Until I read the final sentence on Nelly Korda, I had no idea what sport she played & then I realized, golf isn't a sport, but a game of skill, like pool or blackjack!
apparently you've never played and seldom watched golf on tv - that's ok, nothing wrong with that. but if i'm right about you, then you're wrong about golf not being a sport.
and, accd'g to perplexity.ai, the origin of the the phrase "Golf is a good walk spoiled" is murky. however, john feinstein, a sports writer, wrote the book 'A Good Walk Spoiled', about golf. i'm confident feinstein believes golf is s asport.
My brother-in-law and my son have many spirited conversations about what is and what isn’t a sport. Is archery a sport? bowling? Diving? What is the threshold? Is it sustained exertion? Golf requires a certain amount of strength, a lot of coordination, and, especially if you were walking the course, mild exertion over about four hours. That qualifies in my book. But I would like to know your standards for sports and non-sports.
I note that some schools are now offering sports scholarships to those who play video games. I would draw the line there. I would probably also draw the line somewhere near chess, which is a game. Chess is not a sport anymore than poker is a sport.
Possible litmus test — if the contestants (not coaches) could play the game by telling someone else to make all moves/decisions on their behalf, it’s not a sport. I suppose that would label most video games as sports as well, as long as physical dexterity is required (not just strategy).
I’m OK with that — “sport” seems to be a widely broad term; however, I think a sport does not require “athleticism,” a specific type of physical ability not needed for all sports.
I suppose pool (pocket billiards) should be a sport. It requires hand-eye coordination and an ability to create different levels of momentum through the use of one’s arm and hands. Putting the right English (spin) and momentum on the cue ball is paramount. If the pentathlon is a sport, why not pool?
Ballroom dancing at high levels requires all kinds of exertion -- what about all those figure skating and gymnastics events. Your line isn't very clear (mine isn't either, FWIW
There are many things which do require physical exertion that I don't consider sports and I don't believe just because you compete with other(s) makes something a sport. I would include dancing and certain other artistic/intellectual activities as examples. I also believe any activity that abuses an animal NOT a sport.
i'll give you 'mostly right' about the lack of exertion in golf, when riding a cart. but when walking golf - which i love - and especially when walking & carrying clubs - which i like - i can guarantee you there is much exertion. you shd try carrying a bag-ful of golf clubs, with the various accessories inside it, around an 18 hole golf course - then report back to us on whether you exxperienced any exertion.
Based on a rudimentary search with Uncle Google, A sport is an activity involving physical exertion, skill, and competition. Therefore, all sports are competitions but not all competitions are sports.
So break dancing would be a sport, but chess would not, even though I suspect most of the boomers on this site would feel chess is more "noble" than break dancing.
Golf, tennis, baseball, track, football, chess, curling, archery, etc., etc., are competitive games. Some require a lot of physical exertion, some do not; some require a lot of mental exertion, some do not. Some require both, some require neither. Some require animals--racing, hunting, polo. Whatever floats your boat. Who cares which are "sports"?
If memory serves, the silly 1974 movie "The Groove Tube" included a sequence portraying sex as an Olympic (hence sports) event. The 75-minute YouTube video from which I once marked that scene's time from about minute 0:58 to 1:04 seems to be no longer available, but anybody who can get access should evaluate it in a "sport or not" context.
Anything that is measured subjectively isn't a sport. To be considered a sport it needs to require athletic skills (physical strength, hand/eye coordination...) and be able scored objectively by time or points etc. Swimming, golf, tennis, base/foot/basket ball auto racing etc.
All sports are “games of skill”. You could exclude golf on the “physical effort” part of the definition. Could then also exclude other olympic events: archery, curling, diving, equestrian, luge, bobsled, skeleton, shooting, sailing, etc. Also non olympic activities like bowling, auto racing, etc. The “sport” label doesn’t bother me on any of the above. All involve skill and some level of physical effort above those of us watching them from our couch. 😉
Regarding the White Sox, during last night’s game the Cubs announcers showed a graphic that said the Sox led the lead by far in blown 2 run leads. About 12-15 if I remember right. I had no idea they led in that many. They’d be almost respectable if they could hold a lead.
As bad as the Sox have been, there have been a few bright spots, namely their starting pitching. Eric Fedde and Garret Crochet have had numerous outings in which their pitching was superlative, only to have their performances nullified by a bullpen that can’t hold leads.
My sentiments exactly. "I sigh in despair at the insufferable stupidity of the purity police on the left. One of two elderly men is going to be elected president in November. Biden will not and has not perfectly served your agenda. Trump will be an unmitigated fucking disaster for it. Sitting on the sidelines and pouting should not be an option. Wake up. Understand the stakes on these and other issues."
Too right. Re-elect President Biden, and elect a Democratic Senate and House and THEN fight your internal battles, Don't these people understand that every damned thing that Democratic Biden critics hold dear is at stake?
re the carter-clark WNBA dustup - have read the responses, mostly thoughtful, to EZ's op-ed in in the Tues Picayune, and EZ's pt-by-pt analysis. i'm with EZ on this issue.
Trump declares that Russian President Vladimir Putin will release imprisoned Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich if and only if Trump is elected in November because Putin "would do that for me." He's probably right, given how autocrats benefit from each other's suppression of democracy in their respective countries. Would the idea of the convicted felon having the moral capacity to call that favor now and spare Gershovich another 6 months in a Russian prison even enter the MAGA consciousness? Of course not, but this is nothing new in the Republican playbook. Go back to the 1980 October Surprise when Reagan's team made the secret deal with Iran to not release 66 American hostages until after the election so President Carter would not benefit from what would have been the biggest news item in the upcoming election.
I'm not a basketball fan and don't know all the rules. That said, it sounds to me like unsportsmen like conduct as the play was over and the whistle blown. Like a late hit in football.
From what I understand of the sport, had the dustup occurred a few seconds earlier, it would have been fine.
What Carter did would never have been “fine”. Ever. You don’t blindside block players like she did whether the ball is live or dead. It’s probably worth your while to look up the play and watch it which would help you understand at least that part of the issue.
Well, if I may interpret -- it would have been a common and somewhat unremarkable foul had Carter banged hard into Clark's back going for a rebound or following her shot, knocking her down. Not "fine," but not unusual or controversial.
Agree but if a player is just standing there, regardless of ball status, I’m calling a foul and considering a T or ejection if it’s a game I’m officiating.
