, the GOP’s strategy — is to stand in the way of the House’s impeachment investigation by preventing key witnesses from testifying and by flooding the proceeding with bad-faith claims, personal attacks, and conspiracy theories.

Last week, for example, during the testimonies of State Department officials Bill George Taylor and George Kent, Republicans repeatedly claimed that the testimonies they were hearing were unreliable because they came second- or third-hand.

What they didn’t say, however, was that most of the people with firsthand knowledge of Trump’s actions were being blocked from testifying by the administration. In other words, Republicans are saying that people without firsthand knowledge can’t be trusted and that those with firsthand knowledge can’t testify.

Does this qualify as obstruction of justice? And if it doesn’t quite meet the legal definition of obstruction, is it an impeachable offense?

I asked Brianne Gorod, who serves as chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, to explain what obstruction of justice actually means, when it does and doesn’t apply, if the president has committed it, and why we should be worried about the precedent Republicans are setting during this impeachment trial.

A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

Sean Illing

What is obstruction of justice?

Brianne Gorod

Obstruction of justice occurs when you corruptly influence or endeavor to corruptly influence a pending or official proceeding. That can be a court proceeding or a criminal investigation or a congressional investigation.

For purposes of criminal law, there are a number of questions that you have to ask.

One, was there an official proceeding? Two, was there an attempt to obstruct it? And three, did the person act with a corrupt or improper state of mind? That’s the criminal law.

Totally separate and apart from that, there is obstruction of justice as an impeachable offense. In the Constitution, the framers use the language “high crimes and misdemeanors.” And this can be a little confusing because they used that word crime, but they’re not referring to provisions of the US criminal code.

What they were talking about there were abuses of the public trust. Officials, including the president, using their powers in an effort to benefit themselves rather than the nation. And so it’s important to keep those two things separate because there can be obstruction of justice that is impeachable and warrants an official’s removal from office, totally apart from the question of whether the criminal law has been violated.

Sean Illing

What sorts of actions would be considered obstructing justice?

Brianne Gorod

It can be attempting to get an investigation to narrow its scope. It can be attempting to interfere with witness testimony. It can be attempting to interfere with evidence that the investigation may be trying to uncover. Basically, anything that can prevent investigators from doing their work, or anything that can prevent a proceeding from being carried out, falls under the umbrella of obstruction.

Sean Illing

Everything seems to turn on this notion of “improper purpose,” or the other phrase I hear often is “corruptly influence.” What are the kinds of things that prosecutors would look at to determine whether someone was “corruptly” influencing an investigation or acting with “improper purpose”? How do you prove intent?

Brianne Gorod

That’s a tricky question across the span of criminal offenses. After all, how do you prove what was going on in someone’s mind?

But courts can also look at circumstantial evidence to understand what was motivating the person. And so the question at the end of the day is, in the context of a criminal prosecution, can the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person was acting with an improper purpose? Were they trying to prevent this investigation from going forward in the way that it should have with an improper reason in mind?

Sean Illing

The obstruction statute doesn’t require that justice was actually obstructed — only that the person endeavored to impede justice, right?

Brianne Gorod

That’s absolutely right. And it’s true for the criminal code and it’s true for impeachment as well. There’s certainly no requirement that the person who was trying to object instruct justice had to be successful. The point is that they were trying to interfere with an investigation.

In the case of Trump, for example, there are a lot of indications that he tried to obstruct and his subordinates didn’t listen to him and didn’t follow his commands. But that doesn’t matter. The American people should not have to hope that the president’s subordinates won’t listen to his directions.

Sean Illing

Is obstruction of justice impeachable on its face?

Brianne Gorod

Yes. It’s something that we saw in the Nixon impeachment. It’s something that we saw in the Clinton impeachment articles. And it’s something that has regularly come up in this context because it’s a prime example of the president using the powers of his office to benefit himself rather than the American people.

It’s incredibly important that we have this check on obstruction of justice because it goes to the integrity of our justice system, both within the courts and within the political process. It goes to the integrity of our constitutional system. If there have been allegations of wrongdoing, if there have been allegations of abuses of the public trust, it’s crucial that the American people be able to know the truth of what happened.

And so if a president is willing to abuse the official powers of his office to prevent the American people from knowing the truth, from knowing what happened, that’s deeply corrosive to our system of government.

Sean Illing

Let’s talk about this impeachment inquiry. Trump and many Republicans are asserting two things at the same time. First, that any testimony from witnesses who heard second- or third-hand about Trump’s alleged extortion scheme against Ukraine is unreliable. Second, that officials with firsthand knowledge of Trump’s alleged extortion scheme are immune from congressional subpoenas because the president has the right to executive privilege.

If you accept both of these claims, then a reliable testimony isn’t possible at all. Is that obstruction of justice?

Brianne Gorod

What we’ve been seeing repeatedly from this White House are really unprecedented attempts to interfere with congressional oversight and now to interfere with the House’s ongoing impeachment inquiry. And it’s really quite stunning. We’re seeing abuses of executive power and an attempt to obstruct the very process that the Constitution set up to check abuses of executive power.

Under the president’s view, this impeachment inquiry is an illegitimate process even though it is in the Constitution, even though it is something the framers believed was critically important to act as a check on the presidency. And he’s engaging in all manner of efforts to undermine the investigation — calling into question its legitimacy, trying to pressure witnesses not to cooperate, making clear that he will not participate. That in itself is obstruction of justice.

Sean Illing

The president uses the media (Twitter and Fox News, in particular) to control the news cycle, to dictate coverage, to shape the narrative. If the president intentionally floods the public space with misinformation and lies intended to subvert the impeachment inquiry by poisoning public opinion — is that a form of obstruction?

Brianne Gorod

It’s certainly a very 21st-century form of obstruction. I think it’s something that has to be considered in conjunction with all of the other claims of obstruction of justice that we know about and are learning about. The president has been engaging in tweets and an effort to intimidate witnesses, to try to encourage them to not give testimony that would be unfavorable to him.

