The Very Leaky Manchester Bombing Investigation Continues, Injunction Upheld on Trump's Travel Ban, Lieberman Drops from FBI Director Search: P.M. Links

|

  • Trump
    Arne Gillis/NurPhoto/Sipa USA/Newscom

    The latest in the investigation of the Manchester bombing: President Donald Trump is siding with the British government, which is furious that information from its investigations are being leaked to the U.S. media. Reportedly officials there have stopped sharing information with the United States about the investigation. In the meantime, the government keeps telling people "If you see something, say something." Well apparently Muslims who knew suspect Salman Abedi did see signs of radicalization and did warn authorities. Keep that in mind when the government inevitably blames encryption or lack of surveillance powers.

  • A federal appeals court has upheld the injunction on Trump's executive order banning travel from six Muslim-majority countries. Again, it appears that Trump's campaign comments that he wanted to keep Muslims from coming to the United States influenced the decision.
  • Joe Lieberman will not be the next director of the FBI (and thank God).
  • In Brussels, Trump called for NATO countries to start ponying up more money to pay for defense obligations.
  • A report was released today on a U.S. strike against the Islamic State in Mosul, Iraq, that ended up killing more than 100 civilians in March. The United States did not know that there were others in the building where snipers had taken refuge and ISIS apparently rigged the building with explosives that went off as a result of the strike.
  • A principal of a school in New Orleans will not be returning to work after viral footage of him showed him wearing what appeared to be Nazi symbols in an interview.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Thoughts on the appellate court decision against Trump's revised travel ban

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In Brussels, Trump called for NATO countries to start ponying up more money to pay for defense obligations.

    PONY UP THE DOUGH

    1. Hello.

      Heil Reason!

        1. I know.

          /slumps shoulders.

      1. My dog does a Nazi salute when I rub her belly.

  2. Joe Lieberman will not be the next director of the FBI (and thank God).

    Trump is fine with the Jews handling the money side of things, but at the Bureau? That’s the last thing he needs!

  3. I heard on Fox News just now that Trump united the Three Major Religions?.
    Atheists are still “losers.”

    1. I don’t believe in god, but I won’t call myself an “atheist” because I don’t want to get lumped in with all of the smug twats who formed a religion out of not believing in god.

      1. +1 Richard Dawkins

    2. “the three major religions”

      I think the Hindus may have something to say about that.

      1. I know, right? How many Jews are really in the world? 15-20 million?

    3. I don’t expect you’ll ever realize the irony of the fact that you’re probably the only one here who regularly watches Fix news.

  4. The TSA might soon force you to unpack your carry-on bag at security check

    The procedures aren’t being tested because the TSA wants to make your life a living hell. It’s because the agency’s scanners are having problems seeing through carry-on bags that are crammed with items, an issue largely caused by airlines charging steep fees to check bags. As the Journal points out, fewer people are checking bags, which has led to overstuffed carry-ons that slow down lines at security checkpoints. Darby LaJoye, the assistant administrator for security operation at the TSA, says the changes aren’t due to a concern over any single items, but about finding a way to make X-rays faster and more accurate.

    Packing too much is now considered suspicious.

    1. The war on women continues apace

    2. I’ve never understood why airlines incentivize passengers to avoid coughing up $25 for a checked bag by allowing them to bring steamer trunks full of not-needed-during-flight stuff into the cabin. After 15 or so years of this shit, some of them have wised up by… also charging for carry-on bags. Which is why I show up at the TSA checkpoint in a Speedo and flip-flops, carrying nothing but a newspaper.

      1. But do you really need the Speedo?

      2. I don’t need my shit in the cabin. I need to not wait an hour to get my bag once I land. I need to not have my baggage lost. I need to be able to change flights easily.

        1. This.

          It’s strange that baggage takes so long. I think it’s the love of conveyor belts.

          Google works it’s magic…

          Why Does It Take So Long To Get My Checked Bag?

          Basically, it’s just a logistical clusterfuck of airports and airlines not giving a shit, and doing what is absolutely cheapest and easiest for them regardless of the cost you bear.

          Does seem like an opportunity for an airline to get more business, though. Have a all bags to baggage claim in X minutes or *twice* your baggage money back. Or some such.