That hit is worse than a late hit in football which at least is presumably a tackler getting confused on where the sideline is. That at least would be tied to some game action as in your examples. The hit on Clark was not tied to game action in any way.
Reminded of an old saying about a person being known by the company they keep. Then reading about Putin, Yong Un and Urban supporting tRump's candidacy.
Craig - While I found a couple of them amusing, I agree with your sentiment. Hey, EZ - You could make one of each of the selections each week "I find none of these amusing." It would be interesting to see how well that selection does each week. I would certainly opt for that on the Dad Tweets for most weeks.
Some thoughts re the "Squaring Up the News" link to "All the arguments against Trump's conviction, debunked."
It's pretty good, but:
- It leaves out that the other crime necessary to turn the false business records into felonies is itself a mere misdemeanor, something I've seen nowhere discussed but which lends credence to the idea that the prosecution was a stretch. After all, nobody would have bothered if all they could get Trump on were mere misdemeanors. The legal alchemy by which two or three different misdemeanors can combine to create a felony strikes me as a bit dubious and troubling.
- The article says that prosecutions under Bragg's theory are rare because the crime is rare. That's a fair point, except the writer sets up a standard that's very hard to meet. He demands that we point to other people who could have been charged under the theory but were not. But that's awfully hard to know, isn't it? There's no publicly available record of investigations or charges considered but not pursued or brought. Meanwhile, the business records laws are quite expansive and don't only reach people who own their own businesses or the records of one's own business as the would-be debunker suggests. For example, falsifying absentee ballot applications would violate the statute because it would cause the New York State Board of Elections to file a false "business record." The other crime, the New York election law misdemeanor, is likewise quite expansive, outlawing any effort to "promote" an election to public office by any "unlawful means." Given that these laws by their terms sweep broadly, it's not too much to expect to see precedents.
This Washington Post article gives voice to both sides but lends support to the idea that Bragg's approach was novel, that he had to dust off an "obscure law" in order to make the charges work. It gives the impression that there have been hardly any prosecutions over some 50 years under the election law misdemeanor used as the predicate in the Trump case. (One lawyer quoted speculates that this is because the typical election case involves more serious offenses.)
This article makes an effort to gather precedents. It's pretty good, but it's a little quick to say that the cited cases are "on all fours," as lawyers say, with the Trump case. The prosecutions described involve more clear violations of more serious laws. None, as far as I can tell, rely exclusively on a misdemeanor election law violation as a predicate to felony business records violations.
- Meanwhile, there are real questions about whether the federal election law violation, one of three possible "unlawful means" that the jury could consider to find a violation of the state election law misdemeanor (the others being tax law and other misdemeanor business records violations), really constitutes such. It's important to remember that paying hush money to cover up an affair is not in itself any sort of crime. To turn it into a federal election law violation, you have to understand it as, in effect, a campaign contribution in excess of limits. This may be a fair reading of the law, but it may not. It's never been tested in appellate courts, and it raises serious questions. Some argued in the wake of the John Edwards case premised on this theory that for the contribution to turn on its purpose would be unconstitutionally vague. This article discusses that (deep into it):
One point I find disturbing and confounding about the theory is that it suggests that what you should have done is pay the hush money directly from campaign funds, but that would be illegal! We would have thus criminalized candidates paying hush money, period, without actually passing a law to that effect.
I say all this because I worry that what the other side says has more than a kernel of truth to it. When the prosecution involves a novel theory premised on other crimes not charged or proved, when it involves stuffing misdemeanors inside misdemeanors inside misdemeanors in what I described as a Rube Goldberg machine and what the WSJ more aptly described as a legal turducken to conjure a dramatic conviction on 34 felonies, when the prosecutor is a Democrat and the defendant is a Republican political candidate, it starts to resemble a politically motivated witch-hunt, and before you pooh-pooh it, consider what you would be hearing on MSNBC non-stop if the parties were reversed, if a Republican prosecutor were going after a Democratic candidate. You'd probably hear, I'd guess, that this isn't about a fair, consistent application of the law but rather about contorting it in a deliberate effort to harass, hobble, and embarrass our guy and is thus an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
The other side is invested in eviscerating all faith in our institutions, including the courts. It's a cynical view that sees the criminal law as the infinitely malleable tool of tyrants. And yet, our criminal laws can be disturbingly expansive. I was really impressed by that fact when I studied federal criminal law in law school in relation to laws like the RICO and mail fraud statutes. The old saying is that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. That class convinced me that they could convict a ham sandwich too. It thus falls on prosecutors not to lend credence to that cynical view. Maybe this was a close case, but the more I look into it, the more I despair that it was a real stretch.
But JakeH this was not a grand jury, this was a jury of 12 that found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.And Trump gets to attack this legal theory on appeal.
Trump has been found guilty both in civil court and now state court in proceedings that Joe Biden has no control over.
And it has been a pretty regular occurrence in Illinois that a prosecutor that can put an Illinois governor in jail, boosts his own political standing to run for public office.
The solution for this political issue, don’t commit crimes, especially while in office.
Trump and the Republicans do not seem to have the ability to win in litigation. Their primary legal method of “fighting back” is selective pardons for guilty folks they like.
I'm not questioning the jury at all. On the law and facts and argument presented to them, it was an easy case, and they did their duty, and thank you for your service. (And Trump is a total prick for disparaging the jury and the judge, and he's likewise a total prick for talking about Biden or any of that bullshit, agreed.)
Of course, he will be able to challenge various aspects of the case on appeal. Venue, the one he likes, won't be a good one, but there will surely be other non-frivolous grounds. For example, I'm not so sure that it's kosher that the jurors didn't have to agree on the underlying "unlawful means" that turns the efforts to "promote" an election into the misdemeanor that, in turn, served as the predicate crime necessary to turn the business records violations into felonies. What's more, even if one of those theories of "unlawful means" fails on appeal, putting aside whether unanimity was required or not, it means the case has to go back, because it would mean that at least one juror's guilty vote could have been premised on a bogus theory.
But my comment wasn't really about any of that. It didn't go to the legality of the prosecution, at least not for the most part, but rather to the wisdom of it and whether it represented on the one hand, (a) a fair and consistent application of New York law that anyone could expect to face in similar circumstances regardless of the political affiliations of the people involved or the notoriety or infamousness of the defendant, or, on the other, (b) a contortion or stretch of the law in unusual ways to go after a guy we really, really, really don't like (for, concededly, lots of good reasons). The second one is pretty bad, in my view. I was tempted to see this as sort of like going after Al Capone for tax evasion, but Capone really did straightforwardly commit massive tax evasion to a ludicrous degree.