At the same time, there are indications that he has been willing to use the official powers of the office, like dangling the pardon power, in an effort to encourage witnesses not to give testimony that’s unfavorable to him. I think in considering whether the president has engaged in obstruction of justice, it’s important to consider the entire course of conduct, both the use of official powers and the bully pulpit of the presidency.

Sean Illing

There are a lot of arguments being thrown around that make the case that the president cannot be charged with obstruction of justice. The president is the chief law enforcement officer in the country. He or she has the authority to hire or fire subordinates. He or she has the authority to tell those subordinates to pursue or to not pursue investigations.

Do you buy that in any way?

Brianne Gorod

Absolutely not. I think that gets it fundamentally wrong. The founders included impeachment as a check on the presidency precisely because they recognized how many powers the president had and they recognized that those powers could be subject to abuse.

There are any number of powers that the president has that are lawful, but if you use them for improper purposes, if you use them to try to impede an investigation, to try to prevent the American people from learning the truth, that can itself be impeachable and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a power that the president could use for a lawful purpose.

Sean Illing

If I am a Republican voter or lawmaker who generally approves of the job that Trump is doing, why should I be concerned that he is obstructing justice? Why, in other words, is this a problem worth worrying about?

Brianne Gorod

Because the kind of abuses that the president has engaged in are deeply corrosive to our system of government. And I would imagine that Republicans, if the party labels were turned around, would be deeply disturbed by the idea of a Democratic president trying to encourage foreign interference in our elections, trying to encourage or prevent an investigation designed to uncover the truth of that.

Our constitutional system depends on checks and balances. It depends on the precept that no one including the president is above the law. And that’s something that everyone across both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2Xv21aQ

[scamappraisal]

1.1 The Ed-Touchables

We begin the ten-year journey of Ed Edd n Eddy with Double D. An interesting decision to introduce each Ed individually rather than working together on some ludicrous scam given the trajectory of the overall show. Providing insight into the character, Double D labels everything in his room going so far as to count all the ants in his ant farm. His doorbell rings several times and Double D continues to answer it without someone on the other side. This results in him getting smacked with a fish and getting a bucket of water dropped on him until it reveals Eddy at last. Though arguably slow, this is a comedy bit that establishes the farcical atmosphere of the show. We can argue that it was Eddy ringing the doorbell seeing his jocular and tricky nature being established but there is no evidence that confirms this. Unfortunately, fans of the show must live forever in wonder at who was ringing Double D’s doorbell. 

But we persist, the dynamic between Double D and Eddy cures when we see the differences in their personalities as Eddy tries to mess about in Double D’s room, rearranging the labels on his personal items. Eventually, Double D sees that his magnifying glass is missing and ends up soliloquizing about sanctity and yadda yadda, pushing all the items off his desk and picking up a skull--I wouldn’t expect homages to Shakespeare’s Hamlet in Ed Edd n Eddy but it’s there nonetheless. Eddy states that Double D shouldn’t have people touching his stuff, a contrary joke to the fact that he was just rearranging Double D’s personal effects and they head off to get Ed. Something to note about this first exchange between Eddy and Double D is that Eddy calls him “Edd” twice. Almost never done in the series, Eddy could easily be establishing for the viewer that Double D is the second Ed of Ed Edd n Eddy as not to confuse people to the main characters.

They find Ed in his basement room--another stark contrast from Double D’s as it is subterranean (unlike Double’s upper floor room), has cracks in the walls, clutter, filth, and all around a separate color palette proving there are more differences between Ed and Double D than there are similarities. In an attempt to sneak up on him, Eddy and Double D try to pounce on him from behind. This fails as Ed somehow knows that they’re there and traps them both in a headlock with the same arm: thus establishing Ed as fairly strong and as the guy who doesn’t always apply to the intention of the scene. Ed also speaks in full sentences in these earlier episodes rather than growing into a catchphrase generator later on because he is not the brains of the trio. Additionally, Ed is watching an odd extra-media television show with a rotating skeleton which will be replaced with the fishbowl show that appears in most episodes when the neighborhood kids watch something.

Returning to the headlock, though we cannot see it Eddy’s and Double D’s bodies are twisted together making it appear that Eddy’s body is attached to Double D’s head and vice version. This is an early example of the malleable quality the physical world has in the show. This is important for the rules of the show (often broken) but the cartoon instances of a character melting or taking another shape starts subtly in the first episode. Also establishing rules: later in the episode, Eddy uses a traffic cone as a megaphone, which is a humble example of the neighborhood kids building what they need out of things they can find around the cul-de-sac. 

We really only receive true insight into two and a half other characters: Sarah and Johnny 2X4. Sarah barges in and yells at Ed, building herself up as the loudmouthed little sister and announces that her doll had been stolen. Eddy links this with Double D’s missing magnifying glass EVEN THOUGH his evidence is circumstantial at best. This demonstrates how if Double D is the brain, and Ed the muscle, Eddy is the catalyst. He announces to the neighborhood that there’s a serial toucher (yuck) loose and that the Eds will catch them. Kevin (though we don’t know it’s Kevin yet) says he would pay money: thus sparking the first misEdventure. Also the haranguing of the Eds (being called “DORKS” somewhat famously) we learn the the Eds aren’t the popular kids of the neighborhood, understanding their ostracized circumstances assists in understanding their relationship to one another.   The Eds set a trap that Johnny unfortunately falls for and gets trapped. All we really know about Johnny from this episode is that he has a piece of wood named Plank for a best friend and that nobody seems to find this odd. Plank’s involvement is quintessential to Johnny’s identity as we’ll later see. 