  5. A principal of a school in New Orleans will not be returning to work after viral footage of him showed him wearing what appeared to be Nazi symbols in an interview.

    Does he not know who else wore Nazi symbols?

    1. Prince Harry?

      1. Taiwanese high school students?

    2. Nazis?

    3. The Dulles Airport runways?

      I am so glad I finally got that off my chest.

    4. Nazi symbols? I thought they said Confederate flag. Yeah, he’s good to come back.

    5. Apparently those reporting on this aren’t aware the the Spartans were an ancient Greek people, and not German Nazis…

    6. None of you people are answering the question I asked.

  6. Just to get this out of the way already …

    TrigglyDanO.

    1. “This is pity,” he thought, and then he lifted his head in wonder. He thought that there must be something terribly wrong with a world in which this monstrous feeling is called a virtue.” ? Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

  7. Well apparently Muslims who knew suspect Salman Abedi did see signs of radicalization and did warn authorities.

    But who’s going to trust the word of a Muslim. I mean, really.

  8. Aly Raisman slams TSA agent for body-shaming incident

    The three-time Olympic gold medalist posted on Twitter on Wednesday that after a female Transportation Security Administration worker said she recognized Raisman by her biceps, a male employee said, “I don’t see any muscles.” Raisman called the encounter “rude & uncomfortable.”

    Raisman, who turned 23 Thursday, says she works “very hard to be healthy & fit.”

    “The fact that a man thinks he judge my arms pisses me off I am so sick of this judgmental generation,” she wrote.

    She continued, “He was very rude. Staring at me shaking his head like it couldn’t be me because I didn’t look ‘strong enough’ to him? Not cool.”

    He should be hunted down and killed like the animal he is.

    1. He should be hunted down and killed like the animal he is.

      By one normal-sized human or 100 Aly Raisman-sized gymnasts?

    2. I am so sick of this judgmental generation

      So am I. A normal person brushes off rudeness, rather than tweet-raging it.

    3. It’s not muscles she’s lacking. Her skin is way too thin.

    4. “He was very rude. … Not cool.”

      Dude got SLAMMED.

      1. … although tweeting this invites thousands of other people to flock to scrutinize her arms and potentially body-shame. But hey, all that really matters is that the guy from the airport (she coyly refuses to say where or when) got SLAMMED.

    5. “a male employee said, “I don’t see any muscles.” ”

      …as he coughed a plume of sour-cream-and-onion dust back into the five-pound chip bag.

      1. …as he coughed a plume of sour-cream-and-onion dust back into the five-pound chip bag.

        OK, I was willing to believe that a guy preferring women with a little more meat on their bones just had a more… progressive taste in women, but this is just racist.

    1. Didn’t even have to hover the link to know that was our heroes at the Daily Mail.

  9. Again, it appears that Trump’s campaign comments that he wanted to keep Muslims from coming to the United States influenced the decision.

    BUT THAT’S WHAT GOT HIM ELECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    1. He was for the Muslim Ban before he said it wasn’t an actual Muslim Ban.
      More of a suggestion, really.

    2. It’s comforting to see that judges are still making decisions based on feelz rather than, oh I dunno, the law.

    3. So executive orders are not being nudged in what they actually do but in what the President might have wanted to do.

      The courts are just making up whatever shit they can get away with to justify the result now, aren’t they?

      1. Now?

        The Living Constitution means never having to learn to read the law, you just make it up on the fly.

  10. A principal of a school in New Orleans will not be returning to work after viral footage of him showed him wearing what appeared to be Nazi symbols in an interview.

    OK, the rings were modestly off-putting but somebody is really going to have to explain an adult wearing a batting helmet outside a batting cage or baseball diamond to me.

    1. He looks like is going to rob a bank with Clint Eastwood, Don Rickles, and Kojack.

      1. A movie we didn’t know we needed until now.

          1. I only acknowledge remakes.

    2. Antifa have been throwing bricks and whacking people in the head with bike locks.

      So, batting helmets

  11. In Brussels, Trump called for NATO countries to start ponying up more money to pay for defense obligations.

    It’s not like he needs campaign contributions from war contractors, so I have to assume there’s some other motive here.