Hush money isn't illegal. It's questionable whether it's a campaign finance violation, but that wasn't charged by the Southern District. (They could have; they chose not to.) One is left with the impression that Bragg and team had to scour the statute books for something -- anything! -- to nail this guy on, finally alighting on the Rube Goldberg machine that won't net (and probably shouldn't) any jail time, but hey, it's something, finally got the bastard on something, 34 felonies convictions, that's a big number!, serves him right. I guess, that's not my idea of how prosecutors are supposed to work.
I was a big proponent of the 14th Amendment disqualification theory. Yes, it was novel, but Trump's conduct was unique. We don't often have constitutional officers inciting, setting afoot (to use the old time-y language of the Insurrection Act), and then failing to stop when he could have and should have a riot to overturn the outcome of a presidential election according to law. The constitutional text and history seemed tailor-made to deliver the exceedingly appropriate remedy (not punishment, really) of disqualification. If the Supreme Court had unanimously agreed, as they should have, that states were free to adjudicate Trump's qualification on this ground as they are with respect to any other constitutional qualification, that would have been dandy in my view. He and his friends would no doubt have said he's being railroaded, but the point is that they would have been clearly wrong (and, in this alternate universe, it would have come at the hands of justices he appointed, strengthening its legitimacy). Here, he and his friends are complaining that he's being railroaded, but they're not so clearly wrong! I don't want any railroading of anyone.
JakeH, you say, “It's questionable whether it's a campaign finance violation, but that wasn't charged by the Southern District.” Oh, but it was. Michael Cohen was charged and went to prison for a campaign finance violation relating to the Stormy Daniels payment. Why should Trump, the person for whose benefit the scheme was engineered, get a pass while Michael Cohen got three years?
I think that's an argument that the Southern District should have prosecuted Trump for the campaign finance thing. It's still not quite clear to me why they didn't as soon as he left office. This article floats gobs of notions about it.
Thank you for posting this interesting and informative article. I must say that I thoroughly enjoy our discussions in this forum. You are very bright, well informed, and I always have to think twice and learn a little when you challenge me!
There were a number of articles about the southern District of New York being a hot bed of Trump supporters, which is why he was never charged with a crime by them!
JakeH: You write that “[t]he legal alchemy by which two or three different misdemeanors can combine to create a felony strikes me as a bit dubious and troubling.” Why? The legislature defines what conduct is criminal and the seriousness of that conduct. It’s not legal alchemy. It seems to me to be quite reasonable that the legislature would consider falsifying business records to be more serious if it was done to cover up a crime. Consider hate crime in Illinois. It is a misdemeanor to commit battery—to make physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with someone or to cause them bodily harm. And it is not a crime at all to hate someone because they are black or gay, etc. But combine the two: commit a battery by reason of the other person’s race, sexual orientation, etc., and the crime is a felony. The short answer to all of the excuses being offered by Trump and his cult members/minions is Baretta’s saying, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”
Fair point. I agree that the legislature can define the crimes however they want within constitutional limits, and I'm not really questioning the legality of using the New York election misdemeanor as a predicate to bump up the business records violations. I'm questioning rather the wisdom of this exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
Along those lines, I was really surprised on a gut level to learn yesterday that the New York election law -- the thing that makes the business records violations much worse, the thing that some are using to argue for prison time because it's so serious -- was itself a mere misdemeanor, and I was likewise surprised to learn that it's hardly ever been prosecuted.
To your point, though, suppose you lied on two related business records but there is no other crime involved. Two misdemeanors, right? But, hey, why not say that the first was committed with an intent to cover up the second and the second was committed with an intent to cover up the first (or they were both committed with an intent to commit yet a third)? Presto, two felonies. Neat! That's what I mean by "alchemy." It would strike me as a questionable practice, even if it were within the letter of the law.
I'd be curious to know whether any prior New York first degree business records prosecutions relied for their predicate crime exclusively on a mere misdemeanor. My hunch is probably not, though I could certainly be wrong about that. If I'm not wrong, I think that fact would be highly relevant not so much in a legal analysis as an analysis of whether, as I said, the prosecution amounted to a stretch.
Re hate crime enhancements, I'm actually one of those annoying people who have issues with them. It seems like we're punishing protected expression. Suppose a law says that trespassing is a misdemeanor but it's a felony if it's done for the purpose of voicing anti-American sentiments. Thus the college kid who pitches a tent on the quad just for fun commits a misdemeanor but one who pitches a tent as part of a protest with a sign saying "Death to America" commits a felony. That strikes me as quite similar and similarly troublesome.
I realize of course that hate crimes can have a terroristic effect on victims that makes them worse, more hurtful to and more scary for victims. But I'm not sure the law should treat them differently from an assault based on one's occupation or political affiliation, say, or one based on what you're wearing or your tattoos or your hair, say. The more I think about it, the more I keep coming back to the fact that I really don't like violence for any reason unless it has some legal justification or mitigation (like a heinous heat-of-the-moment provocation).
Re Baretta, I have zero sympathy with Trump, to be clear. My concern is that, just as I've thought all along that Trump should be treated no better than any defendant, it's equally imperative that he be treated no worse (no matter what he and his braying army of nincompoops say). We both know that prosecutors don't charge everyone with every crime they possibly could. They have to make policy decisions about how to use the often quite expansive tools at their disposal to ensure over time consistency and fairness in application. Both Vance and Bragg for a time felt that this case didn't merit going forward on that terrain, and I'm starting to agree with that instinct. I don't want his apologists to be right. I worry a lot when our side proves them even a little right.
Bravo! Petit larceny, a misdemeanor, serves as the basis of a felony business records violation where the defendant "returned" merchandise they hadn't purchased for a store credit then used to buy other stuff. The fraudulent business record charge is premised on causing the store to enter a false credit. Very cute. The case cites to two other cases where defendants did similar things.
Let me ask you a question, though. Do you like this use of the business records law? I mean, in a cosmic sense, how is this conduct worse than just shoplifting that would involve no business record? What about the business record aspect of the defendants' conduct, in your mind, makes this a significantly more serious crime than just stealing stuff? My vote would be to punish these people the same as shoplifters of items of similar value.