Proving that TORTURE DOES NOT WORK, Eddy gets Johnny to confess to crimes that are disproven because Double D and Sarah find what they that were stolen. It should also be mentioned that Double D briefly had hearts in his eyes when talking to Sarah, this may be because the writers thought they could establish some romance in his character but ultimately dropped it for conjectural reasons we may stipulate on in other episodes. Double D also constructs a lie detector out of a toaster, displaying his resourcefulness, ingenuity, and the show’s tendency to make things out of other things. Circling back, the neighborhood kids kept there promise and paid the Eds for their work, Double D also wonders if they should feel guilty about the circumstances (which can lead into the development of his moral and ethical code to be the best of not just the Eds, but of the whole neighborhood). Interesting enough, the Eds succeed in fleecing the neighborhood kids and make it to the candy store for jawbreakers. This allows the viewer to know the purpose, or objective, of most episodes. Oftentimes, we only see them trying to get money, but the jawbreakers are always the final strive for the Eds.

In the end, Johnny--shoved in a tire--rolls over Ed, Edd, and Eddy and the jawbreakers fly out of their mouths. We watch as the chase candy (which we learn is gigantic in this world and everyone has stretchy cheeks) and ruminate on Eddy’s final words for the first episode: “You know what they say: a little childhood trauma builds character.”

[lodelss]

Hope Reese | Longreads | May 2019 | 16 minutes (4,345 words)

In our current criminal justice system, there is one person who has the power to determine someone’s fate: the American prosecutor. While other players are important — police officers, judges, jury — the most essential link in the system is the prosecutor, who is critical in determining charges, setting bail, and negotiating plea bargains. And whose influence often falls under the radar.

Journalist Emily Bazelon’s new book, Charged, The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration, brings to light some of the invisible consequences of our current judicial system — one in which in which prosecutors have “breathtaking power” that she argues is out of balance.

In Charged, a deeply-reported work of narrative nonfiction, Bazelon tells the parallel stories of Kevin, charged with possession of a weapon in Brooklyn, New York, and Noura, who was charged with killing her mother in Memphis, Tennessee, to illustrate the immense authority that prosecutors currently hold, how deeply consequential their decisions are for defendants, and how different approaches to prosecution yield different outcomes. Between these stories, she weaves in the recent push for prosecutorial reform, which gained momentum in the 2018 local midterm elections, and the movement away from mass incarceration.

I spoke to Bazelon — currently a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine and cohost of the Slate Political Gabfest — on the phone, discussing problems with mandatory sentencing and what the public should know in order to make informed decisions when voting for their local D.A., among other subjects. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

*

Hope Reese: In the 80s and 90s, prosecutors began to hold much greater power in the judicial system than they previously had. You write that in the 30 years between then and now, Americans “first embraced punishment levels lower than Sweden’s, then built a justice system more punitive than Russia’s.” How did such a drastic increase in power occur?

Emily Bazelon: In the late ’70s, crime starts to go up. Even before that you have a turn by politicians — starting with Barry Goldwater, then Richard Nixon, and then later Ronald Reagan — toward a very law-and-order fear-mongering platform, arguing that people who commit crimes need to be locked up for a long time. It’s pretty racialized rhetoric. The combination of fear actually rising and then the politicians capitalizing on it leads to much stricter sentencing laws. Part of this is just increasing the penalties, but part of it is mandatory minimum sentences.

The idea of this mandatory minimum sentence is that you’re going to take discretion out of the system by tying the hands of judges, right? Like if they have to give a certain sentence, then you won’t have to worry about a “softie” judge. The problem is, you can’t really take discretion out of the criminal justice system. It has to continue to live somewhere, and mandatory minimum sentences, even though no one really described it this way while it was happening, give discretion to prosecutors — because suddenly the charge determines the punishment.

And so the charging shifts power to prosecutors, and in addition plea bargaining, in a couple of ways. One way is that once you have mandatory sentences, it’s easier for prosecutors to force plea bargains, because they have so much more leverage. And another thing that happened basically simultaneously is that the criminal codes expand, so there are just more things to get charged with, and more choices of charges, so prosecutors can stack charges. And that also increases the penalty and increases leverage and basically makes the trial disappear in American law. You end up with what we have now, which is like a 2 percent trial rate in a lot of state court systems.

Do mandatory sentences lead to crime reduction?

Yeah, a little bit. I mean, there’s a lot of debate over what leads violent crime to fall in the United States, really more in the late ’90s through the 2000s. The comprehensive big literature review by the National Academy of Sciences finds that increased sentences have what they call a best to modest effect on reducing crime. So in other words, you take people off the streets. You lock those people up. Those particular people are not going to be committing crimes outside of prison, and there’ll be some other people who are deterred, but I think the question that criminologists and really lots of people increasingly ask is: Is that modest impact worth the human cost?

Especially because there’s new studies showing that jail and prison are what’s called criminogenic. That’s like carcinogenic. Like, they actually cause crime in the medium to longer term. The idea is yeah, you lock people up in the shorter term, but almost everyone gets out — and when they get out, they tend to be more desperate, have a harder time getting a job, finding housing, and those things all correlate with being more likely to commit crimes afterward. I think at this point, most of these people would agree that American sentences are way out of proportion to what we need for deterrence, and in fact, are having a negative effect.

I could only find two instances in which two different prosecutors went to jail for a few days each, like in the whole history of prosecutorial misconduct.

You write about how prosecutor culture, which values confidence and speed over caution and delay, can be a problem for giving people fair chance under the law. How we could start to change that?

Yeah. So this has to do with the culture of prosecutors’ offices, how we train prosecutors, and what we tell them we value. On paper they have a dual responsibility. They’re supposed to win convictions and also be ministers of justice, but in practice a lot of prosecutors’ offices reward prosecutors for winning big trials and getting long sentences. As long as you have that kind of reward system in place, you’re valuing stricter punishment over second chances.

