cbhessick.bsky.social
Criminal law professor at the University of North Carolina
Director of the Prosecutors and Politics Project
Author of Punishment Without Trial: Why Plea Bargaining is a Bad Deal
238 posts
5,536 followers
736 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
(Teaching kids how a sports bracket works = important knowledge)
comment in response to
post
That’s awful. From what I can tell, at least some teachers here are using the week to have fun activities—a science-related scavenger hunt for the middle school kid and a double-elimination pool noodle fencing tournament for the elementary school kid.
comment in response to
post
Is that somehow related to Pinker’s essay? Or the question of whether to frame criticism of Israel in terms of antisemitism?
comment in response to
post
👀
comment in response to
post
From what I've seen, some criticisms of Israel are steeped in antisemitism, and others aren't.
I think Pinker's essay does a nice job explaining why trying to frame all criticisms of Israel is a poor idea.
comment in response to
post
USSG name checks Sam Bray! (He should be name checked in any serious discussion about nationwide injunction practices.)
36/
comment in response to
post
Sociopaths
comment in response to
post
Yeah, but did you beat them
comment in response to
post
To be fair to the press, there’s so much insanity for them to try and cover!
comment in response to
post
I don’t think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think we should not falsely describe what he says.
comment in response to
post
Sorry—one last thing: I’m curious why you are under the impression that I’m giving Gorka a “pass”?
I’ve repeatedly said that his comments are horrible, inexcusable, etc.
Where is the “pass”?
comment in response to
post
We will have to disagree about what the current moment requires and whether saying demonstrably false things is a bad strategic move when there are so many factually true horrible things being said and done
comment in response to
post
My point is that he literally does not say that—which is why the relevant language about those advocating for due process doesn’t appear in quotation marks in your post—you don’t quote that because he doesn’t say it
comment in response to
post
I’m afraid we are at an impasse. I’m saying that the statement “X said Y” requires X to have actually *said* Y. You disagree and want to rely on inference and analysis to show that X *meant* Y and say that’s enough to make the statement true.
I don’t see us convincing each other.
comment in response to
post
There’s 5 minutes of hate I wish I’d never heard. But I don’t see how the additional context shows that he’s saying anyone who’s advocating for DP is aiding and abetting. The broader context suggests he’s threatening Dems on the Hill—which is obviously very, very bad—but not all speaking up for DP
comment in response to
post
(And its falsifiable because he literally didn’t say what the post claims he *said*—not implied, suggested, etc)
comment in response to
post
You think it’s clear from context that he thinks the First Amendment doesn’t protect advocating for due process? Even though he doesn’t mention speech or due process?
comment in response to
post
I agree he’s trying to threaten people. But that’s a far cry from saying he’s threatening people who are advocating for due process. Not only does he fail to mention DP, but the advocacy is clearly constitutionally protected speech!
comment in response to
post
The thing he *is* saying is incredibly shitty. But he doesn’t mention due process at all. Nor does he say that advocating for it—something that’s obviously protected by the 1A—is something he’s even contemplating as he spews his awful bullshit.
comment in response to
post
Maybe an example will help. There are folks at NRO who say they agree with Trump on immigration policy, but they think Garcia needs due process. What “side” are they on according to Gorka? I’d say we don’t know. And we don’t know because Gorka is doing some rhetorical BS that doesn’t mention DP.
comment in response to
post
If your point is that it's okay to misrepresent bad things said by bad people to make them even worse, I don't think that I'm likely to change your mind. But to the extent that you honestly think this post accurately captures what Gorka says, then I don't know what to tell you.
comment in response to
post
It's not simply imprecise. It's falsifiable. This post on Bluesky and the one it referenced on Twitter got picked up by thousands of people who understood it as a literal threat to jail people, rather than an inference based on the fact that he's mentioning only two people.
comment in response to
post
I think that they say plenty of bad things explicitly and precisely. JD Vance keeps making awful explicit comments about due process, so you don't need to invent comments from Gorka if you want to criticize them. That also avoids the allegation that you're saying things that aren't true.
comment in response to
post
I'm not saying he didn't *mean* something terrible. I'm not even saying he doesn't actually *believe* this terrible thing.
I'm saying he didn't *say* this particular terrible thing
There's a difference, which I'm sure you can both see and appreciate.
comment in response to
post
At best you are making an inference about what he thinks or meant. The post says that he *said* these things. And that isn't true.
The fact that Gorka says terrible things all the time doesn't mean he said this particular terrible thing.
comment in response to
post
He doesn’t call for anyone to be charged with a crime. He does some stupid musing about whether some unspecified group of people are “technically” aiding and abetting terrorism.
His statement is indefensible on its face. But he isn’t calling for people who advocate for due process to be charged.
comment in response to
post
Well, among other things, it never uses the phrase “due process”
comment in response to
post
I write op eds based on my legal scholarship—and I think others do too. It’s a way to not only educate the public, but also get folks in power to see your research/analysis.
comment in response to
post
The Supreme Court’s abysmal Fourth Amendment case law about border searches gives the government an incredible power, and these agents are exploiting it.
This is not the first instance of border agents seeking to use their power to gain access to the electronic communications of attorneys.
comment in response to
post
Thanks so much, Anthony!