But maybe your point is, hey, what's good enough for Ramirez is certainly good enough for Trump, and I'm with you there.
Do I like this use of the business records law? To be honest I would have to say no. It’s similar to the Illinois rule that allows what would otherwise be retail theft misdemeanants to be convicted of the felony of burglary if the State can prove they had an intent to steal at the time they entered the store. The theory being that the entry into the building was unauthorized because a merchant’s invitation to enter, which is extended to the public at large, does not apply to people who have an intent to steal. See below.
What makes the Trump New York prosecution seem completely fair and reasonable to me is the fact that Michael Cohen got a three-year prison sentence for his involvement in the Stormy Daniels affair, and, at least until July 11, 2024, Trump, the person for whose benefit the whole cover-up was engineered, will have suffered no consequences at all.
Yeah, but he pled on a federal charge never brought against Trump. Maybe it's a touch of cosmic justice, but I'm not sure I buy that a state prosecutor should move in ways they ordinarily wouldn't to make up for the feds not moving on it. Maybe.
I really like the angle, though, that criminal defendants like retail thieves routinely face dubious, stretchy legal shenanigans like the business record thing and the not-a-burglary theory you mention (which strikes me as a joke, frankly) -- the sort of thing I'm complaining about -- and what's sauce for the goose, etc. I would prefer a world with no shenanigans.
There is, I think, a significant legal difference between a real estate broker refusing to show a home to someone because they are black, and refusing to show a home to someone because of a previous unpleasant interaction with them. Do you think the law should treat both of those incidents the same?
Bravo again. I think it's probably super hard to distinguish anti-discrimination law, which I fully support, from hate-motivated enhancements. You're effectively punishing the person more for discriminating in victim selection. I don't love it. I want to say something like, in the real estate case or any public accommodation case, the crime *is* the discrimination -- the denial of service or whatever -- and not the thoughts or feelings of the discriminator, except as necessary to prove that the discrimination took place, but that seems perilously close to a distinction without a difference, so big point to you on that one. Makes me want to read up more on the issue which I think has crossed Eric's desk a few times over the years.
Eric - Your commentary on the Cheneddy Carter's blindside hard foul on Caitlin Clark does not include any discussion of Carter's history of bad behavior in the league to the point where two previous teams she played for gave up on her due to her bad conduct. Here's a brief summary
Carter obviously has anger management issues as well as difficulty with sportsmanship. Given her history, a suspension for at least a couple games would have been appropriate after her blindside flagrant foul on Clark.
(And Angel Reese disgustingly giving Carter boisterous congratulations immediately afterward reveals that Reese has her own serious issues as well.)
Based on the comments here, I suspect I will be in the minority. My view on the WNBA thing is that too many people are basing their beliefs on false assumptions. Many defend dirty plays in the WNBA because they also occur in other sports such as the NBA or NHL. But these types of plays are also wrong in those sports and often punished. There are those that defend them because Clark has pulled a few dirty tricks of her own. I consider that idiotic. Then punish her. There are those that suggest that people opposing what's going on simply don't know the game. It's possible I don't. I've only been a coach and referee as well as a player for over fifty years. Go back and read what was written in the article. The WNBA refs get a pass because because they didn't call technical fouls at the time? The NBA refs have been catching hell from all quarters. So why not the WNBA refs? I don't watch much NBA basketball any more. I'm not appreciative of the way it's played or the actions of players. So I don't like what's happening in the WNBA, it means I am being consistent. It does not show old school disdain for women's sports. Basketball is a lovely game when played in the right flow with great passing and teamwork and solid defense. I find nothing attractive about unneeded elbows, pushing, shoving, trash talk and other negatives. It might be common. But I'll leave it to others to watch it. The saddest thing is watching this type of behavior filter down to even grade school basketball. Yes, I am a witness as I am still an active referee. The best ones call the technicals. Or is there something wrong for us for not simply going with the flow and letting young kids play like the pros?
We shouldn't forget that the bizarre ward map for the city and requirement to engage a party hack adds significant inefficiency and cost to any services that are dependent on them. Mayor Emanual recognized this when he was finally able to get the trash pick-up changed from ward based to simple geography. Dispatching landscape waste pickup by ward cannot be efficient or effective.
Trump is a narcissist, fantasists, opportunist, and bloviator. There is no reason for anyone to believe that he has any insight into Putin or hostage deals that might interest the Russian's. It is absurd to believe that they would toss Trump a freebie for a high value prisoner AFTER he was elected and before he had delivered something of real value to them. They are effective negotiators. If Trump does have juice, then what about Paul Whelan? If asked, I am sure he would have some silly art-of -the-deal and personal skills response, that would also be nonsense.
This is a very interesting interview with the author of a new book on hostage negotiations:
Until I read the final sentence on Nelly Korda, I had no idea what sport she played & then I realized, golf isn't a sport, but a game of skill, like pool or blackjack!
It’s a game of athletic skill, ergo a sport
There's zero athleticism in golf!
As someone said decades ago, "Golf is a good walk spoiled"!
Problem said by someone who has never played. 😀
Doesn't matter who said it, because it's true!
Usually (mis)-attributed to Mark Twain.
apparently you've never played and seldom watched golf on tv - that's ok, nothing wrong with that. but if i'm right about you, then you're wrong about golf not being a sport.
and, accd'g to perplexity.ai, the origin of the the phrase "Golf is a good walk spoiled" is murky. however, john feinstein, a sports writer, wrote the book 'A Good Walk Spoiled', about golf. i'm confident feinstein believes golf is s asport.
My brother-in-law and my son have many spirited conversations about what is and what isn’t a sport. Is archery a sport? bowling? Diving? What is the threshold? Is it sustained exertion? Golf requires a certain amount of strength, a lot of coordination, and, especially if you were walking the course, mild exertion over about four hours. That qualifies in my book. But I would like to know your standards for sports and non-sports.
I note that some schools are now offering sports scholarships to those who play video games. I would draw the line there. I would probably also draw the line somewhere near chess, which is a game. Chess is not a sport anymore than poker is a sport.
Golf, archery, bowling aren't sports. Neither are video games, chess , poker, checkers or playing monopoly!
There's no exertion in golf, Trump proves that!
Diving is, because it requires actual athletic ability to make those turns & flips in the air. You also must know how to swim, which is also a sport.