To change that you have to start recognizing people who are declining to charge someone, or for dropping the charges if the case is weak. Or for putting more people into alternatives to our incarceration program. It’s really changed how we define the job and how we define success of the job.

You describe the first steps of being charged, and how it’s often tricky with circumstantial evidence, illegal evidence-gathering, or police who aren’t issuing Miranda rights. You call this part of the “rotten foundation” that cases are often built on. How is this happening?

Well I think that there are a few things going on. One is just the problem of how much evidence prosecutors actually have to put forward. If you never have a trial, then your case isn’t going to be truly tested, and so you’re going to be able to assert a lot of things that may or may not be true without really being accountable for those facts. This is something that, to some degree, varies state-by-state, because some states have enacted better laws for sharing evidence early in a case with the defense, long before a trial. But it’s still an ongoing issue, and I think what you’re really seeing here is how the decline of the trial intersects with the lack of accountability for prosecutors.

Then I think the other kind of related issue I was writing about with Noura’s case is this problem of what people call tunnel vision or confirmation bias. Once the police have arrested someone, there’s an incentive to think that that’s the person who did it. It’s sort of normal human psychology to emphasize facts that confirm your pre-existing beliefs as opposed to challenging them.

Local Bookstores Amazon

How much is decided at the whim or discretion of prosecutors when it comes to determining the charge for a crime?

Well, I mean, prosecutors work closely with the police, so it’s not like they’re doing this themselves. But prosecutors are the people who bring charges. That’s their job.

So they bring charges — but they are also guaranteed immunity from repercussions, which is not the case with police. How did that happen, and what does absolute immunity actually mean in practice?

Absolute immunity comes from a Supreme Court decision called Imbler vs. Pachtman. Absolute immunity is unusual for government officials. The cops, for example, have qualified immunity. Absolute immunity means that if you can argue something you did, however bad, was in the course of doing your job, you cannot personally be sued for it. It’s like a very blanket protection, and so it has meant that it’s virtually impossible to sue prosecutors personally.

And then there’s sort of some problems compounding that rule. The Supreme Court in a later case called Connick vs. Thompson made it very difficult to sue a district attorney’s office, so then you have the whole office being shielded, absent a pattern or practice of misconduct, and then they made it really hard to prove the pattern of misconduct. And when the Supreme Court decided Imbler, they kind of reassuringly said, “Oh, don’t worry. A prosecutor who commits misconduct will be prosecuted him or herself.” But that doesn’t really happen. I mean, I could only find two instances in which two different prosecutors went to jail for a few days each, like in the whole history of prosecutorial misconduct.

And then the last piece of this is that the Supreme Court also said, “Oh don’t worry, because the bar, the legal profession, will discipline prosecutors.” But that is also very unusual, and I tell the story of a kind of failed disciplinary effort in Tennessee that I think shows the challenges for accountability from the bar.

We hear about racial profiling from police, but in your reporting, have you come across profiling when it comes to sentencing or being charged with crimes?

Well, there’s definitely racial disparity built into charging and plea bargaining offenses, and studies have shown that at every step along the way, African American defendants get worse deals for similar conduct. So yes.

Right. But, is it something we’re not quite as aware of?

Yeah. I think in general, the police, we all see the police in the streets. They wear uniforms. Judges also wear a kind of uniform. Right? They wear a robe. They’re very visible icons of justice, but prosecutors are just lawyers wearing suits and I think the things they do tend to be more hidden and more veiled in the kind of density and abstract nature of law. It’s complicated to understand all the legal interpreting of what they’re up to. So, I think that they’ve gone relatively unnoticed in the picture of how American justice has changed.

You write about how important bail can be, that it can shape the outcome of a criminal case. But we currently have a private bail industry that you argue is in need of reform. Can you explain what’s wrong?

The United States and the Philippines are the only two countries in the world that allow for-profit cash bail — so we’re outliers. But our whole system of what happens to you after you’re charged, but before you’re convicted, depends on paying bail in most states in the country. So, you get charged with a crime, you go before a judge. The judge can let you out, called getting released on your own recognizance, or they can set bail in some amount. For many crimes in many places, judges set bail.

If you can’t pay, then you’re being detained because you don’t have enough money. To me, when I think about it that way, it starts to seem very strange. That it’s really money rather than public safety or the risk of failing to appear in court that’s driving the system. Even if you set high bail because of public safety or a failure to appear, it is still true that people who are wealthy are more likely to get out than people who don’t have money.

Right. But some states, like Kentucky, have outlawed cash bail. And there’s actually evidence that people will generally return to court even if they haven’t paid the bail. Right?

Exactly. Kentucky and Washington, D.C., especially have had systems for decades where there’s a small fraction of people who are held in jail because they’re deemed to be a public safety threat, and then everybody else gets out and almost all of those people come back to court without putting any money down — which really shows us that our for-profit cash bail system is not necessary.

Study after study shows that people who are being held in jail, pre-trial, because they can’t afford bail, are more likely to plead guilty.

How is bail part of a kind of domino effect that can start to impact the way a whole case might go?

Study after study shows that people who are being held in jail, pre-trial, because they can’t afford bail, are more likely to plead guilty. And when you think about it, it’s pretty logical. If you want to go home, you have an incentive to just sign the paper. Okay, it’s a lower offense. I’m getting a deal from the prosecutor. Maybe I did it. Maybe I didn’t. I just want to go home.

It really zaps people’s willingness or desire or endurance to fight charges. If you think of, in a more simple sense, the purpose of bail and holding people pre-trial, it’s really to keep the wheels of the system turning, because plea bargains — and especially quick plea bargains — save everybody a lot of time and work. Meaning the lawyers and the judges.

And the bail companies also sometimes do monitoring and surveillance as well, right?

Yeah. We’re putting ankle bracelets on people when they’re out pre-trial to make sure they come back. In some states, they’re monitored by the court system, but it is true. There are privatized companies that are also providing pre-trial services. Then you have a way in which we’re turning another aspect of the system into a for-profit enterprise.