  12. Again, it appears that Trump’s campaign comments that he wanted to keep Muslims from coming to the United States influenced the decision.

    Again, law is not being judged as written.

  13. The latest in the investigation of the Manchester bombing: President Donald Trump is siding with the British government, which is furious that information from its investigations are being leaked to the U.S. media.

    Wow. Just wow. Just this morning my local San Francisco station was blaming this all on Trump. Himself. Personally.

    1. LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!

    2. The photos and story were leaked to NYT, so there is no way Trump did it.

      He is responsible, though, for not uprooting the leakers. Deep state for the win!

  14. The God damn leaker is still either James Clapper or John Brennan, which has been the case from day one!

    Find out which one of these two motherfuckers it is already and put him in prison, or better yet Seth Rich his sorry ass.

    1. They don’t change the locks at the FBI until the first of every month.

  15. The United States did not know that there were others in the building where snipers had taken refuge and ISIS apparently rigged the building with explosives that went off as a result of the strike.

    The middle-eastern clusterfuck continues apace. I expect lefties will start blaming Trump for civilian casualties that they ignored under Obo’s reign.

    1. I expect lefties will start blaming Trump for civilian casualties that they ignored under Obo’s reign.

      Why hasn’t that happened already?

    2. Shhhh! Don’t call the Religion of Peace violent or it will blow you up!

  16. Twitter thread from Riggsy (spelling errors his):

    Some thoughts on macho talk re: the Montana incident. The idea that real men occasionally hit, and that real men hit back, is bad for men. I say this as someone who was much bigger than other humans starting at around age five, and who used his first from an early age. I spent many recess periods in elementary school under lock and key. In middle school, it was counseling. By the time I hit adolescence, my aunt told me on day that my family had considered sending me away because if how violent I was.

    That toughness that people seem to admire from a distance makes people fear you up close. It makes people who love you think you are dangerous. Pushing leads to punching, and punching can cause brain damage and facial deformity. If you are poor, and you solve problems with violence, you end up incarcerated. People carry that label for the rest of their lives.

    1. Our prisons are full of “real men.” Battered women’s shelters are full of women fleeing “real men.” The sons of “real men” grow up to be emotionally stunted, confused, and poor. And men who learn to solve problems with violence use that violence everywhere.

      Real men do everything they can to avoid hurting others and themselves. Self-restraint and wisdom are not weak, they are powerful. If I am so lucky as to father boys, I will teach them this. I will never, ever forget the fear I inspired in the eyes of my mother, my little brother, and my classmates. The memory of it makes me ill. We should not consign men, or the people they encounter, to this fate.

      1. Yeah, well real men aren’t journalists.

      2. Mike Riggs… the musician?

        I don’t know the full details of what happened in Montana. I think the extrapolation that either man involved was so pathologically violent as to consistently scare their own parents and siblings is projecting a bit (of psychosis).

        1. I don’t think he’s talking about Gianforte or Jacobs specifically but more the kind of attitude espoused by those giving Gianforte atta-boys and saying Jacobs got what was coming to him for being a namby-pamby liberal.

        2. Mike Riggs, the Reason writer.

          I think the extrapolation that either man involved was so pathologically violent as to consistently scare their own parents and siblings is projecting a bit (of psychosis).

          That is not what he did.

          1. Mike Riggs, the Reason writer.

            Are your teeth OK? 🙂

            That is not what he did.

            He just cites abstract macho talk and then proceeds to tell a story about how he was so violent he scared his own family as a kid. As I said, I don’t know the full details of what happened in Montana or what macho talk to which Riggs is referring. I do know I’ve had to punch guys like Riggs (used to be) in the face before. I presume some of them become reporters.

            Without more to go on, multi-post/tweet discussions about being so violent you scare your own family seems out of place with regard to what happened in Montana.

            1. It has less to do with Montana, and more to do with how frequently the terms like, “real man,” are thrown around in these situations, much more so, of course, in the real world.

              Setting the details of the already over-discussed Montana incident, the reporter is a relatively smaller, nerdy-looking man, and the politician is a larger man. So, the reporter is not a “real man” for fighting back, because real men fight back. The politician is a “real man” because he stood his ground when a reporter got too close to him, etc.