Rhythmic gymnastics & ballroom dancing also aren't sports, neither is break dancing which is going to waste time at the Paris Olympics.
Equestrianism isn't a sport for the humans, it is for the horses!
Possible litmus test — if the contestants (not coaches) could play the game by telling someone else to make all moves/decisions on their behalf, it’s not a sport. I suppose that would label most video games as sports as well, as long as physical dexterity is required (not just strategy).
I would think that would rule out only chess and other pure mind games.
I’m OK with that — “sport” seems to be a widely broad term; however, I think a sport does not require “athleticism,” a specific type of physical ability not needed for all sports.
I suppose pool (pocket billiards) should be a sport. It requires hand-eye coordination and an ability to create different levels of momentum through the use of one’s arm and hands. Putting the right English (spin) and momentum on the cue ball is paramount. If the pentathlon is a sport, why not pool?
Ballroom dancing at high levels requires all kinds of exertion -- what about all those figure skating and gymnastics events. Your line isn't very clear (mine isn't either, FWIW
There are many things which do require physical exertion that I don't consider sports and I don't believe just because you compete with other(s) makes something a sport. I would include dancing and certain other artistic/intellectual activities as examples. I also believe any activity that abuses an animal NOT a sport.
i'll give you 'mostly right' about the lack of exertion in golf, when riding a cart. but when walking golf - which i love - and especially when walking & carrying clubs - which i like - i can guarantee you there is much exertion. you shd try carrying a bag-ful of golf clubs, with the various accessories inside it, around an 18 hole golf course - then report back to us on whether you exxperienced any exertion.
I prefer the definition I heard long ago: If you can hold a beer while playing, it isn’t a sport.
Based on a rudimentary search with Uncle Google, A sport is an activity involving physical exertion, skill, and competition. Therefore, all sports are competitions but not all competitions are sports.
So break dancing would be a sport, but chess would not, even though I suspect most of the boomers on this site would feel chess is more "noble" than break dancing.
Golf, tennis, baseball, track, football, chess, curling, archery, etc., etc., are competitive games. Some require a lot of physical exertion, some do not; some require a lot of mental exertion, some do not. Some require both, some require neither. Some require animals--racing, hunting, polo. Whatever floats your boat. Who cares which are "sports"?
"...especially if you were walking the course, mild exertion over about four hours."
I'd love to see some of these fatties spend four hours walking around Augusta National. They'd puke, then roll off the 15th green into the pond.
And do it 4 days in a row!
Swinging a golf club effectively, which I have never been able to do consistently, seems to me to qualify as a sport. What about arm wrestling?
The "Wide World of Sports" used to cover it, so it must be!!
If memory serves, the silly 1974 movie "The Groove Tube" included a sequence portraying sex as an Olympic (hence sports) event. The 75-minute YouTube video from which I once marked that scene's time from about minute 0:58 to 1:04 seems to be no longer available, but anybody who can get access should evaluate it in a "sport or not" context.
Sex = physical exertion / athleticism (check), skill (ideally), competition (too often)?
Anything that is measured subjectively isn't a sport. To be considered a sport it needs to require athletic skills (physical strength, hand/eye coordination...) and be able scored objectively by time or points etc. Swimming, golf, tennis, base/foot/basket ball auto racing etc.
All sports are “games of skill”. You could exclude golf on the “physical effort” part of the definition. Could then also exclude other olympic events: archery, curling, diving, equestrian, luge, bobsled, skeleton, shooting, sailing, etc. Also non olympic activities like bowling, auto racing, etc. The “sport” label doesn’t bother me on any of the above. All involve skill and some level of physical effort above those of us watching them from our couch. 😉
Regarding the White Sox, during last night’s game the Cubs announcers showed a graphic that said the Sox led the lead by far in blown 2 run leads. About 12-15 if I remember right. I had no idea they led in that many. They’d be almost respectable if they could hold a lead.
sad but too true. they did it again last nite.
As bad as the Sox have been, there have been a few bright spots, namely their starting pitching. Eric Fedde and Garret Crochet have had numerous outings in which their pitching was superlative, only to have their performances nullified by a bullpen that can’t hold leads.
I do like Fedde and Crochet. I’ve gotten tired of Kopech. I had such high hopes for him a few years ago.
My sentiments exactly. "I sigh in despair at the insufferable stupidity of the purity police on the left. One of two elderly men is going to be elected president in November. Biden will not and has not perfectly served your agenda. Trump will be an unmitigated fucking disaster for it. Sitting on the sidelines and pouting should not be an option. Wake up. Understand the stakes on these and other issues."
Too right. Re-elect President Biden, and elect a Democratic Senate and House and THEN fight your internal battles, Don't these people understand that every damned thing that Democratic Biden critics hold dear is at stake?
The same can be said for the pro Palestine/anti Israel crowd.
Correctly called the Pro Hamas, Jew hater crowd.
re the carter-clark WNBA dustup - have read the responses, mostly thoughtful, to EZ's op-ed in in the Tues Picayune, and EZ's pt-by-pt analysis. i'm with EZ on this issue.
ok, now i can move on.
Agreed.
Trump declares that Russian President Vladimir Putin will release imprisoned Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich if and only if Trump is elected in November because Putin "would do that for me." He's probably right, given how autocrats benefit from each other's suppression of democracy in their respective countries. Would the idea of the convicted felon having the moral capacity to call that favor now and spare Gershovich another 6 months in a Russian prison even enter the MAGA consciousness? Of course not, but this is nothing new in the Republican playbook. Go back to the 1980 October Surprise when Reagan's team made the secret deal with Iran to not release 66 American hostages until after the election so President Carter would not benefit from what would have been the biggest news item in the upcoming election.
"My 4-year-old uses the word “human” instead of “person.”"
This amused me, because the other day I hear a mom say to her kid, "Come on, little human being."
re the carter-clark WNBA dustup
I'm not a basketball fan and don't know all the rules. That said, it sounds to me like unsportsmen like conduct as the play was over and the whistle blown. Like a late hit in football.
From what I understand of the sport, had the dustup occurred a few seconds earlier, it would have been fine.
what am I missing?
What Carter did would never have been “fine”. Ever. You don’t blindside block players like she did whether the ball is live or dead. It’s probably worth your while to look up the play and watch it which would help you understand at least that part of the issue.
Well, if I may interpret -- it would have been a common and somewhat unremarkable foul had Carter banged hard into Clark's back going for a rebound or following her shot, knocking her down. Not "fine," but not unusual or controversial.