You write about the impetus to “keep guns off the street,” which I think many people would get on board with, in order to reduce crime and mass shootings. But do you see an unintended consequence of this goal?

Yeah. I do. I think that when liberals support gun control, we usually think of the importance of like tightening the loopholes for who can buy a gun and requiring permits. There are lots of reasons to support gun permitting, and evidence that it can reduce gun violence. But I don’t think we think enough about the other side of the coin — which is when someone doesn’t have a permit, then what happens?

In most states, or in many states, we fine those people. But, there are a few states like New York that have these very harsh prison sentences for possessing a gun even if you don’t have a criminal record. Even if you didn’t threaten anyone with that gun. First of all, you can see all the racial disparity it leads to. These are laws that are enforced in poor black neighborhoods. Predominantly black communities definitely want public safety and they want good policing and they don’t want guns, but they also want things like social services that we’ve shown prevent crime.

But, instead, we put people in prison. There’s this useful framework that comes from my friend James Foreman, who’s a Yale Law Professor who talks about these predominantly black neighborhoods getting the worst of both worlds. Both having the threat from the guns and then also having the solution be prison, as opposed to something that changes the circumstances of people’s lives and gives them a reason to not have guns that is different from being incarcerated.

Kickstart your weekend reading by getting the week’s best Longreads delivered to your inbox every Friday afternoon.

Sign up

And jail before trial is associated with more future risk of crime. Not less. Right?

Exactly. So, again, in New York, you send young black men to prison for two or three years for owning a gun. They’re all gonna come back after that time and they’re gonna be less employable. They’re gonna have problems getting back into public housing if that’s where they live. It’s just, in my view, a destructive way of dealing with the issue. It’s a real issue, but what’s the response that really makes sense?

So, you talked earlier about how few cases actually make it to trial — but isn’t there a lot of bias in trials as well? In witness testimony and unreliability of memory? Do you think there would be better outcomes if there were more trials instead of plea bargains?

Well, I think there’s two different things going on there. You’re right about eyewitness testimony and the reasons we have to doubt that sometimes and to really make sure that we have these procedures in place that don’t lead people to make mistakes in identification. Making sure that lineups are really blind and that the police don’t take their hand when they show someone a bunch of photoshoots about who they think the suspect is. It is totally true we should regard against all that. At the same time, I think it would be better if we had more trials because that’s when the government really gets tested. If you never have any trials, then the cops and the prosecutors can get away with sloppiness or even breaking the law. Violating people’s constitutional rights — and they never get called on it.

For example, I’m working on a podcast right now that’s related to my book. One of the people in the podcast was arrested and there was a stop and frisk on video. So, I can see the cops stop him and the police report says that Turari’s gun was visible in his waistband. But when you look at the videos, Turari was wearing this baggy hoodie. There’s no way the police saw the gun. You can’t see the gun. So, maybe they had another reason to stop him. It’s possible someone tipped them off and told that he had a gun, but you’d want to get that tested at trial. The problem is, Turari was facing such a long prison sentence that rolling the dice on going to trial just becomes too scary. So, you take the plea deal.

Let’s switch gears and talk about the reform movement. You outlined two different approaches to reform in your book. Gonzales, who’s the consensus-builder and Krasner, the “barn burner.” Can you talk about how you see these approaches?

I don’t really think one is better than the other, because we just don’t know enough. They’ve neither of them been in office very long and in some cities, the barn burner model is gonna be necessary. You’re gonna come into and office where prosecutors who work there are hostile to the reformer who comes in and it’s hostile to the reformer who comes in, like a new CEO. Come into a company, you don’t have to keep everybody there. They’re not entitled to a lifetime sinecure, and if they’re not down with what you want to do, it makes sense to fire people. On the other hand, if you don’t need to do that, you have people who are supporting your vision, then that can work.

In Philadelphia, Larry Krasner came into a pretty hostile office, and in Brooklyn Eric Gonzales came into an office where, first of all, he was a career prosecutor so he knew everyone. And there was much more of a tradition of discretion with plea bargaining and trying to work with defense counsel, much more than in Philadelphia. Gonzales needed a survey and most of his lawyers said yeah, we support your vision, and so he has been able to make fewer changes and still start to get done what he wants to get done.

In a few years, when we look at these prosecutors’ records and use new yardsticks like reducing incarceration, and reducing racial disparity, and increasing diversion, or just having fewer cases, then we’ll be able to start drawing some conclusions about what’s more effective.

When people see the law as legitimate, they’re much more likely to abide by it and to help do things like solve crimes and be witness to these cases.

D.A.s have traditionally run unopposed, and incumbents have often won in the past. What’s changed in the last couple of years?

There were a few things. One is that there’s bipartisan support for a new kind of prosecutor, and this is partly just because this is something that becomes so costly, and this blew so far beyond necessary bounds, and I think a lot of fiscal conservatives are fed up with it.

And then, importantly, you have the Black Lives Matter movement, which starts out obviously with a main priority being police shootings of unarmed people, but then intersects with the civil rights groups, and starts to think okay, what can we really do to change the places we live in, and change the power structure? And electing the local district attorney in a city turns out to be a tangible thing that this movement can deliver to its constituents. These are local elections, you don’t need to have that many voters to change the person in the D.A.’s office. If you organize, this is a win. So you start to see that awareness leads to a lot of real grass roots, local surges.

Then the third element is the donor class. Some donors, like George Soros, have come in and really powered these local organizers by giving them money.

You write that there should be more of a balance of power between prosecution, defense, and judiciary. What would an even shift look like to you?

Well, I think there are two things. One is that state legislators could eliminate mandatory minimum sentences, and that would have a big impact in the defense, prosecutor, judge shift that we’re talking about.