              And, if you’re not a real man, you’re a weak little bitch.

              1. I agree with Riggs that they are oft-repeated, toxic phrases, and I think it’s great that he started a discussion about it.

              2. Setting the details of the already over-discussed Montana incident, the reporter is a relatively smaller, nerdy-looking man, and the politician is a larger man. So, the reporter is not a “real man” for fighting back, because real men fight back. The politician is a “real man” because he stood his ground when a reporter got too close to him, etc.

                I haven’t exactly heard this/these discussions. His assertion of the phrases being toxic (absent specific links/citations) strike me as comedic. Barring one of the two people involved in the incident declaring themselves to be a ‘real man’ and/or said declaration explaining or justifying what happened, Riggs’ response, IMO, only lends gravitas to internet cheerleading.

            2. Out of place with regard to what happened in Montana, or with regard to the reaction to what happened in Montana? I feel like you’re sliding between the two contexts. If you didn’t see some of the shitposting tough guy talk that prompted Riggs, that’s cool, but it is out there. He’s commenting on the endemic problem of that kind of talk, not specifically what went down in Montana.

              1. If you didn’t see some of the shitposting tough guy talk that prompted Riggs, that’s cool, but it is out there.

                Where? Broadcast on Fox? 4Chan? The Reason forums? Twitter? The cover of the NYT?

                As far as I know white knights (and certainly violent machismo) predate the internet and Riggs is declaring them, suddenly, to be toxic or sociopathic because, well, internet. I wish him luck tilting at that windmill pushing that boulder up the hill.

                Maybe he can borrow Preet’s fainting couch when he figures out all the woodchipper references.

                1. As far as I know white knights (and certainly violent machismo) predate the internet and Riggs is declaring them, suddenly, to be toxic or sociopathic because, well, internet. I wish him luck tilting at that windmill pushing that boulder up the hill.

                  I’m really not sure how this could be your takeaway from his words without willfully misreading them.

                2. “suddenly”?

                  What is your problem with this? You’re offering a different objection with every post.

                  Dude is just responding to garbage he saw today with some personal wisdom. I thought it was interesting and well delivered. Are you just trying to get to a “virtue signaling!” conclusion?

                  1. What is your problem with this? You’re offering a different objection with every post.

                    It doesn’t make sense to me. I thought he was speaking to Gianforte(‘s incident) directly. Apparently, I was wrong. So, I’ll ask again, what ?ber-machismo/smothering chauvinism, ‘real men do violence’ speech is he talking about?

                    Without that, it’s an exceedingly personal(ly biased) screed against what could be construed or understood to be anything from plain old free speech/patriotism to internet white knights to hate speech to inciting violence. Considering I haven’t seen news about angry mobs or publications calling for Gianforte to strike down others or the rest of the media, I assume it’s something decidedly closer to obnoxious free speech than anything constituting a social or cultural crisis.

                  2. Are you just trying to get to a “virtue signaling!” conclusion?

                    There’s no economic or policy implications or suggestions to what he wrote. I understood virtue signalling to be the explicit aim. I’m not opposed to the virtue (I don’t think) I, as I said, just don’t understand the signal. If said ‘shitposting’ is along the lines of ‘Gianforte should do it to the next pussy-reporter who gets in his way.’, I agree. If the ‘shitposting’ is along the lines of ‘One of the spineless wimps standing around while it all happened shoulda done something.’ or ‘Glasses were broken. Misdemeanor assault charges were filed. Nothing else (should) happen.’ I don’t know that I agree with Riggs’ statements being appropriate/accurate. The NAP is not a pledge to abject and perpetual pacifism and heaps of exceedingly gentlemanly and ‘real men’ freely acknowledge that liberty can’t be secured without risk (of violence)*.

                    *This should not be construed as an endorsement of Gianforte’s actions or, as much a commendation of Jacobs actions for asking tough questions and getting his glasses broken and/or misdemeanor felony charges brought against a now congressman.

          2. If it wasn’t clear or I haven’t said it, I do not condone what happened in Montana.

    2. If there was a way to reliably gather this information, I wonder what polls would say about how many people are, in truth, really just okay with political violence directed at the out-group. This would apply just as much to people saying Jacobs got what was coming with him as to people who support university leftists that would rather burn their campus down than let someone they disagree with speak there.