Agree but if a player is just standing there, regardless of ball status, I’m calling a foul and considering a T or ejection if it’s a game I’m officiating.
That hit is worse than a late hit in football which at least is presumably a tackler getting confused on where the sideline is. That at least would be tied to some game action as in your examples. The hit on Clark was not tied to game action in any way.
I would like to take the opportunity to remember the 80th anniversary of D Day. May all the dead rest in peace and a salute to those few still living.
Thank you for a difficult and dangerous job well done!
Reminded of an old saying about a person being known by the company they keep. Then reading about Putin, Yong Un and Urban supporting tRump's candidacy.
Sadly, for me anyway, there is no “nah” choice for tweet of the week. None of them really hit the mark for me.
Craig - While I found a couple of them amusing, I agree with your sentiment. Hey, EZ - You could make one of each of the selections each week "I find none of these amusing." It would be interesting to see how well that selection does each week. I would certainly opt for that on the Dad Tweets for most weeks.
Some thoughts re the "Squaring Up the News" link to "All the arguments against Trump's conviction, debunked."
It's pretty good, but:
- It leaves out that the other crime necessary to turn the false business records into felonies is itself a mere misdemeanor, something I've seen nowhere discussed but which lends credence to the idea that the prosecution was a stretch. After all, nobody would have bothered if all they could get Trump on were mere misdemeanors. The legal alchemy by which two or three different misdemeanors can combine to create a felony strikes me as a bit dubious and troubling.
- The article says that prosecutions under Bragg's theory are rare because the crime is rare. That's a fair point, except the writer sets up a standard that's very hard to meet. He demands that we point to other people who could have been charged under the theory but were not. But that's awfully hard to know, isn't it? There's no publicly available record of investigations or charges considered but not pursued or brought. Meanwhile, the business records laws are quite expansive and don't only reach people who own their own businesses or the records of one's own business as the would-be debunker suggests. For example, falsifying absentee ballot applications would violate the statute because it would cause the New York State Board of Elections to file a false "business record." The other crime, the New York election law misdemeanor, is likewise quite expansive, outlawing any effort to "promote" an election to public office by any "unlawful means." Given that these laws by their terms sweep broadly, it's not too much to expect to see precedents.
This Washington Post article gives voice to both sides but lends support to the idea that Bragg's approach was novel, that he had to dust off an "obscure law" in order to make the charges work. It gives the impression that there have been hardly any prosecutions over some 50 years under the election law misdemeanor used as the predicate in the Trump case. (One lawyer quoted speculates that this is because the typical election case involves more serious offenses.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/06/trump-hush-money-trial-election-law/
This article makes an effort to gather precedents. It's pretty good, but it's a little quick to say that the cited cases are "on all fours," as lawyers say, with the Trump case. The prosecutions described involve more clear violations of more serious laws. None, as far as I can tell, rely exclusively on a misdemeanor election law violation as a predicate to felony business records violations.
https://www.justsecurity.org/85745/survey-of-prosecutions-for-covert-payments-to-benefit-campaigns/
- Meanwhile, there are real questions about whether the federal election law violation, one of three possible "unlawful means" that the jury could consider to find a violation of the state election law misdemeanor (the others being tax law and other misdemeanor business records violations), really constitutes such. It's important to remember that paying hush money to cover up an affair is not in itself any sort of crime. To turn it into a federal election law violation, you have to understand it as, in effect, a campaign contribution in excess of limits. This may be a fair reading of the law, but it may not. It's never been tested in appellate courts, and it raises serious questions. Some argued in the wake of the John Edwards case premised on this theory that for the contribution to turn on its purpose would be unconstitutionally vague. This article discusses that (deep into it):
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/why-did-federal-prosecutors-drop-trump's-hush-money-case
linking to:
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=18735
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/06/john-edwards-indictment-was-his-affair-with-rielle-hunter-a-campaign-expense.html
One point I find disturbing and confounding about the theory is that it suggests that what you should have done is pay the hush money directly from campaign funds, but that would be illegal! We would have thus criminalized candidates paying hush money, period, without actually passing a law to that effect.
I say all this because I worry that what the other side says has more than a kernel of truth to it. When the prosecution involves a novel theory premised on other crimes not charged or proved, when it involves stuffing misdemeanors inside misdemeanors inside misdemeanors in what I described as a Rube Goldberg machine and what the WSJ more aptly described as a legal turducken to conjure a dramatic conviction on 34 felonies, when the prosecutor is a Democrat and the defendant is a Republican political candidate, it starts to resemble a politically motivated witch-hunt, and before you pooh-pooh it, consider what you would be hearing on MSNBC non-stop if the parties were reversed, if a Republican prosecutor were going after a Democratic candidate. You'd probably hear, I'd guess, that this isn't about a fair, consistent application of the law but rather about contorting it in a deliberate effort to harass, hobble, and embarrass our guy and is thus an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
The other side is invested in eviscerating all faith in our institutions, including the courts. It's a cynical view that sees the criminal law as the infinitely malleable tool of tyrants. And yet, our criminal laws can be disturbingly expansive. I was really impressed by that fact when I studied federal criminal law in law school in relation to laws like the RICO and mail fraud statutes. The old saying is that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. That class convinced me that they could convict a ham sandwich too. It thus falls on prosecutors not to lend credence to that cynical view. Maybe this was a close case, but the more I look into it, the more I despair that it was a real stretch.
But JakeH this was not a grand jury, this was a jury of 12 that found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.And Trump gets to attack this legal theory on appeal.
Trump has been found guilty both in civil court and now state court in proceedings that Joe Biden has no control over.
And it has been a pretty regular occurrence in Illinois that a prosecutor that can put an Illinois governor in jail, boosts his own political standing to run for public office.
The solution for this political issue, don’t commit crimes, especially while in office.
Trump and the Republicans do not seem to have the ability to win in litigation. Their primary legal method of “fighting back” is selective pardons for guilty folks they like.
I'm not questioning the jury at all. On the law and facts and argument presented to them, it was an easy case, and they did their duty, and thank you for your service. (And Trump is a total prick for disparaging the jury and the judge, and he's likewise a total prick for talking about Biden or any of that bullshit, agreed.)