And I also think prosecutors have to give up some of their own power, which is not something that people usually want to do. For example, prosecutors that share all the evidence as quickly as possible with the defense — that’s a way of trying to even the scales. A state can pass a law requiring that, and Texas has done that in the last few years. But prosecutors can also do that themselves, in their own offices.

For people who don’t know a lot about their local prosecutors, what are the important things to learn when they’re making a decision about voting?

That’s a great question. I think you want to ask which kinds of crimes does your prosecutor think area priority? Are they interested in, for example, increasing the rate of conviction for murders, which is of late 60%. Across the country we only solve 60% of the homicides. Or are they talking about being tough on people who possess marijuana, or jump the turnstile, or have a traffic violation, right? So where’s the priority in the office?

Do they think that mass incarceration is a problem? What are they interested in doing to address it? And how do they think race plays into this itself, and do they have concrete steps they want to take to try to prevent racial disparity and racism from affecting the work of their office? How do they talk about treating teenagers who have committed crimes or minor offenses, like do they believe in treating kids like kids or do they want to prosecute teenagers as adults? And another thing to ask is how they think that they can try to protect immigrants from detention or deportation by reducing charges in some cases?

Your voice comes through as an advocate for reform. Where do you stand with this balance between your journalism and advocacy?

That’s a great question. I don’t see myself as an advocate. What I mean by that is, it’s not my job to push for a particular outcome. It’s my job to report what I’m seeing, and help people make informed decisions about the kind of criminal justice system that is pragmatic and makes sense. I’m a pragmatist at heart, so my reporting always drives me, as opposed to trying to bend the facts to support some predetermined outcome.

I did end my book with 21 principles for new prosecutors because I think a lot of times books like this, it’s all about the problem and the stories are upsetting because they show the problem, and then you get to the end and you have this sense of despair. I didn’t want people to have that, especially at a moment when I actually think there’s a lot of optimism and a lot of very interesting thinking about how to change things.

So I wanted to put all of that out there to give readers a sense of exactly the question you asked. Okay, if you’re voting for a local D.A., how do you know that this person has a different, a new vision of the criminal justice system? I wanted to give people a way to answer that question. But I always see myself as a journalist and not an advocate.

How can we rethink our justice system to make it more fair?

I think that we’ve had this “tough on crime” set of assumptions for a long, long time. To counter it we need to rethink safety. Safety is always the goal, right? That everyone deserves to be safe, and communities want to be safe. The challenge is to argue and really show people that when people, and there’s evidence for this, when people see the law as legitimate, they’re much more likely to abide by it and to help do things like solve crimes and be witness to these cases.

I would argue that because our system has become so punitive, it’s lost the trust and legitimacy in the eyes of a lot of the people who are impacted by it. And if you could get it back, we would actually be safer. So showing people that safety and fairness are integral to each other, that is a really important role that these new prosecutors can play.

* * *

Hope Reese is a journalist based in Louisville, KY. Her work has been featured in The Atlantic, the Los Angeles Review of Books, the Village Voice, Vox, and other publications.

Editor: Dana Snitzky

[byronheeutgm]

New Research Shows Which Digital Assistants Actually Know Stuff

According to a report from Edison Research, more than 51 million Americans now own a “smart speaker” like the Amazon Echo or Google Home. The adoption rate of these voice-activated devices is faster than the adoption rate for smartphones, a decade ago. And speaking of smartphones, they also have digital assistants onboard, including Apple’s Siri, Google Assistant for smartphones, and Microsoft’s Cortana (also accessible on Xbox and other devices).

All told, we are positively SURROUNDED by digital assistants, each practically begging to help us learn and be more productive. But can they actually accomplish that, consistently?

Digital assistants are as useful as a James Harden beard trimmer if they can’t answer the questions we want answered, right? This is why I am shocked, awed, and in love with the second-annual study from Stone Temple that exhaustively tested which digital assistants are best at answering questions.

I interviewed Stone Temple CEO Eric Enge about the study recently to learn how they conducted it and what they learned. My full interview is below. It’s worth the watch! Highlights are below.

How to Test Digital Assistants

Turns out, there are no shortcuts for figuring out which digital assistant can actually assist. Eric’s team at Stone Temple methodically asked 4,942 questions to Alexa, Siri, Google Assistant on a phone, Google Assistant on the Google Home, and Microsoft’s Cortana, running on the Harmon Kardon Invoke speaker. Yes, they asked 24,710 separate queries! This took a LOT of labor.

For each question, the team noted whether the response was accurate or inaccurate. They also noted if the assistant didn’t understand the inquiry and whether the response was “verbal” from the device, pulled from a database, or sourced from the web.

Which Is the Best Digital Assistant?

According to the research, the best performer in 2018 is Google Assistant on a smartphone. This may not be a huge shock, given Google has access to an unfathomable array of information and routinely handles billions of user queries. This digital assistant attempted to answer almost 80 percent of all questions, meaning there were very few of the frustrating “I don’t understand what you mean” replies.

And, among questions answered, Google’s accuracy rate exceeded 90 percent.

In comparison, Cortana attempted to answer slightly more than 60 percent of the questions, with Alexa at slightly more than half, and Siri at just over 40 percent.

When the assistants offered answers, accuracy rates were more closely grouped together. Google on smartphone is best at more than 95 percent, but Google assistant on Home and Microsoft’s Cortana are right there, as well. Alexa tops 80 percent, and even Siri gets it right 80 percent of the time (when it actually has an answer at all).

Sometimes, the answers provided by the digital assistant are flat-out wrong. This is most likely to occur with Alexa and Siri. Each had more than 160 incorrect answers, compared to fewer than 40 for Google and Microsoft. Note, however, that Google and Microsoft own enormous search engines, which likely help with their data matching considerably.

