Sunrise — 5:23, 5:28.

"Prior negotiations ran aground after Hamas insisted that it be able to include dead hostages, as opposed to just living ones, in the number required by the agreement’s first phase."

"In his speech, Biden indicated that Israel had now acceded to this previously rejected stipulation. 'Some remains of hostages who have been killed will be returned to their...families,' he said, 'bringing some degree of closure to their terrible grief.'..."

Writes Yair Rosenberg, in "Biden’s Bold Gaza Cease-Fire Gambit/The president has pushed events as far as he can, but even American presidents have their limits" (The Atlantic).

"Men and other mammals live longer if they are castrated... Cat Bohannon [says]... it is not known why men go through life 'smuggling two little death nuggets.'"

An article at The Guardian. Excerpt:

A 2012 study published in Current Biology found that the average lifespan of 81 eunuchs born between 1556 and 1861 was 70 years, which was 14.4–19.1 years longer than the lifespan of non-castrated men of similar socioeconomic status. Researchers concluded that the study “supports the idea that male sex hormones decrease the lifespan of men.”

"my mom called me sobbing, i thought someone died but she was just happy about trump"

From "Your Mom Is Thrilled About the Trump Verdict" (NY Magazine)("Few people are more amped... than moms who still have the signs they made for the 2017 Women’s March").

Bonus TikTok, making (gentle) fun of Mom for caring so much:

"What should Trump's lawyers do now?" — asks Alan Dershowitz...

... who can't serve as one of Trump's lawyers because he has a rule against representing anybody more than once, and he represented Trump in the first impeachment trial. So he's putting his legal advice out here in the open for all to see:

1. Dershowitz says Trump's lawyers should seek to expedite the sentencing. Make it next week! 

2. And if the judge says no to that, go immediately to the New York Court of Appeals — skip the Appellate Division — and propose an expedited appeal — 2 weeks to file briefs and argument within a month. With all this time pressure, we could get an opinion by August. Trump's antagonists have been stressing the need for proceedings to move quickly so that voters will get the information we need. Now, it will be Trump making that argument. Dershowitz doesn't talk about the value of this discourse in the political realm, but you can see it.

3. Dershowitz outlines the grounds for appeal, stressing the recent Harvey Weinstein case, where the New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction.

4. If the Court of Appeals affirms, then take it to the Supreme Court and ask it to expedite the case. "If I'm Trump's lawyer, everything is speed, speed, speed, speed."

5. Dershowitz says "No, we don't" to Biden's statement that we all need to subordinate ourselves to the decision produced in the legal process. The legal system, Dershowitz informs us, is "deeply flawed." And: "This case was rigged."

ADDED: I received email from someone in a good position to know:

A couple of things about Alan Dershowitz’s recommendations for Trump’s lawyers. First, as to what seems like a lengthy adjournment for sentencing. New York law requires the Department of Probation to draft a pre-sentence report for any defendant convicted of a felony. This cannot be waived. All of us in Manhattan know that the department will not under any circumstance deliver such a report in less than six weeks. In addition, between now and July 11 there are two weekdays in which the courts and all other related agencies, including the Department of Probation are closed for business: June 19 (“Juneteenth”) and July 4. My point is that there are legal and practical reasons for the adjournment, other than the judge’s alleged instransigence.

Second, as one of your commenters has pointed out, there may be a way for the defense to bypass the intermediate Appellate Division, but I’m not aware of it. If there is, it most likely rests with the discretion of the Court of Appeals. Given the composition of the current Court of Appeals, I’d be surprised if the court exercised its discretion in this defendant’s favor.

On the other hand, I’ve been surprised by them before.

Sunrise — 5:05, 5:10, 5:15, 5:18, 5:23.

"This was never about justice — this is about plastering 'convicted felon' all over the airwaves. The only thing that Donald Trump is guilty of is being in the courtroom of a political sham trial."

Said J.D. Vance, quoted in "Trump’s Conviction Binds the G.O.P. Even Closer to Him/Prominent Republicans, including congressional leaders, ex-rivals and potential running mates, basked in the energy, and fund-raising, of an outraged base" (NYT).