Of course, he will be able to challenge various aspects of the case on appeal. Venue, the one he likes, won't be a good one, but there will surely be other non-frivolous grounds. For example, I'm not so sure that it's kosher that the jurors didn't have to agree on the underlying "unlawful means" that turns the efforts to "promote" an election into the misdemeanor that, in turn, served as the predicate crime necessary to turn the business records violations into felonies. What's more, even if one of those theories of "unlawful means" fails on appeal, putting aside whether unanimity was required or not, it means the case has to go back, because it would mean that at least one juror's guilty vote could have been premised on a bogus theory.
But my comment wasn't really about any of that. It didn't go to the legality of the prosecution, at least not for the most part, but rather to the wisdom of it and whether it represented on the one hand, (a) a fair and consistent application of New York law that anyone could expect to face in similar circumstances regardless of the political affiliations of the people involved or the notoriety or infamousness of the defendant, or, on the other, (b) a contortion or stretch of the law in unusual ways to go after a guy we really, really, really don't like (for, concededly, lots of good reasons). The second one is pretty bad, in my view. I was tempted to see this as sort of like going after Al Capone for tax evasion, but Capone really did straightforwardly commit massive tax evasion to a ludicrous degree.
Hush money isn't illegal. It's questionable whether it's a campaign finance violation, but that wasn't charged by the Southern District. (They could have; they chose not to.) One is left with the impression that Bragg and team had to scour the statute books for something -- anything! -- to nail this guy on, finally alighting on the Rube Goldberg machine that won't net (and probably shouldn't) any jail time, but hey, it's something, finally got the bastard on something, 34 felonies convictions, that's a big number!, serves him right. I guess, that's not my idea of how prosecutors are supposed to work.
I was a big proponent of the 14th Amendment disqualification theory. Yes, it was novel, but Trump's conduct was unique. We don't often have constitutional officers inciting, setting afoot (to use the old time-y language of the Insurrection Act), and then failing to stop when he could have and should have a riot to overturn the outcome of a presidential election according to law. The constitutional text and history seemed tailor-made to deliver the exceedingly appropriate remedy (not punishment, really) of disqualification. If the Supreme Court had unanimously agreed, as they should have, that states were free to adjudicate Trump's qualification on this ground as they are with respect to any other constitutional qualification, that would have been dandy in my view. He and his friends would no doubt have said he's being railroaded, but the point is that they would have been clearly wrong (and, in this alternate universe, it would have come at the hands of justices he appointed, strengthening its legitimacy). Here, he and his friends are complaining that he's being railroaded, but they're not so clearly wrong! I don't want any railroading of anyone.
JakeH, you say, “It's questionable whether it's a campaign finance violation, but that wasn't charged by the Southern District.” Oh, but it was. Michael Cohen was charged and went to prison for a campaign finance violation relating to the Stormy Daniels payment. Why should Trump, the person for whose benefit the scheme was engineered, get a pass while Michael Cohen got three years?
I think that's an argument that the Southern District should have prosecuted Trump for the campaign finance thing. It's still not quite clear to me why they didn't as soon as he left office. This article floats gobs of notions about it.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/why-did-federal-prosecutors-drop-trump's-hush-money-case
Thank you for posting this interesting and informative article. I must say that I thoroughly enjoy our discussions in this forum. You are very bright, well informed, and I always have to think twice and learn a little when you challenge me!
There were a number of articles about the southern District of New York being a hot bed of Trump supporters, which is why he was never charged with a crime by them!
JakeH: You write that “[t]he legal alchemy by which two or three different misdemeanors can combine to create a felony strikes me as a bit dubious and troubling.” Why? The legislature defines what conduct is criminal and the seriousness of that conduct. It’s not legal alchemy. It seems to me to be quite reasonable that the legislature would consider falsifying business records to be more serious if it was done to cover up a crime. Consider hate crime in Illinois. It is a misdemeanor to commit battery—to make physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with someone or to cause them bodily harm. And it is not a crime at all to hate someone because they are black or gay, etc. But combine the two: commit a battery by reason of the other person’s race, sexual orientation, etc., and the crime is a felony. The short answer to all of the excuses being offered by Trump and his cult members/minions is Baretta’s saying, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”
Fair point. I agree that the legislature can define the crimes however they want within constitutional limits, and I'm not really questioning the legality of using the New York election misdemeanor as a predicate to bump up the business records violations. I'm questioning rather the wisdom of this exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
Along those lines, I was really surprised on a gut level to learn yesterday that the New York election law -- the thing that makes the business records violations much worse, the thing that some are using to argue for prison time because it's so serious -- was itself a mere misdemeanor, and I was likewise surprised to learn that it's hardly ever been prosecuted.
To your point, though, suppose you lied on two related business records but there is no other crime involved. Two misdemeanors, right? But, hey, why not say that the first was committed with an intent to cover up the second and the second was committed with an intent to cover up the first (or they were both committed with an intent to commit yet a third)? Presto, two felonies. Neat! That's what I mean by "alchemy." It would strike me as a questionable practice, even if it were within the letter of the law.
I'd be curious to know whether any prior New York first degree business records prosecutions relied for their predicate crime exclusively on a mere misdemeanor. My hunch is probably not, though I could certainly be wrong about that. If I'm not wrong, I think that fact would be highly relevant not so much in a legal analysis as an analysis of whether, as I said, the prosecution amounted to a stretch.
Re hate crime enhancements, I'm actually one of those annoying people who have issues with them. It seems like we're punishing protected expression. Suppose a law says that trespassing is a misdemeanor but it's a felony if it's done for the purpose of voicing anti-American sentiments. Thus the college kid who pitches a tent on the quad just for fun commits a misdemeanor but one who pitches a tent as part of a protest with a sign saying "Death to America" commits a felony. That strikes me as quite similar and similarly troublesome.
I realize of course that hate crimes can have a terroristic effect on victims that makes them worse, more hurtful to and more scary for victims. But I'm not sure the law should treat them differently from an assault based on one's occupation or political affiliation, say, or one based on what you're wearing or your tattoos or your hair, say. The more I think about it, the more I keep coming back to the fact that I really don't like violence for any reason unless it has some legal justification or mitigation (like a heinous heat-of-the-moment provocation).
Re Baretta, I have zero sympathy with Trump, to be clear. My concern is that, just as I've thought all along that Trump should be treated no better than any defendant, it's equally imperative that he be treated no worse (no matter what he and his braying army of nincompoops say). We both know that prosecutors don't charge everyone with every crime they possibly could. They have to make policy decisions about how to use the often quite expansive tools at their disposal to ensure over time consistency and fairness in application. Both Vance and Bragg for a time felt that this case didn't merit going forward on that terrain, and I'm starting to agree with that instinct. I don't want his apologists to be right. I worry a lot when our side proves them even a little right.
https://casetext.com/case/people-v-ramirez-659
Bravo! Petit larceny, a misdemeanor, serves as the basis of a felony business records violation where the defendant "returned" merchandise they hadn't purchased for a store credit then used to buy other stuff. The fraudulent business record charge is premised on causing the store to enter a false credit. Very cute. The case cites to two other cases where defendants did similar things.
Let me ask you a question, though. Do you like this use of the business records law? I mean, in a cosmic sense, how is this conduct worse than just shoplifting that would involve no business record? What about the business record aspect of the defendants' conduct, in your mind, makes this a significantly more serious crime than just stealing stuff? My vote would be to punish these people the same as shoplifters of items of similar value.
But maybe your point is, hey, what's good enough for Ramirez is certainly good enough for Trump, and I'm with you there.
Do I like this use of the business records law? To be honest I would have to say no. It’s similar to the Illinois rule that allows what would otherwise be retail theft misdemeanants to be convicted of the felony of burglary if the State can prove they had an intent to steal at the time they entered the store. The theory being that the entry into the building was unauthorized because a merchant’s invitation to enter, which is extended to the public at large, does not apply to people who have an intent to steal. See below.
What makes the Trump New York prosecution seem completely fair and reasonable to me is the fact that Michael Cohen got a three-year prison sentence for his involvement in the Stormy Daniels affair, and, at least until July 11, 2024, Trump, the person for whose benefit the whole cover-up was engineered, will have suffered no consequences at all.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/il-court-of-appeals/1935492.html
Yeah, but he pled on a federal charge never brought against Trump. Maybe it's a touch of cosmic justice, but I'm not sure I buy that a state prosecutor should move in ways they ordinarily wouldn't to make up for the feds not moving on it. Maybe.
I really like the angle, though, that criminal defendants like retail thieves routinely face dubious, stretchy legal shenanigans like the business record thing and the not-a-burglary theory you mention (which strikes me as a joke, frankly) -- the sort of thing I'm complaining about -- and what's sauce for the goose, etc. I would prefer a world with no shenanigans.
There is, I think, a significant legal difference between a real estate broker refusing to show a home to someone because they are black, and refusing to show a home to someone because of a previous unpleasant interaction with them. Do you think the law should treat both of those incidents the same?
Bravo again. I think it's probably super hard to distinguish anti-discrimination law, which I fully support, from hate-motivated enhancements. You're effectively punishing the person more for discriminating in victim selection. I don't love it. I want to say something like, in the real estate case or any public accommodation case, the crime *is* the discrimination -- the denial of service or whatever -- and not the thoughts or feelings of the discriminator, except as necessary to prove that the discrimination took place, but that seems perilously close to a distinction without a difference, so big point to you on that one. Makes me want to read up more on the issue which I think has crossed Eric's desk a few times over the years.
p.s. Hey, thanks for making me change my mind a bit. That's fun!
Eric - Your commentary on the Cheneddy Carter's blindside hard foul on Caitlin Clark does not include any discussion of Carter's history of bad behavior in the league to the point where two previous teams she played for gave up on her due to her bad conduct. Here's a brief summary
https://athlonsports.com/wnba/chennedy-carters-disturbing-past-has-wnba-fans-concerned-for-caitlin-clark
Carter obviously has anger management issues as well as difficulty with sportsmanship. Given her history, a suspension for at least a couple games would have been appropriate after her blindside flagrant foul on Clark.
(And Angel Reese disgustingly giving Carter boisterous congratulations immediately afterward reveals that Reese has her own serious issues as well.)
The “Deep-fry Your Money in Batter” Tweet should have been held for your next Dad Joke TotW.
I also enjoyed the "pillow fight" Tweet, but its humor seems to have been lost on most voters.
Based on the comments here, I suspect I will be in the minority. My view on the WNBA thing is that too many people are basing their beliefs on false assumptions. Many defend dirty plays in the WNBA because they also occur in other sports such as the NBA or NHL. But these types of plays are also wrong in those sports and often punished. There are those that defend them because Clark has pulled a few dirty tricks of her own. I consider that idiotic. Then punish her. There are those that suggest that people opposing what's going on simply don't know the game. It's possible I don't. I've only been a coach and referee as well as a player for over fifty years. Go back and read what was written in the article. The WNBA refs get a pass because because they didn't call technical fouls at the time? The NBA refs have been catching hell from all quarters. So why not the WNBA refs? I don't watch much NBA basketball any more. I'm not appreciative of the way it's played or the actions of players. So I don't like what's happening in the WNBA, it means I am being consistent. It does not show old school disdain for women's sports. Basketball is a lovely game when played in the right flow with great passing and teamwork and solid defense. I find nothing attractive about unneeded elbows, pushing, shoving, trash talk and other negatives. It might be common. But I'll leave it to others to watch it. The saddest thing is watching this type of behavior filter down to even grade school basketball. Yes, I am a witness as I am still an active referee. The best ones call the technicals. Or is there something wrong for us for not simply going with the flow and letting young kids play like the pros?
Laurence, my man, you are old school. You are heavy into fairness and sportsmanship.
Hang in there, we need you to keep on coaching and refereeing!
We shouldn't forget that the bizarre ward map for the city and requirement to engage a party hack adds significant inefficiency and cost to any services that are dependent on them. Mayor Emanual recognized this when he was finally able to get the trash pick-up changed from ward based to simple geography. Dispatching landscape waste pickup by ward cannot be efficient or effective.
Same goes for street sweeping.
Trump is a narcissist, fantasists, opportunist, and bloviator. There is no reason for anyone to believe that he has any insight into Putin or hostage deals that might interest the Russian's. It is absurd to believe that they would toss Trump a freebie for a high value prisoner AFTER he was elected and before he had delivered something of real value to them. They are effective negotiators. If Trump does have juice, then what about Paul Whelan? If asked, I am sure he would have some silly art-of -the-deal and personal skills response, that would also be nonsense.
This is a very interesting interview with the author of a new book on hostage negotiations:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/negotiator-reveals-shadowy-world-of-hostage-rescue-in-new-book-in-the-shadows