      I have a sickening feeling the results would reveal something very ugly.

      1. That’s not something you can survey, only observe the revealed preferences. I have little doubt that approval is much higher than we think. The most I hope is that the severity of violence that people accept is contained, though it doesn’t take much for people to go from accepting assault to accepting ze camps.

        1. The thing is that people don’t consider “political violence directed at the out-group” to be “political violence.” They see it as “standing up against evil.”

          Absolutely everyone everywhere is for “standing up against evil,” and most people would eagerly assert their desire to be brave enough to do so violently, casting aside any question of morality in the act itself.

          It’s only the dispassionate outside observer who recognizes “political violence” for what it is.

  17. If you see something, say something.

    Just not to the Americans.

  18. Trump called for NATO countries to start ponying up more money to pay for defense obligations.

    Did he actually use this phrase? Because that would be awesome.

    Also, I saw Putin topless on a horse once. I smell some kind of code indicating a Russian connection. //sarc

  19. Again, it appears that Trump’s campaign comments that he wanted to keep Muslims from coming to the United States influenced the decision.”

    Remember when judicial restraint meant deferring to democracy? If the American people don’t want the individual mandate, they can vote for a candidate to get rid of it!

    Of course, that seems to vary depending on whether the judges in question like what the American people voted for. When they don’t, democracy doesn’t count for shit–regardless of whether it’s constitutional.

    “There are two camps when it comes to interpreting and enforcing the laws of the land ? judicial restraint, which promotes strict, and narrow interpretation; and judicial activism, which involves decisions based on personal and/or political considerations.

    https://legaldictionary.net/judicial-restraint/

    Anyway, the courts were historically reluctant to interfere with the President’s powers as Commander in Chief; unless, of course, he used campaign rhetoric, in which case all bets are off–regardless of whether the text in question is perfectly constitutional.

    If the court is telling us that the same executive order with the same text would have been perfectly constitutional if it had been signed by Barack Obama, then Trump is absolutely right to scream bloody murder about double standards.

    Are there other cases in which something was only unconstitutional because of campaign rhetoric or is this the only one?

  20. T.J. Miller to Exit ‘Silicon Valley’ Ahead of Season 5

    I don’t think that’s gonna work out too well for ya, bud. And/or producing the show will be a lot less stressful now.

    1. + Yogi Bear 2

  21. Today I learned:

    1. Average reason commenter completely unaware of the difference between facial and as-applied constitutional challenges.
    2. Average reason commenter assumes that if they’re only just heard about something, that it must be completely new and out of the ordinary

    1. Mostly I’ve noticed average reason commenters getting increasingly annoyed at the constant pulled-fresh-out-of-the-ass takes on what “average reason commenters” think about things.

    2. You can also learn #3. The average Reason commenter tries to avoid making collectivist assumptions about what most people in a group are thinking 🙂

  22. “?In Brussels, Trump called for NATO countries to start ponying up more money to pay for defense obligations.”

    Some news feed I saw mentioned he was getting a ‘frosty reception’.
    Yeah, telling folks they’re not going to get more free shit has that effect.

    1. The lead story on NPR was something like “Trump’s plans for NATO unpopular with Europeans.”

      Well, duh!

      I bet they’re bitching on the Champs Elysees right now!

  23. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz threatened the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police with “consequences” for holding equipment that she says belongs to her in order to build a criminal case against a Pakistani staffer suspected of massive cybersecurity breaches involving funneling sensitive congressional data off-site.

    Sounds like obstruction of justice to me.

  24. Joe Lieberman will not be the next director of the FBI (and thank God).

    Really, it was nothing guys. I was taking a dump this morning after that rude encounter with the Crusty fellow and thought to myself despite how rude some of you people are that I hadn’t really done anything for the libertarians lately so the wife said, “Why don’t you strike down Lieberman?” and I was like, “Do I have to kill the guy, I mean, come on can’t I just make his mind change or something?” She was doing laundry so I don’t think she heard me so I went with the mind control thing. Now that you know the truth it’s really not necessary that each of you thank me personally but if you’d like to I’d really appreciate it. Did I mention I really appreciate compliments?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.