Also: "Whether they were congressional leaders, potential running mates or onetime rivals, prominent Republicans’ [made a] speedy alignment behind Mr. Trump, with little dissent or discussion.... 'People now see Donald Trump as a symbol of something,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on Fox News on Friday. 'He’s more than just an individual. He’s a symbol of fighting back against this government corruption, the deep state, the bureaucracy and all the rest.'... Those few who offered even muted words of respect for 'the legal process' earned immediate rebukes.

"A Trump supporter who’s outraged by the verdict is not going to be moved for calm by any Democratic president or Republican president who does not back Donald Trump."

"Even if Biden were not his political opponent, if you’re so outraged by the verdict that you’re ready to take to the street, a Democratic president is not going to reach you. That’s the sad reality of being president today."

Said Jennifer Palmieri, "a former communications director for Hillary Clinton," quoted in "At a Moment of National Trauma, Biden Feels Compelled to Stay on the Sidelines/While presidents typically play a pastoral role after court cases that tear at the national fabric, the incumbent was effectively conflicted out" (NYT).

I think if Biden were at all presentable and capable of reassuring and calming the country, appropriate words could be written for him for him to step up and deliver.

Also, who's "ready to take to the street"? We're not seeing that. And if we were, it would be more important for the President of the United States to show some leadership.

The Trump press conference.

"[T]he conviction of a former president is novel only in the American context."

"Many global heads of state of democratic countries (France, Japan, Israel, etc.) have gone to prison.... The incongruity of the Manhattan case as the venue for Trump’s legal humiliation is that it did not represent his worst crimes, or close to it. The case was always marginal, the kind of charge you would never bring against a regular first-time offender. It was the sort of charge you’d concoct if the target is a bad guy and you want to nail him for something. This, too, is not without precedent. Al Capone’s conviction for tax evasion is the paradigmatic example.... The legal ramifications of this weakness will play out in some indeterminate, possibly terrible fashion.... Life isn’t fair, nor is the legal system...."

Writes Jonathan Chait, in "Trump’s Conviction Means Less Than You Might Think/A lot depends on what happens next" (NY Magazine).

Possibly terrible.... It's obviously terrible. It's only a question of which form of terribleness lies ahead.

So Chait is openly saying the the legal system isn't fair and Trump was convicted for being "a bad guy." You want us non-haters to just accept that, as if it's a form of world-weary sophistication? No, you will have to bear the weight of the consequences of persecuting a political opponent. You should not get off easy. 

"‘I just didn’t recognise him!’ TikToker interviews Baz Luhrmann without knowing who he is – and they talk group sex."

The Guardian reports.

Ha ha ha. Why should she recognize him? Baz Luhrmann is quite famous, but he's not a famous face, and even when someone has a famous face, would you recognize that face if it turned up randomly on the street? You wouldn't know if you didn't. And how many times have you had to say, "Was that [name of celebrity]?" Ever been in the middle of a conversation with someone and had the sneaking suspicion that he thinks you're supposed to know he's somebody? Like Luhrmann in that video, most celebrities, I believe, would refrain from saying the dreaded words "Don't you know who I am?"

Anyway, it's a hilarious conversation. Luhrmann says something about marriage that the TikTokker, Georgia Godworth, paraphrases as “It’s a loose contract where you can fuck other people occasionally.” Luhrmann continues the conversation thoughtfully and politely. Watch the whole thing.

"So if your wife flies a flag you don't like and you can't work it out, your choices are to let her continue flying the flag and stay married or get divorced..."

"... or move out in some other capacity. And if your wife's language is flags and she's angry, and so she's decides to fly this distress flag that had been used by the George Floyd protestors by the stop the steal protestors, basically by protestors across the ideological spectrum. And you're like, Hey, but sweetheart, they're going to think that you are associating yourself with Stop the Steal. And then she goes into some sort of rant about how dare you accuse her of that. And that flag's staying up because you know what? They called me, they followed me in front of my home and their car and called me the C word. And then she like goes to bed and refuses to take down the flag.... What are you supposed to do?... This is like a feminist rant for me.... [T]his is private conduct by a private individual who is married to a Supreme Court justice. Why isn't she entitled to that?.... Think he should recuse because we can't prove that he wasn't involved?"

Says Sarah Isgur in the new episode of the "Advisory Opinions" podcast.

David French insists that he wouldn't allow a flag he didn't agree with to fly in front of his house, and the two go back and forth about how a man would physically accomplish the removal of the flag his wife insisted on flying.