We Ask Digital Assistants Pretty Dumb Stuff (Today)

Today, in these early days, the questions we ask our digital assistants are fairly basic and banal. (This is NOT the case among Stone Temple’s test, as many of the 5,000 questions are tricky.) But for many of us, we are primarily using these devices to check the weather, learn sports scores, retrieve general knowledge, or set timers.

In our conversation, Eric and I discussed this situation, and we believe it to be temporary—a snapshot in time. As humans get more comfortable with voice-activated queries and replies, our use of these digital assistants will become more nuanced and complex.

To my eye, this mirrors what happened in the early days of search engines, when people typically used very short search strings when querying Lycos, et al. As comfort with online search grew, and the quality of the search results improved, we began using longer and longer queries.

Over time, these digital assistants will improve, and our use of them will correspondingly become more comprehensive.

Voice Is a Huge Content Marketing Opportunity

In addition to their digital assistants study, Eric and his team have also created “skills” for Alexa and Google Assistant that allow you to ask those assistants questions about search engine optimization, and you’ll be served up answers from Stone Temple. And on Alexa, they even have an SEO quiz you can take instantly. Brilliant!

Eric reports that the company is getting visibility and usage from this voice-activated advice.  He said:

“On the Google Assistant, they have a mode called implicit queries, and if you check the box when you set up your device that you want that, somebody can ask Google a question without invoking our specific actions. They might just say, ‘How do you implement a no-follow tag?’ Google might come back and say, ‘Stone Temple has an answer for that, do you want to hear it?'”

To date, Eric says more than 1,000 people have interacted with the Stone Temple SEO advice via implicit queries on Google Assistant.

Impact of Digital Assistant Data on Traditional SEO Rankings

I’m fascinated by Eric’s foray into voice-activated SEO advice and want to work on some of my own. “Alexa: Ask Jay Baer about tequila”!

Given that Google and Microsoft have major stakes in the digital assistants battle, I wondered whether being a “source” of information for those devices—as Stone Temple is for SEO information—might “bleed over” and positively influence search rankings on Google and Bing? I asked Eric about that, and he replied:

“No evidence of benefits to date, and I think it’s too early for that to have happened at this point. But it definitely isn’t going to hurt, and if you’re delivering reliable information, and people are asking for you to give them answers, that’s a topic authority signal that search engines could mine.”

Grab a copy of Stone Temple’s personal digital assistants study, and start thinking about your own foray into voice-activated knowledge. And if you can, take a few minutes to watch my interview with Eric above, or read the transcript below. Good stuff in there.

Transcript

Jay Baer: Hey guys, it’s Jay Baer from Convince & Convert, and joined today by my friend Eric Enge who’s the CEO of Stone Temple Consulting, an unbelievably effective and famous SEO content organization. Eric, it’s great to talk to you. You and your team put together this new report recently that . . . it’s stunning to me that you even did this. I know it’s the second year you’ve done it, but I was still shocked. It’s called Rating the Smarts of the Digital Personal Assistants in 2018. You go through and figure out what’s the most accurate and actually useful version of Alexa, Siri, Google Home, and Microsoft’s Cortana. I still can’t believe this. You sort of lined up the devices and asked them a bunch of questions. Thanks so much for talking about this. How did this come together?

  Eric Enge: Great question. First of all thanks for having me Jay, thrilled to be doing this together with you and talking about this, we always have great fun chatting. We have a set of 5,000 questions that we developed and that set of 5,000 questions are questions about informational topics as drawn from things that we happen to know, Google provides featured snippets for or that they might likely be providing future snippets for. Well to correct that, these are questions we thought there was some possibility they might. This is how those questions originally came together.

  Jay Baer: But the array of questions is pretty broad. I mean there’s a lot of different types of questions and intentionally so.

  Eric Enge: Yes, it is intentionally so. It is meant to be a broad range across any manner of different topics from history, to recipe, to . . . I don’t know how something is spelled, or kind of all over the map really. Broad by intent because we wanted to test a wide range of capabilities. Then what we did is we literally asked, using human voice, these 5,000 different queries of each device. We did it for Google Assistant running on a smartphone, Google Assistant running on Google Home, Alexa running on the Amazon Echo, Cortana running on the Harman Kardon Invoke speaker, and then Siri running on an iPhone, 25,000 questions that were manually asked. We took this set of questions and we did all this cataloging of all these things including did you get a verbal response from the device or the personal assistant? Did the response indicate that the device thought it understood the question and therefore tried to answer it? If it did so did it answer the question correctly? If it got it wrong then what kind of wrong answer was it? It was an extensive amount of work in analysis done on a query by query basis.

  Jay Baer: I tell you what, I think you told me you had 10 people working on this, just asking questions and logging the responses. That is a tremendous amount of human capital put into this project.

  Eric Enge: Yes absolutely, I mean for me actually I’m an intensely curious person. I want to know the answers to questions like this. It turns out a lot of other people wanted to know answers to these questions as well because we’ve gotten a lot of visibility out of the study. The fact that we did it last year and did it again this year, we kind of have an index now that we’re measuring how these things are progressing.

  Jay Baer: Yes that was the fascinating thing, I think the conclusion this year, is that Google is sort of the “best”, and obviously that’s circumstantial and things like that, but if you sort of had to pick one that Google probably performs the best today. At one point Siri was maybe better and now it’s not as good as it was. It’s not a static condition. That was the most interesting thing looking at last years report versus this years report that there really is quite a lot of variance year to year, which means either some of these things are learning, as machine learning would make you think as in the name and getting better, but others are perhaps getting worse and I’m not quite sure how that happens.

  Eric Enge: Well I don’t think anything actually got worse per se. In fact, the personal assistant that made the most progress was Alexa, so they made huge strides towards expanding the number of questions that they responded to and their overall accuracy. Cortana has expanded a lot and had actually a pretty good step forward as well, both in terms of numbers of questions answered and the accuracy in answering the questions.

  Siri used to be the leader but they were the first out and that’s a few years back now. They just kind of didn’t push it the same way everybody else has. How something gets worse, so I’ll give you an example though. Alexa’s accuracy rate was actually down a bit from last year, but on the other hand, they were answering far more questions. The total number of questions . . .

  Jay Baer: It almost stands to reason that your accuracy would go down a little bit.

  Eric Enge: Yes that’s exactly how you might see a drop and that, in fact, happened with Alexa.

  Jay Baer: Do you feel like there is a real advantage for Alexa because it does have so much market share in the smart speaker category, and certainly Google has so many more installed Android devices because even people who are not using Android are using iPhone, using Google search or Google maps on their iPhone, and as we know some 40% of local searches now are driven by voice search. Do you feel like those data points are sort of helping them get better, they’re sort of ingesting more queries and therefore they can build out better AI?

  Eric Enge: Yes, I think there definitely is an advantage being able to leverage crawling the web. You get so much data available to you, but what comes with that is when you’re crawling websites, just because it’s published on the internet doesn’t mean-

  Jay Baer: Garbage in, garbage out.

  Eric Enge: Right, so you have to qualify that somehow and that’s a tough challenge. Google’s been working on that for years as we’ve also documented in some other studies that we do. Amazon is doing something and I can’t say what it is because I don’t know, but they’re clearly getting access to more information than just Wikipedia. You can see that based on the questions they’re answering today.

  Jay Baer: Yes, it’s pretty interesting. If you had to buy a personal assistant for somebody as a Mother’s Day gift or something and you’re like, “All right, I can only buy one of these,” which one would you buy? Which one would you tell somebody to purchase?

  Eric Enge: Well if I’m going to base it on how smart it is in answering questions, Google Assistant still does have the lead. On the other hand, I have both multiple Alexa units and multiple Google Home units at home and we use them for home control, so controlling lights and thermostats and stuff like that. Alexa is better at that, so the real nuance . . .

  Jay Baer: Better recipes for now, a little bit of a head start on that side of it too.

  Eric Enge: Yes exactly, so I think it depends on what you’re using it for. If you’re looking for home control I’d go with Alexa. If you’re looking for the raw intelligence, which is what our study focused on, then yes Google Assistant is still there.

  Jay Baer: One of the things you have in the study and again, it’s called Rating the Smarts of Digital Personal Assistants in 2018, you can get it on the Stone Temple website, stonetemple.com. You list sort of the question sets, not that you necessarily asked in the study, although you mention that as well, but what people ask of these assistants generally speaking. It shows that a lot of the questions today are somewhat banal. It’s what’s the weather going to be tomorrow, though I’m certainly guilty of that. I use my Alexa for that all the time even though I’ve got multiple other ways to determine the weather tomorrow, it’s just easier. Do you feel like over time as humans become more comfortable with this technology, perhaps more trusting of it, that the types of questions we ask will change?

  Eric Enge: I do, so we’re at very early stages and frankly for this whole space there is kind of a big thing that’s being sorted out right now, which is people getting comfortable speaking to devices, and those devices being able to have real conversations with people because people don’t always use the formulaic phrases that the device is expecting. This is a tricky process, getting that human-machine interaction to work.

  Jay Baer: Right because at some point it is our error because we don’t phrase the question. In fact, I probably shouldn’t record this but my wife and I are always fighting about Alexa because I know how to phrase a question because I’ve been in digital marketing and search for so long, so I can phrase the question in a way that I have a better chance of it getting returned. She doesn’t typically phrase it that way and then she gets super frustrated. “This stupid Alexa doesn’t know anything,” and I’m like, “Well but if you said it this way.” She’s like, “I don’t want to say it that way. I don’t want to have to change the way I speak because of some relational database.” It’s sort of like this whose fault is it? Is it stupid or is it us?

  Eric Enge: No it’s absolutely the case, and it is impacting how broad the usage is of these things. There’s no question that it’s having that impact. The whole thing about going to voice is okay, we have the decades where we learned to type the thing into Google using fewer words to have a better chance of what we want and we all get trained to do that. When we’re using voice we don’t want to have to do that, but maybe we will get trained to a certain degree and maybe they’ll get better and maybe both will happen and we’ll meet in the middle somewhere.

  I really do think that’s very much going to happen. It’s just you have to get to the big vision of this thing and the big vision is we’re already at a point where something like 75% of the world’s internet connected devices are something other than a smartphone, PC, or a tablet. That’s an incredible amount of opportunities to interact with the internet, and if I’m going to use something like my watch here I ain’t typing it in. If I could access my Google Assistant through this thing . . . Well that’s a little unfair, it’s an iWatch but that’s beside the point. Basically, I just want to use my voice, I want it to know it’s me, and go. The technology in the personal assistants already exists, it’s already out there, they can connect from every single device that you connect to, and you’re going to be reaching the exact same personal assistant.

  Integrated experience that can start setting up a reservation on my phone, I could finish it when I hop in my car through the internet connectivity I have there, and it’s all one session. With that level of opportunity it is just incredibly compelling and I really firmly believe that that’s the direction this is going to go. Right now there’s an awful lot of call mom, call dad, set a timer, what’s the weather, very basic stuff, but we’re getting used to it.

  Jay Baer: You’ve been in SEO a really long time, as have I, I feel like we’ve seen this move before. If you look at early day Google, Yahoo, Ask Jeeves, search queries, they were all two, three, four-word strings. Then over time, your average search query length got longer and more detailed and more specific as well. I feel like that’s a parallel to what we’re going to see in voice. You’re going to see more detailed, more nuanced questions.

  Eric Enge: I agree and just pulling your analogy out a little further or drawing it a little further, we also saw that the search engines capability to process evolved dramatically and their ability to deal with different kinds of language constructs and these kinds just changed underneath our feet. Some of the algorithms we know, things like RankBrain we’ve heard about and other algorithms like that, natural..

https://ift.tt/2KurfTi