For reference, here's what Alito wrote:

"That 12 Americans could sit in judgment of the former and potentially future president is a remarkable display of the democratic principles that Americans prize at work."

The Editorial Board of The New York Times declares, gesturing at the dubious notion that Donald Trump was treated the same as anyone else.

"[T]he greatest good to come out of this sordid case is the proof that the rule of law binds everyone, even former presidents."

Proof? Binds everyone, perhaps, but not in the same way. 

I agree that the case was sordid, but which way was it sordid? The NYT has taken a position on what is the "greatest good" to come out of this case. Tell me also: What is the greatest evil?

"In a complaint filed Wednesday... Justen Lipeles... alleges that [Madonna concert] attendees were subjected to 'pornography without warning'..."

"... including 'topless women on stage simulating sex acts' in an uncomfortable, sweltering environment. He claims that Madonna demanded the air conditioning be turned off and he became physically ill in the heat. Lipeles also cites Madonna's tardiness.... 'Forcing consumers to wait hours in hot, uncomfortable arenas and subjecting them to pornography without warning is demonstrative of Madonna's flippant disrespect for her fans'...."

From "Madonna hit with new lawsuit alleging unwanted exposure to sexual content and emotional distress/California concert attendee Justen Lipeles is the latest to sue the pop star over her 'Celebration' tour" (Entertainment Weekly).

It was hot and she was late are not interesting complaints. The key phrase here is "pornography without warning." I remember seeing "Marat/Sade" in New York in the 1960s when I was a teenager and feeling quite surprised to see the lead actor become completely naked at one point. Somehow I dealt with it. Should I have been warned? It was supposed to be shocking, not that it was "pornography without warning." It was about revolution and madness, not sex.

Maybe some people would like advance consent to anything sexual, including a theatrical performance. Isn't it enough to know it's Madonna? Who goes to a Madonna concert then complains about topless women on stage simulating sex acts?

Sunrise — 5:02.

The Trump verdict is in.

Waiting...

From WaPo: "Trump was looking cheerful and relaxed, sharing smiles and laughs with his lawyers, as they prepared to leave for the day. As soon as the judge announced that instead we had a verdict, his demeanor changes dramatically. He crossed his arms and knitted his brows. He continued to whisper with attorney Todd Blanche, but no longer cheerfully."

ADDED: An acquittal will do Biden a favor. This story will fade into obscurity.

UPDATE from NYT: "One juror appeared to glance at Trump. The others didn’t."

UPDATE 2 FROM NYT:

Trump is guilty on first eight counts

Counts 9 through 11 are guilty

 UPDATE 3 FROM NYT: 

Trump is unresponsive, sitting slack at the defense table.

ADDED: There goes my hope that this could fade into obscurity. I'm steeling myself for the onslaught of spinning. Too much anxiety and no hope of anything like a normal presidential election. Is this what we, the People, deserve?

AND: Trump speaks. NYT reports it like this: 

“This was a disgrace,” Trump says. “This was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt.”

Trump is significantly less animated than he has been as he rattles off the familiar lines that have characterized his remarks in the hallway for much of the trial. He seems more sober.

He closes by saying, “We will fight for our Constitution. This is long from over.” Then, looking more somber than I have seen him at any point in the last several months, he walks away from the cameras and does not answer questions.

Video here.

AND: My transcription: "It's okay. I'm fighting for our country. I'm fighting for our Constitution.... This was done by the Biden administration, in order to wound or hurt a political opponent. And I think it's just a disgrace. And we'll keep fighting. We'll fight to the end. And we'll win. Because our country's gone to hell. We don't have the same country anymore. We have a divided mess. We're a nation in decline, serious decline. Millions and millions of people pouring into our country right now — from prisons and from mental institutions — terrorists — and they're taking over our country. We have a country that's in big trouble. But this was a rigged decision, right from day one, with a conflicted judge who should have never been allowed to try this case — never. And we will fight for our Constitution. This is far from over."

ALSO: Strange how he slotted in the immigration issue. It seemed as though he started in on his rally speech beginning with "our country's gone to hell" and then he could have gone through a list, but he only got to one item — I presume it's his #1 issue — illegal immigration

ODDLY: The NYT coverage has an embedded Biden tweet that has a "donate" button: