Do You Feel Equal Yet?

Plus: Fauci preemptively pardoned, hostages released, Inauguration Day, and more...

Corpse President is leaving office today but he spent a chunk of Friday trying to get the Equal Rights Amendment enshrined in law before he goes. For what reason and with what legal authority, you ask? Aren't men and women mighty equal under the law in the year of our Lord 2025?

Today I'm affirming what I have long believed and what three-fourths of the states have ratified:

The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex. pic.twitter.com/oZtS6Q89zG

— President Biden (@POTUS) January 17, 2025

It's fitting that Joe Biden goes out in this hubristic manner, because it's exactly how he's behaved for the duration of his single term. Note his phrasing—"I'm affirming what I have long believed"—as if the beliefs of the executive alone are enough to simply bring an entirely new constitutional amendment about!

As I wrote back in December, "The ERA is a zombie that won't die." It was first introduced a century ago, but it picked up steam in the 1970s. Congress passed a 1982 ratification deadline that the amendment fell short of, and several states subsequently withdrew their approval (while a few other states ratified during Donald Trump's first term).

This is textbook Biden: Pick a fairly marginal issue, then make a sweeping declaration contra the facts and the law (which can be so inconvenient sometimes!), and attempt to simply shove the issue through via a potent mix of progressive heart-flutteries and executive power. Somehow, half the country believes him to be a real democracy respecter; I'm not sure I'll ever get it. Speaking of…

"Our nation relies on dedicated, selfless public servants every day," said Biden, referring to none other than Anthony Fauci, who oversaw the nation's disastrous COVID response, including the waves of lockdowns that shuttered businesses and forced children to stay at home. Public servants like Fauci (who worsened countless lives while lying to the public) "are the lifeblood of our democracy," said Biden, issuing a preemptive pardon out of fear that Fauci will be targeted by the incoming administration.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

What fresh hell awaits us on this Inauguration Day? Possibly a flurry of executive orders, including one to crack down on immigration, if incoming President Donald Trump gets his way.

"Trump's swearing-in ceremony will begin shortly before noon Eastern time in the Capitol Rotunda," reports The New York Times. "He is scheduled to ride to the building after meeting with Mr. Biden at the White House in the morning, a traditional nicety that Mr. Trump did not extend to Mr. Biden four years ago. After the swearing-in ceremony is complete and Mr. Trump has delivered his Inaugural Address, he will be ushered into the President's Room, which lies off the Senate chamber in the Capitol. There, he will complete a tradition of signing nominations that began in 1981. He could also begin to introduce major policy announcements."

Rumors have already circulated about Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents getting in position to start cracking down on illegal immigrants in Chicago on Tuesday; it's possible new executive actions pertaining to border policy will also be announced today.

It's also possible that a new round of pardons will be announced for January 6 rioters. Some 1,600 people were prosecuted for their roles that day, with 240 still serving time, so a mass pardon could certainly be on Trump's mind.

And Emily Yoffe writes at The Free Press that Trump is expected to sign an executive order titled "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government." The order "ends the practice of housing men in women's prisons and taxpayer funded 'transition' for male prisoners" and "ends the forced recitation of 'preferred pronouns'" in workplaces and schools that receive federal funding.

Trump has also made noises about how he wants to start imposing tariffs on goods imported from Canada and Mexico, like, yesterday; he says he'll call the agency that handles this the External Revenue Service. It's unclear whether that is a Day One issue or something to start later. The man better have a good time-management system in place because he has lofty ambitions.

Ceasefire update: "We don't know whether to prepare for a funeral or a festival," one relative of a soon-to-be-released hostage told the BBC. Israel and Hamas have agreed to a ceasefire, now in phase one.

This morning, in accordance with the agreement, Israel released 90 Palestinian prisoners and Hamas released 3 Israeli hostages. In a few days, four more hostages taken on October 7 will be returned to Israel. In total, 33 of the remaining 100 hostages will be returned to their homes in Israel, and upwards of 1,000 Palestinian prisoners will be released, all over the course of six weeks.

"Israel has said the first stage of the deal is 'temporary' although they want all three stages to come into force, and it reserves the right to resume the war if it was to break down," adds the BBC. We'll see how this goes. Stay tuned.

---

Scenes from New York: Everything old is new again, NYC edition.

On NYC disorder in the 1990s pic.twitter.com/NOSBODe8gH

— Santi Ruiz (@rSanti97) January 7, 2025

---

QUICK HITS

• TikTok was offline, banned in the U.S., for all of 14 hours last night. Basically, the company that owns the social media app (ByteDance) has been forced by the U.S. government either to sell the app to an American company or to cease operating in the country. Donald Trump, who has flip-flopped on this issue, apparently intervened; since he takes office this morning, TikTok appears to be simply be risking possible consequences by choosing to go ahead and operate in this interim period.

• The Laken Riley Act, named after a 22-year-old nursing student killed by an illegal immigrant, looks set to pass the Senate (having already passed the House) and be signed into law today. ("If a law is named after a person, it's probably bad," writes Billy Binion at Reason.)
• Yes:

I think a big part of it is that Democrats had internalized this idea that they're the more popular party and institutional bias is why they lose power (the Senate structure, electoral college, SCOTUS, etc.). Them being the less popular party is a shock to them. pic.twitter.com/LXSYxtwRLX

— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) January 19, 2025

• This is the app many former TikTokers have been flocking to. Beware:

Every day I see something I am convinced I hallucinated. Today, this was that. pic.twitter.com/hTFxoxaUlk

— Marc Andreessen ???????? (@pmarca) January 19, 2025

• "'Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead,' said Biden," writes Robby Soave in The New York Post. "The president did not name names, but it isn't difficult to surmise that he was referring to Tesla and X CEO Elon Musk, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Amazon executive chairman and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, among others. Each of these tech billionaires has subtly—or in Musk's case, not at all subtly—broken with the Democratic Party and progressive governance. Bezos declined to let his newspaper endorse Kamala Harris for president; Zuckerberg recently fired the fact-checkers who had served as de facto enforcers of liberal groupthink on Facebook and Instagram; and Musk is a full-throated backer and key adviser for President-elect Donald Trump. And that is what has earned these figures spots on Biden's enemies list."
• This is the way:

Digital hygiene. Cognitive security. Practice thinking. Retain your dopamine, keep ur critical thinking skills. Understand the cutting edge of propaganda. Retain the ability to deep read and deep learn. The only thing that cannot be seized is your mind

— ???????????????????????? ⏳ (@Grimezsz) January 19, 2025

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

For what reason and with what legal authority, you ask?

The "25-year-old staffers who run the White House" no doubt believed that's how the world works, that a presidential tweet was law of the land.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

And now those presidential tweets are all going to be mean. 🙁

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

But to a dedicated 25 year old Democrat, if they shout "Resist!" then mean tweets don't exist, right?

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

The democrats are having a tough day. They’re flying the hammer and sickle flag (rainbow edition) half mast over at MSNBC.

[Commenter_XY]

It is a new day, and a new POTUS.

Who among us ever thought on January 21, 2021 that we would ever see POTUS Trump back in office?

It is unbelievable. And it is just getting started.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Time to salt the earth and make the rubble bounce.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes. The inaugural speech was the opening shot.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

And hopefully you guys in Canada will finally see the back of Trudeau in a matter of weeks.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Yeah, something has to give.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

PerhapsTrudeau’s neck? At the end of a rope, after his treason trial?

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

And the treason bit is not a joke. There is substantial hard evidence that he has been personally taking money from China for decisions he made as PM.

That's what happens when the press decides it's not going to report on the bad stuff progressives do anymore.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

Or at least the Ruble.

[BigT]

Great at last! Great at last! Thank God almighty, we are great at last!

Village People changed their song to The M-A-G-A!

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

You can get your country clean, have an affordable meal, and say anything you feel.

[Minadin]

"Somehow, half the country believes him to be a real democracy respecter"

I've been told that Joe recognizes the constitution. Don't confuse that with respecting or following it.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

I doubt Joe recognizes very much, not even Mommy (aka Dr Jill) and his Big Boy Potty on bad days.

(easy setup)

[Mickey Rat]

The progs do not believe that rules apply to them and what they want.

This is the way the Biden Administration has been treating the law and constitution thecwhole of the Biden term, while toutingbthemselves as the bulwark of constitutional and civic norms.

[(Good Riddance Robert L. Peters) Weigel's Cock Ring]

The first president in American history to have to pardon his entire scummy, lowlife family, even though most of them have never been convicted of anything. What a joke.

And yes, I know that Gerald Ford did it for Nixon, but he absolutely should not have, and I don't believe that pre-emptive pardons are in either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution or the rule of law in general.

[HorseConch]

I'm no lawyer, but how does a pardon apply without any kind of legal accusation? Nobody on the list of political pardons was charged, indicted, or convicted. If these stand, the precedent is set to allow truly awful activity because a President said you were a good guy or gal. I understand the total pardon authority, but doesn't that require a criminal act and/or conviction?

[BigT]

If it doesn't indicate a specific offense, it should not be legitimate. It shouldn't need to be something formally indicted, but it should not be 'for all possible offenses.' That's not a pardon, that's redemption.

[JFree]

No it doesn't require a criminal charge. Andrew Johnson pardoned 7000 soldiers who served in the Confederate Army. By name - before he issued the general clemency and amnesty which was a major reason he was impeached.

He wasn't a good Prez at all -but the basic spirit of those pardons and clemencies is exactly what allowed Americans to move on from the Civil War. Rather than descend into perpetual recriminations. Even if it also allowed the South to create and sell Lost Cause myths and allowed for Reconstruction to be aborted without achieving anything that would have made it meaningful.

[Truthfulness]

Andrew Johnson was deeply mistaken then, as are you.

The Constitution specifically states that an offense must be made for a pardon to happen. Biden failed this.

[JFree]

Pardons issued in large numbers are completely in the spirit of the the authority granted by the Constitution to the President alone. Biden could have and should have issued thousands of pardons.

Instead he issued fewer than any Prez since GHW Bush and the trend of all modern Prez is to issue far too few pardons and to issue far too many unconstitutional orders. Applauded by far too many Americans who don't like Prez exercise of power shielding govt oppression of citizens because they prefer activist Prez exercising imperial power.

[Truthfulness]

You're heavily mistaken. Biden shouldn't have issued so many pardons.

And contrary to your claim, he was the one "exercising imperial power" by censoring his political enemies through the leadership of many social platforms. His party also tried to jail Trump.

[EISTAU Gree-Vance]

Pfffffttt. Sleepy joe runs circles around those 20 something interns in the oval office.

Although that seems more like a bubba Clinton kinda thing, amirite?

[Idaho-Bob]

Can someone please explain how a preemptive pardon is a legal thing? I always thought a pardon was for the convicted; not a magic free pass.

[Mike Parsons]

interested to see how the party of democracy feels about shitting on the constitution via EO while issuing reams of pre-emptive pardons to family and party apparatchiks

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Because they’re not the party of democracy; they’re the party of bureaucracy.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

They are the party of Our Democracy. A term coined by Stalin. It means democracy solely for the party.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Our (D)emocracy if you will.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

And as others have pointed out, their (D)emocracy has nothing to do with broad electoral participant, consent of the governed, or a free and equal society. Instead, they mean (and demand) a carefully curated and authoritatively imposed vision for proper human behavior, along with the vested institutions to run the world they seek.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

you've also described Team (R) here, you realize

[Don’t get eliminated]

Look at Lying Jeffy, whose totally not a Democrat (just ask him, he’ll tell you) deflect criticism of Democrats to Republicans.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

And it’s ALWAYS a one way street.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Yes, because you need to create false equivalency.

Jeffy, go fuck yourself.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Jeff, the 1950s called and wants its image of the authoritarian puritanical right back.

But I do realize that forcing people to take personal responsibility for their own lives, while giving them the freedom to do what they want, can be confused by Democrats as "authoritarian".

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Let's refer to your litany of complaints:

their (D)emocracy has nothing to do with broad electoral participant, consent of the governed, or a free and equal society. Instead, they mean (and demand) a carefully curated and authoritatively imposed vision for proper human behavior, along with the vested institutions to run the world they seek.

Broad electoral participants: Team Red has nearly given up on pluralism. They'll believe an election was stolen rather than admit, even to this day, that Biden actually won the 2020 election.

Consent of the governed: Team Red wants to make it harder to vote, thinks voting should be a burdensome responsibility not a civil right

Free and equal society: time and time again Team Red views liberty in moralistic and hierarchical terms, those who are most deserving of liberty are most entitled to its benefits. And the ones "most deserving" according to them are the ones who adopt the Team Red lifestyle brand.

Carefully curated and authoritatively imposed vision for proper human behavior: Team Red thinks you should be free to live your life as you see fit, provided that you stick within the limits that Team Red sets. So boys are free to grow up to be either jocks or nerds. But they can't be transgender - that's not allowed. Men can choose to be plumbers or chefs - but they can't be drag queens. That's not allowed either. Women can choose to be homemakers or executives - but they can't fight in the infantry. That's not allowed either. Team Red used to have puritanical narrow visions for proper gender roles, and they never went away - just the roles widened a little bit, and the Jesus talk has largely gone away from the political discourse. But they still insist on boundaries and they still demand compliance. Heck they still even refuse to admit that gender and sex are two different things.

They are not libertarians, and their insistence on traditional gender roles is one reason why they will never be libertarian.

"the vested institutions to run the world they seek" - for Team Red these institutions are less political and more social. Which, at the end of the day, is always going to be a more effective means of control. After all there are limits to how many agents and snitches any government can directly employ. But when a certain standard of behavior is widely adopted by society, then the mass body of all the people become the de facto enforcers without any government coercion at all. That is why Team Red likes faith-based institutions so much, because they generally do a good job at enforcing a standard of behavior without needing any government coercion.

[BigT]

You are one sick puppy. Maybe your master will put you down.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

"They'll believe an election was stolen rather than admit, even to this day, that Biden actually won the 2020 election."

Yeah, where did those mysterious 8-11 million voters that appeared last time suddenly go? The helped Biden get the biggest vote total in history. Reversed a 150 year trend. Out of nowhere at 3 am. Amazing. Sure could've have used them this time round, huh?

Maybe they all stayed home. Maybe they weren't as inspired as when an obviously senile man, appointed, rather than elected by his party, and who campaigned from his basement, ran.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Broad electoral participants: Team Red has nearly given up on pluralism. They'll believe an election was stolen rather than admit, even to this day, that Biden actually won the 2020 election.

The 2016 election called. It wants your lies back.

Consent of the governed: Team Red wants to make it harder to vote, thinks voting should be a burdensome responsibility not a civil right

So you think anyone from anywhere should be able to vote in our elections? Every other developed country uses some sort of voter identification to ensure that the election is not fraudulent in any way, shape, or form. Why do you oppose that, Jeffy, unless you want to cheat?

Carefully curated and authoritatively imposed vision for proper human behavior: Team Red thinks you should be free to live your life as you see fit, provided that you stick within the limits that Team Red sets.

Dumbfuck, there’s no such thing as a transgender kid unless you’re trying to groom them for sex. How about leaving the kids alone to be kids, asshole.

And no, you’re not a libertarian, Jeffy, you’re a Marxist libertine.

[EISTAU Gree-Vance]

“Team red wants to make it harder to vote.”

Lol. Harder than what, Jeff?

You are a lazy idiot. You poor thing.

EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIBLE AND UNFAIR!!! HAHAHA.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

Pedo Jeffy, you lost, and lost big. Now we all get to enjoy that, along with your impotent Democrat rage. We all know that American prosperity is anathema to you.

So buckle up you fat bitch, America is back and you democrats will be crushed.

[BigT]

Thanks for the generous contribution to my many barrels of prog tears, Jeff!

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

His suffering is exquisite. I look forward to at least four years of his agony. Or less, if Fatfuck’s heart finally explodes.

[Longtobefree]

Could be an interesting supreme court case when Trump prosecutes Fauci for crimes against humanity.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Flowing from Burdick, it would imply they would have to let us know at least which crimes they committed for the pardon to work.

[Idaho-Bob]

This is the only thing I found. There has to be a crime for a pardon to work. At least the administration ignored his ERA declaration.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

And what does he even need a pardon for if he's done nothing wrong?

[A Thinking Mind]

Nah, dislike this rationality. It has the same energy of police asking you, "Well if you haven't done anything wrong, why not let us search your house for a bit?" The reason the pardon is issued is that the old administrations believes Trump would just find a reason to prosecute. Democrats did it to Trump, after all, finding a way to turn a fairly standard loan into some kind of business fraud.

Even if they don't believe Trump would act like a dictator, it's helpful messaging anyway to do this because it signals, "See, we know Trump would have pointlessly harassed these people if we hadn't protected them because that's what he's like."

A clever way to counter this would be for Trump to just pardon the Bidens and make a speech about the importance of respecting your political adversaries. And maybe snipe at Biden being an old man with a bad memory who doesn't remember doing anything wrong.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

"Nah, dislike this rationality. It has the same energy of police asking you, "Well if you haven't done anything wrong, why not let us search your house for a bit?"

Not at all.

It's the same energy your friend stopping by the cop shop out of the blue and saying "ATM has done nothing wrong. He wasn't tunneling under the bank at midnight. He was with me watching my TV in the basement the whole time and he can vouch for me too".

[VinniUSMC]

"Luigi was with me that night!" -Leftist morons

[A Thinking Mind]

Cannot disagree more. I'm not a fan of wielding executive authority like this but I don't think there should be limits to the pardon power. They're actually restrictions on government power, the ability to leverage power against individuals.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Anarchist much? Not even a role for government in prosecuting assault and murder?

[A Thinking Mind]

I'm hardly an anarchist if my position is that the pardon power is plenary and nearly unlimited. You're misreading my stance. I definitely believe in a criminal justice system, I just think robust pardons are a significant check/balance on government power.

If evidence emerges that Fauci assaulted/murdered people, he needs to be prosecuted at the state level.

[Michael Ejercito]

The pardon is a necessary safety valve and a check against the judiciary's greatest power against the individual.

[Idaho-Bob]

but I don't think there should be limits to the pardon power.

That's insane. It literally opens up the option for preemptive pardons for anything.

[A Thinking Mind]

You can only pardon for activity up to the time of the pardon being issued. You can't pre-emptively pardon someone for life for any criminality going forward.

And yes, I do believe presidents have the power to issue broad, blanket pardons. The check on presidential power is impeachment if the president is selling pardons. And under the recent supreme court ruling about executive immunity, selling a pardon would open the president up for prosecution because such a transaction cannot be an official act of the office, but an act in furtherance of a personal goal. The pardoned individual might still be protected but the President would not be. It does raise the question about whether the President can pardon himself, which I'm ambivalent over.

It sucks, but political prosecutions of enemies of the party in power suck even worse.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

I mean identifying the crime to be pardoned is probably the lowest bar of an intrusive government.

Otherwise your advocating for political benefits for certain subclasses at the whims of government.

[BigT]

Even the Church wasn't forgiving future sins, only past ones for which one has repented.
These aren't pardons, they are redemption.

[Medulla Oblongata]

Now that all those fucks are immune from prosecution, I'd like to have them put under oath testifying for days to root out any co-conspirators worth prosecuting and who were not given the pardons.

I mean, "to openly and freely--without fear of prosecution--find out what went right and what went wrong and how we can improve the nations response in the future."

[Super Scary]

Biden gave it a practice run with his son and when that went off without a hitch, he did it for the rest of them at the 11th hour.

I won't be surprised when nothing happens after this and when/if Trump does the same in 4 years it'll be the end of the world.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

That is what I always thought a pardon was for, a conviction. On the other hand, if there were a trial in progress, a pardon also seems reasonable, and I think I recall some defendants who refused pardons on the grounds it would be an admission of guilt, or at least look like it.

The earliest pre-emptive pardon I am aware of was Ford pardoning Nixon expressly to avoid any post-resignation trials. It would be interesting to know if that really was the first, or when the first was, or how many have been pre-emptive. But I'm pretty sure Biden's massive pre-emptive pardons are a first.

It would also be interesting to have these end up at the Supreme Court with the question "Are pardons only valid after convictions?" But I think they'd at least say Ford's pardon of Nixon scotches that possibility.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Posted it below. Burdick vs US.

The play here is likely to charge one of them for a crime and have them admitting the crime in order to receive the pardon protections.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Here's the core of Ford's pardon of Nixon:

... a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

No conviction, not even any trial in progress. A pre-emptive pardon. What does this have to do with dicta in Burdick concerning the implication of guilt?

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

That pardon was never challenged. Which is what a court needs to actually rule on constitutionally or legal binding.

Nobody ever challenged it. If they had they would have ran into the precedent.

That's how our system works.

[A Thinking Mind]

The reason Burdick's pardon was illegal was that it was compelling action on him. He was subpoenaed to testify and he wanted to refuse the subpoena and plea the 5th. If he was pardoned he didn't have 5th Amendment protection so a refusal to testify is obstruction of the court, which resulted in him being fined and jailed. Pardons are meant to protect individuals, not to weaponize against them.

I doubt the court is going to impose such a limit on the pardon power.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Wait, are you telling me that Jesse has a superficial understanding of a complex issue? No way!

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

You are in no position to talk there, Mr. False Equivalency.

[Don't look at me!]

You are in no position to talk there, Mr. False Equivalency Bears in Trunks.

FTFY

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Jeff, "superficial understanding of complex issues" could be your middle name.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

" superficial understanding of a complex issue

Yes, he doesn't understand technicalities like "It's less bad if he just cums on the kid, instead of in her", or "What if he felt bad about the rape after".

[EISTAU Gree-Vance]

Jeff is the absolute king of selective nuance.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Until it is challenged, we do not know how courts would rule.

I highly doubt a judge will side with temporal gaps of free reign without even stating the crimes.

[Rockstevo]

From what I understand after reading about Burdick, these pardons are not necessarily a get out of jail free card. If called to give testimony they cannot plead the 5th unless they denounce the pardon in which case they can then be prosecuted. Correct me if I am wrong.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

That’s what I see in the Burdick decision as well. Woodrow Wilson tried to issue the pardon to make Burdick give up information regarding a person who was smuggling jewels to avoid customs duties. Burdick told Wilson to GFY and was fined $500 and jailed until he complied.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

As if we didn’t need yet more evidence that Woodrow Wilson was the worst President ever, till Joe Biden.

[A Thinking Mind]

Agreed, Wilson was a major piece of shit.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

"Woodrow Wilson was the worst President ever, till Joe Jill Biden."

fixed.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Ford believed, when issuing Nixon’s pardon, that the pardon carried with it the presumption of guilt due to the Burdick decision.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

My question is not the implication of guilt, but the requirement that a pardon be for a crime or a conviction or charges, not just some pre-emptive "whatever crimes he might have committed", and Burdick has nothing to do with that. Was Ford's pardon the first? I doubt it. When was the first? How many have there been?

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

In Burdick v. United States, Wilson issued a blanket pardon to George Burdick, City Editor of the New York Tribune, to try to make him give up a source. Burdick had not been convicted of any crime at that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States

As for this history of such blanket pardons, the first seems to be for Pierre Lafitte for past piracy due to his assistance in the War of 1812, granted by James Monroe. His brother was actually convicted of piracy in New Orleans, and was granted a pardon for the same reason.

Andrew Johnson issued a full and unconditional pardon to all former Confederates even if they’d never been charged with anything.

Ulysses Grant did the same four years later under their Amnesty Act.

Benjamin Harrison granted a pardon to members of the LDS Church for engaging in polygamy even if they’d never been indicted for it.

Jimmy Carter pardoned draft dodgers even if there were no charges brought against them. Gerald Ford had offered them unconditional amnesty previously.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Thanks. I remembered most of them, once reminded. But at least those listed actual possible crimes they could be charged with. Look at all these -- Hunter, his family pardoned with no mention of what possible crimes. One can guess what Fauci could and should be charged with, but the pardon doesn't say (well, I haven't read it). What could the j6 committee members be charged with that wouldn't violate the Constitution's speech clause? Their staffers aren't so protected, but again, the pardons don't list any actual crimes.

Even Ford's pardon didn't list any actual crimes, just "all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in".

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

None of them tried to weaponize the pardon except for Woodrow Wilson, leading to the Burdick v. United States decision.

[A Thinking Mind]

That is what I always thought a pardon was for, a conviction.

It shouldn't have to be. You don't even need to be a libertarian to understand that "the process is the punishment." A pardon can spare people all the costs and hassles of going through a trial. It's rough even on guilty people, much less those who might be innocent.

[Medulla Oblongata]

Jan 6 folks fully understand the concept of "the process is the punishment".

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

How about if these magical, all-purpose super-executive pardons are only valid for as long as the President/ex-President is alive?

[Ersatz]

That solution has a certain biblical elegance to it.

[BigT]

Nixon's pardon was not quite pre-emptive since he was under investigation by both Congress and the FIB, and charges were drawn up, IIRC.

[Quicktown Brix]

Edited away due to many comments with the same response.

[SRG2]

It's not entirely clear - but once Ford pardoned Nixon, and it wasn't challenged, it became a thing.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

I look forward to sarc posting "repubs did it first so it's okay!" under this comment.

[Minadin]

They're just restoring norms, adults back in charge, etc.

[Kungpowderfinger]

Does the Army issue a service ribbon for getting a presidential pardon?

Milley can add that to his fruit salad for his interview at TikTok.

[Minadin]

Well, it looks like he just also pardoned his entire family now too:

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/media/1385756/dl?inline

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Fuckers.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Curious as to if those above will defend this one too.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

You know Jeffy will.

[BigT]

Did he finally acknowledge his long-abandoned granddaughter by pardoning her?

[Minadin]

She was not on the list.

[Minadin]

Interesting note: This pardon ALSO goes back to January 1, 2014.

. . . HAVE GRANTED UNTO
JAMES B. BIDEN
SARA JONES BIDEN
VALERIE BIDEN OWENS
JOHN T. OWENS
FRANCIS W. BIDEN
A FULL AND UNCONDITIONAL PARDON
FOR ANY NONVIOLENT OFFENSES against the United States which they may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014, through the date of this pardon.

Eleven years and 3 weeks.

[Don’t get eliminated]

What happened in 2014 again? The Biden corruption family has 100s of thousands of deaths on their hands.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Weird, right? I am sure that is a coincidence.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Wow. I figured that was coming but still wow.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

You understand binion did nothing but repeat a trope then lie for his entire article for the Lakin Riley act?

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Like us, she didn't read it.

Wait. We did. Why we know it was pure bullshit.

[Don’t get eliminated]

I didn’t. But that doesn’t mean I don’t know it’s bullshit.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

You seem to be an mxc fan

[Don’t get eliminated]

Was wondering if anyone would get the reference.

[Fist of Etiquette]

What fresh hell awaits us on this Inauguration Day? Possibly a flurry of executive orders...

AND A COMMUTATION OF ROSS ULBRICHT'S SENTENCE. I swear to God...

[Fist of Etiquette]

"We don't know whether to prepare for a funeral or a festival," one relative of a soon-to-be-released hostage told the BBC.

Hamas fears the wrath of Trump!

[Longtobefree]

Interesting issue. Trump will be in office before all the hostages are released.
Will hell be paid, or not?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

How long will Hamas string out the hostage release (actual and promises)?

[soldiermedic76]

33 hostages for 1000 prisoners. I swear worse genocide evuh!

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Just wait. J(ew)free and misconstrueman will whine about that later today.

[Medulla Oblongata]

Even Hamas recognizes the low value of Palestinian prisoners in IDF custody. One Israeli is worth 30 jihadis?

[Medulla Oblongata]

But they got gift bags from Hamas.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Turley on the white knight pardons. Pardoning people not charged yet with a crime to cover up his administration misdeeds. This just 3 years after joe locked up people in Trump's administration.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/12/17/the-danger-of-white-knight-pardons-biden-could-fundamentally-change-presidential-power/

And remember burdick vs the US.

This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/

[chemjeff radical individualist]

What crime did Fauci commit?

[Quicktown Brix]

We'll never know now. Rest assured he's crooked as a dog's back leg though.

[Medulla Oblongata]

We could know, but not prosecute. Congress can run COVID hearings and put Fauci as a sworn witness to be grilled until we know.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Rand Paul has listed a few. For example lying to Congress. As well as crimes related to the gain of function coverup which including destroying documents.

Reminder Jeffrey. You supported bannon and others being held in contempt or for lying. Dont be hypocritical now.

Obama banned gain of function as well, yet it still occurred. Weird.

If he committed no crimes why is he accepting the Pardon jeffrey?

For J6 committee we have destruction of records under subpoena and witness tampering. Ironically that falls under the 20 year charges you supported against J6 protestors.

[A Thinking Mind]

He didn't just lie to Congress, he conspired to hide evidence from Congress. He was complicit in the systematic avoidance of FOIA requests. That's the real criminal activity, in my book-hiding things you're doing in the name of the public FROM the public. You're not in the CIA, nothing you do is related to national security, so you have a duty of candor and transparency to the people of the United States about what your office is doing.

Fauci is a particularly gross example of evil bureaucracy.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

But he did comply with the FOIA requests in the end, right?

Being a slimy bureaucrat is not a crime, doing things that are technically legal but violating the spirit of the law is not illegal either.

You're proving my point, the people who want to put Fauci on trial just want a show trial. Fauci is Team Red's versionof Emmanuel Goldstein.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Fauci is Team Red's versionof Emmanuel Goldstein.

I think you need to read that book again (or in your case, the wikipedia page).

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Why? Jeff and his fellow travelers already consider 1984 as a how-to-govern instruction manual.

[Bananas]

Hey if you just quit having sex on your own then the Gov't wouldn't have to force you to.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Because he is too dumb to understand the role of Goldstein in Orwell's novel.

Imagine that, Jeff has a "superficial understanding of a complex issue", as he accused someone else of today.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Fauci is Team Red's versionof Emmanuel Goldstein.

Just like Jeffy to troll the commentariat by stating the truth ass backwards.

Biden just turned Fauci into Team Blue's version of Emmanuel Goldstein - an untouchable, unaccountable figure who is used to focus the hate of the proles and distract them. Here is how it works: ask yourself the question, "did Biden pardon him because Fauci is guilty of crimes against humanity or because Fauci is not guilty?"

That, Winston, you will never know. If we choose to set you free when we have finished with you, and if you live to be ninety years old, still you will never learn whether the answer to that question is Yes or No. As long as you live it will be an unsolved riddle in your mind

[A Thinking Mind]

https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-investigates-nih-conspiracy-to-evade-foia-avoid-public-transparency/

This investigation was initiated AFTER Fauci left because evidence was found that they continued dodging FOIA requests. And this was a senior advisor to Fauci doing this under Fauci's watch.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Okay, so put Dr. Morens on trial. Again, what did Fauci do?

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Morens worked for who, again?

But keep telling yourself that Fauci only needed the pardon because orangenazi was gonna come after him for no reason.

[A Thinking Mind]

I'm sure a thorough, exhaustive investigation into Morens and the NIH's practices under Fauci would completely exonerate Fauci. Jeff has a good point, there.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

You seem convinced that Fauci broke the law yet you can't say which law it was or what precisely he did.

Again the parallels between Fauci and Trump are striking. Both men have a committed cabal of enemies who are determined to put them on a show trial and convict them by any means necessary.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Parallels or your own false equivalency, Jeffy? One was a debate; the other under oath before a Congressional committee.

[Don't look at me!]

Jeff now admits there was lawfare against trump.

[BigT]

Rand should call hearings. Lying to Congress after Jan 20 will be a new crime, not subject to JRB's pardon.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

I thought you are (by your own design) Reason Team Red's Goldstein.

[BigT]

You misspelled Mengele.

[Don’t get eliminated]

“Dont be hypocritical now.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA!

[Idaho-Bob]

Lying under oath to congress is the low-hanging fruit.

[Zeb]

There are no clear crimes that I can see, as much as I loathe the man. Lying to the public and profiting off of supposed "public service" apparently aren't crimes. Which is why the pardon is so remarkable. Fauci accepting the pardon is going to make a lot of people ask what else has he done that we don't know about.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

At a minimum lying to Congress.

But a look into his non salary money such as the payments he received from patents, it sure looks a lot like he was getting kick backs given his net worth.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

If you are referring to Fauci's claim that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research at Wuhan Institute of Virology, then that claim is technically true. The NIH did not fund research at WIV directly. They gave a grant to EcoHealth Alliance, and EcoHealth Alliance gave a subaward to WIV. "True but very misleading" is slimy but not illegal.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

"It's not a crime if you use a proxy"

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

They gave a grant to EcoHealth Alliance, and EcoHealth Alliance gave a subaward to WIV. "True but very misleading" is slimy but not illegal.

You want to imply that a federal grantee is not responsible for what actually happens with the grant money? I call bullshit. People get arrested and brought to trial for misuse of government funds all the time.

[A Thinking Mind]

Which is why he worked so hard to cover it up, because he did nothing wrong.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Oh he did plenty of things wrong. The question is whether he did things that were illegal. That is a different question.

It seems to me, Team Red views Fauci in much the same way the rest of the world views Trump - as a guy who continually and habitually gets away with slimy, deceptive, outrageous and unethical behavior, and is never held accountable for any of it because it is technically legal.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

...and that explains why he needed a pardon.

[Don’t get eliminated]

“It seems to me, Team Red views”

This is the entire basis of Lying Jeffy’s position here.

[Bananas]

It's back with its new talking points.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

New talking points and a metric shitton of false equivalency.

[Don’t get eliminated]

And lies. Lots and lots of lies.

[Medulla Oblongata]

Projection.

[EISTAU Gree-Vance]

Oh man, there goes Jeff with his nuance again!

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

IT'S OKAY PEOPLE! IT WAS ONLY SLIMY AND MISLEADING IS NOT LYING!

But setting aside the fact that import brokering exists, when Trump said that tariffs would cost Chy-na, that was an outright lie, right?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Trump's lies during the debate weren't illegal either. Neither one of them should be convicted for perjury.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Wasn't one of them under oath?

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Nice false equivalency, Jeffy. One of them was on a debate stage. The other was under oath before a Congressional committee.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

I doubt he sees the difference.

[Marshal]

He sees it. He won't admit it because doing so doesn't advance the conclusion he wants. This is how propagandists work, truth and logic aren't relevant concerns, only supporting the team matters.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

"Trump's lies during the debate"

What lies, Jeffy? Come on, tell everyone what you said Trump's lie was.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Oh look at you. YOu think you've caught me in some type of trap. Because that is all that you do.

This is what Trump said during the debate:

TRUMP: Not going to drive them higher. It’s just going to cause countries that have been ripping us off for years, like China and many others, in all fairness to China – it’s going to just force them to pay us a lot of money, reduce our deficit tremendously, and give us a lot of power for other things.

This is a lie because tariffs on Chinese goods are not paid by the Chinese government. They are paid by the American consumers. That is the lie.

This is what Fauci said under oath about gain-of-function research:

The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

That is a technically true statement, because the money that went to WIV did not come directly from NIH, it came from EcoHealth.

This is what your own team's GAO report said about the NIH and WIV:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/6.14.23_gao_report_to_hpsci.pdf

We previously reported that a federal awarding agency has a direct relationship with an award recipient but has no direct relationship with subrecipients.

Also:

NIH reported providing an award to one selected Chinese entity—Wuhan University—in the CY 2014 through 2021 period. The other two selected Chinese entities, WIV and AMMS, did not receive any awards directly from federal agencies during the same period, according to our review of federal award databases (see fig. 2).

So the government's own GAO report validates Fauci's claim, as misleading as it was. It's going to be hard for the government to prosecute Fauci for perjury when the government also agrees with Fauci that NIH is not directly responsible for subawards.

[Marshal]

"That is a technically true statement, because the money that went to WIV did not come directly from NIH, it came from EcoHealth."

This is a lie. NIH remains the source of funding regardless of how many intermediaries are used to conceal the truth. This is a recognized legal tenet. Money laundering does not eliminate legal guilt, it enhances it.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

It would only be "money laundering" if there was some corrupt conspiracy between NIH and EcoHealth to deliberately funnel money to WIV despite the government prohibitions to do so. Otherwise, every time you get a paycheck, it is "money laundering" from your employer to your landlord when you pay rent. Which is silly.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Otherwise, every time you get a paycheck, it is "money laundering" from your employer to your landlord when you pay rent.

If the money comes from an illegal source, paying rent is money laundering, you fucking moron.

My paycheck is not an illegal source. Your $0.50 payments for your comments might be, if they come from China. Or do you take payment in coupons for Cheetos to avoid that hazard?

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

Jeff, you stupid Fvck, that is exactly what was done- funneling money thru EcoHealth BECAUSE it was now illegal for Fauci to fund GOF research directly

[chemjeff radical individualist]

funneling money thru EcoHealth BECAUSE it was now illegal for Fauci to fund GOF research directly

Okay, so if this happened, do you have any evidence for this claim? That the NIH gave money to EcoHealth, knowing in advance that some would go to WIV, in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the prohibition on GOF research?

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Search it yourself you sealioning fuck. It's common knowledge and you know it.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

"This is a lie because tariffs on Chinese goods are not paid by the Chinese government. They are paid by the American consumers. That is the lie."

This is a lie because import brokers are a thing as anyone buying shit off of Amazon knows, and I know that you know that. Companies import products to markets they hope to sell in all the time, using import brokers.

And that was it. Trump's prognostication about tariffs. That was the only thing you could even hope to label a lie, you mendacious fuck. How pathetic.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Search it yourself

Translation: ML has no idea if this claim is true, but he wants to bully everyone into accepting it as if it were true.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Oh, this is rare gaslighting form, even for you.

First you say:

But setting aside the fact that import brokering exists...

And now you are back to:

This is a lie because import brokers are a thing...

violating the premise of your own argument. And this is all entirely besides the fact that when Trump said:

it’s going to just force them to pay us a lot of money

the THEM he is referring to ARE NOT FUCKING IMPORT BROKERS. He is CLEARLY referring to nations. Governments. Not import brokers. We know this from his phrase immediately prior:

It’s just going to cause countries that have been ripping us off for years, like China and many others, in all fairness to China – it’s going to just force them to pay us a lot of money

The "them" in his sentence refers to countries, like China and many others. Not "import brokers".

Trump lied. Fauci was technically telling the truth while being very misleading.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Chemjeff, your response is full of intellectual gymnastics, but let’s get back to the actual point: tariffs do impact exporters, including foreign governments, whether you like it or not. Your attempt to hand-wave this away by hyper-focusing on the phrasing of "them" is nothing more than a distraction from economic reality.

You’re clinging to the idea that tariffs only affect American consumers, but that’s flat out wrong. Tariffs hurt exporters, which is precisely why countries retaliate with their own tariffs and engage in trade negotiations to avoid them.

Look at my country shitting its pants over threatened tariffs for example. They had an emergency meeting with all of Canada's premiers. That's like all the US state governors getting together to strategize. It's a rare thing. And they aren't doing that because they feel really bad about poor Americans having to pay more.

When tariffs are imposed, exporting countries face:
-Reduced demand for their goods, forcing them to lower prices to stay competitive.
-Supply chain disruptions, leading to increased costs on their end.
-Lost market share, as buyers look for alternative suppliers.
-Tariffs create downward pressure on prices for exporters, meaning they end up absorbing part of the cost through thinner margins, layoffs, or seeking government subsidies. Pretending otherwise ignores basic market dynamics.

Tariffs create financial strain on exporters, forcing them to adjust pricing and strategy to maintain market access. If Chinese manufacturers want to stay in the U.S. market, they often lower their prices to offset tariffs and keep their products competitive. So yes, they do pay, even if it's not in the simplistic "writing a check" narrative you're pushing.

You're also pretending Trump's phrasing is a courtroom deposition, but let’s focus on the reality. When he says tariffs force countries to "pay," he’s talking about the broader economic impact on their industries and economies. Nations like China have historically subsidized key industries and offered tax relief to exporters to counteract tariffs—proving that they do feel the financial pressure and literally have to "Pay".

If tariffs didn’t affect exporters, why would foreign governments retaliate or negotiate to reduce them? Your argument collapses under the weight of that very simple question.

Finally, accusing others of gaslighting is nothing more than a rhetorical smokescreen. There’s no manipulation here—just pointing out facts you’re trying to ignore. Whether you admit it or not, tariffs put a real cost on the recipients.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

tariffs do impact exporters

And here we get the oh-so-subtle shifting of the goalposts. ML now wants to take the discussion from "who pays the tariffs", to "who is affected by the tariffs". A dishonest sleight of hand.

Well of course LOTS of people are "affected" by tariffs. But that wasn't Trump's claim. He was claiming that the foreign countries PAID the tariffs.

If Chinese manufacturers want to stay in the U.S. market, they often lower their prices to offset tariffs and keep their products competitive. So yes, they do pay, even if it's not in the simplistic "writing a check" narrative you're pushing.

Lol that is not my narrative, that is Trump's simplistic narrative about how tariffs work. One more time, this is what he said:

it’s going to just force them to pay us a lot of money

He's not talking about companies or countries "paying" in terms of lost business. He's talking about them sending us money.

Finally, accusing others of gaslighting is nothing more than a rhetorical smokescreen.

I would expect you the chief gaslighter to say that.

[BigT]

Fauci authorized the payment. So guilty.

[Quicktown Brix]

A preemptive pardon indicates that the pardoner believes a crime was committed or the pardoner acknowledges the justice system can be abused for lawfare.

[Michael Ejercito]

Both can be true at the same time.

[Quicktown Brix]

True

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Perhaps - and I'm just spitballing here - some people take Trump at his word when he says he is going to pursue revenge against his political enemies. Perhaps some genuinely innocent people might accept these pardons not to conceal some crime but because they fear retribution by Trump.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Cite?

[Randy Sax]

Do you think Rosie O'Donnell needs a pardon? C'mon man.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

So, because of "extraordinary circumstances" we need to suspend laws and morals?

Sounds like Democratic strategy step 1 for every "crisis", and in general to "save democracy".

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I'm not defending the pardons. I'm saying that one does not have to believe that the pardon's recipients are guilty of anything in order to justify the pardons.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Yes one does.

Unless one thinks that maybe the justice system is so compromised that it would let one political party persecute another via lawfare. Is that what you're saying Jeffy?
Do you have some precedent to show for it?

[EISTAU Gree-Vance]

C’mon Jeff. Just break out the ** already. You know you want to.

[A Thinking Mind]

What about the systematic and extensive practice of trying to duck FOIA requests. The NIH isn't even under DOD in any regard so there's no national security threat. Everything they do should be transparent. Beyond all the massively redacted records they submit, they even found ways to just make e-mails "disappear."

https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-investigates-nih-conspiracy-to-evade-foia-avoid-public-transparency/

Surely a conspiracy to deny records to people who have a right to those records has to involve several levels of criminality.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Finally, some evidence was presented. Although it is from a Republican source so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Okay, so he is accused of evading FOIA requests by "strategically misspelling words". So "EcoHealth Alliance" becomes "Ec~Health", so a search for "EcoHealth" would come up empty. Clever, outrageous, slimy, underhanded, violating the spirit of the law - all true. I don't see how it's illegal though, unless the FOIA law makes it illegal to "strategically misspell".

Now deleting emails - that's different. The evidence that you presented was that Dr. Morens did that. Do you have evidence that Fauci did that?

[Don’t get eliminated]

“Although it is from a Republican source so it should be taken with a grain of salt.”

There it is.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Totally not a Democrat.

[EISTAU Gree-Vance]

*as a group*

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Yup.

And notice Mr. Sealion pretending he was really wanting to see that link, instead of just wasting someone elses time having them hunt it down.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

I don't see how it's illegal though, unless the FOIA law makes it illegal to "strategically misspell".

This is what you came up with?

[A Thinking Mind]

Okay, so he is accused of evading FOIA requests by "strategically misspelling words". So "EcoHealth Alliance" becomes "Ec~Health", so a search for "EcoHealth" would come up empty. Clever, outrageous, slimy, underhanded, violating the spirit of the law - all true. I don't see how it's illegal though, unless the FOIA law makes it illegal to "strategically misspell".

Are you fucking serious.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Jeff thinks Trump was guilty for his company listing a legal expense as a legal expense. Then he says this. Amazing.

[A Thinking Mind]

He just has zero shame. He doesn't really believe this. He just emotionally latches onto some way to claim Republicans are being unfair or malicious and this was the first thing his brain could spit out and he doesn't care how insane it is.

To be honest, I'm actually shocked he went this low. I'm insulted he thinks I'm stupid enough to find this convincing. I don't even need to explain to anyone how this is clearly fucking bullshit, it's transparent.

The DEFENSE you might make for this is that we haven't yet got proof of strategic misspelling-my link only offered the single example. But if you can establish this is a pattern, it's an obvious attempt to defraud anyone who pays to have a FOIA request processed by hiding and making it difficult to comply. Jeff should have said that it's not proof (yet) of the strategic misspelling, but he just went the whole 9 yards and said this obvious fraud is not obviously illegal despite how obvious it is.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

The "strategic misspelling" IS BULLSHIT. No one here denies that. But that's not the question. The question is, is it ILLEGAL?

Again the parallels between how you all view Fauci, and how everyone else views Trump, are rather striking. In both cases, you are CONVINCED that Fauci/Trump broke the law, not based on what the law really says, but how you feel about their general moral character. Both Fauci and Trump are total slimebags who have done a lot of unethical and horrible things yet they manage to evade legal accountability by staying one millimeter on the side of the law.

Show me in the law where "strategic misspelling" constitutes fraud in a legal sense.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

If done deliberately, then it’s done for fraudulent reasons and therefore is fraud, you obtuse twit.

[A Thinking Mind]

The question is, is it ILLEGAL?

Yes. It is fraud. If I submit a public records request to the NIH regarding all information they have on dealings with EcoHealth, I'm not asking for all documents containing the WORD EcoHealth. That's not how that works. Ecohealth could be the subject of a document that fails to actually mention them by name, and yet I would be entitled that document as being responsive to my FOIA request.

If you're committing a series of intentional misspellings to prevent people getting the records they are PAYING you to produce, you're committing fraud. Full stop. And it's clearly malicious if that's what you're doing, you're doing it to hide information from the public that the public is ENTITLED to, despite being nominally a public servant. It's gross.

I do not believe for a fucking second you mean this seriously. You're such a disgusting weasel.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

If I submit a public records request to the NIH regarding all information they have on dealings with EcoHealth, I'm not asking for all documents containing the WORD EcoHealth. That's not how that works.

Yes that is how it works in practice. It is not how you or I think it SHOULD work. But that is how it DOES work.

If you actually go to the FOIA law, this is what it says:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552

(D)For purposes of this paragraph, the term “search” means to review, manually or by automated means, agency records for the purpose of locating those records which are responsive to a request.

So if you make your request "regarding all information they have on dealings with EcoHealth", and they do a keyword search for "EcoHealth" in all their documents and give you those, they have complied with the letter of the law. Not with the spirit of the law.

If you're committing a series of intentional misspellings to prevent people getting the records they are PAYING you to produce, you're committing fraud. Full stop.

But you as the FOIA requestor are not paying Dr. Morens to retrieve his email that has "Ec~Health" deliberately misspelled. You are paying the poor intern who has to do the keyword search. The intern hasn't done anything wrong.

What you are describing is a FOIA loophole. No one should be praised for exploiting the loophole, but no one should be legally punished either for doing what was technically legal albeit scummy.

[Don’t get eliminated]

Here's Lying Jeffy defending government officials lying to get around FOIA.

[A Thinking Mind]

Jeff, you are such a shitweasel (that's the proper industry term for it). You're pulling a tiny section of a very complicated law and pretending it says something it does not. What it describes is a mechanism for responding to a FOIA request, but nothing about how the records are supposed to be maintained, which is a different question. The person doing the search and the person falsifying records so they can't be easily searched aren't necessarily the same person.

Moreover, it doesn't contemplate all the ways in which a different crime (such as fraud) can intersect with records requests, in much the same way that the laws against jaywalking don't say whether it's legal to run people over with your car if they aren't in a crosswalk.

5 U.S. Code § 552 a) 3) C):

In responding under this paragraph to a request for records, an agency shall make reasonable efforts to search for the records in electronic form or format, except when such efforts would significantly interfere with the operation of the agency’s automated information system.

This means a REASONABLE effort needs to be made to respond to the records request. If I made a request for all dealings and moneys paid to Ecohealth, and they had a record of money transferred to a John Smith (who works for Ecohealth) that did not include the searchable term "Ecohealth," then failing to disclose that payment is a violation of the FOIA request. Now, of course, such a mistake might occur without any intentional malfeasance, that is, without an actual violation. But we're not talking about accidents, we're talking about intentional attempts to conceal records.

Section a) 4) F)

Whenever the court orders the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant and assesses against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs, and the court additionally issues a written finding that the circumstances surrounding the withholding raise questions whether agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to the withholding, the Special Counsel shall promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted against the officer or employee who was primarily responsible for the withholding.

That is, if there are records that are responsive to the request that are inappropriately withheld, Special Counsel is required to investigate whether there's any malfeasance. That means that doing something like intentionally misspelling a name in order to hide it from the records can be considered improper. Other sections of this law describe that the court will make assessments about improper withholdings in camera (that is, within the courtroom) de novo, that is, without considering any prior decisions made on the materials.

The law certain contemplates that people are going to withhold or attempt to hide records that should be disclosed. Now if you want to know whether that conduct qualifies as fraud, you need to look at a different section because fraud is, oddly, not covered under the FOIA Act. That would be 18 US Code chapter 47. Multiple subsections as there's many varieties of fraud. I'd probably take a look at 18 U.S. Code § 1016, for one.

You are not operating in good faith even slightly. Hiding records so they're harder for people to receive in open records' requests is absolutely a violation of FOIA.

Section a) 3) B):

Each agency shall make reasonable efforts to maintain its records in forms or formats that are reproducible for purposes of this section.

Agencies are required to maintain their records in ways that are reproducible and clear. They have to be readable and, by implication, FINDABLE. Intentionally obscuring terms that might be searched for is in violation.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

This means a REASONABLE effort needs to be made to respond to the records request. If I made a request for all dealings and moneys paid to Ecohealth, and they had a record of money transferred to a John Smith (who works for Ecohealth) that did not include the searchable term "Ecohealth," then failing to disclose that payment is a violation of the FOIA request. Now, of course, such a mistake might occur without any intentional malfeasance, that is, without an actual violation. But we're not talking about accidents, we're talking about intentional attempts to conceal records.

Based on the assumptions of your hypothetical scenario, I completely agree with you here. Now, however, let's suppose that there is a document that says "John Sm~th" instead. The intern doing the keyword search for "John Smith" won't find this document. He doesn't even know it exists. So how is he supposed to know to turn over this document?

That is, if there are records that are responsive to the request that are inappropriately withheld, Special Counsel is required to investigate whether there's any malfeasance. That means that doing something like intentionally misspelling a name in order to hide it from the records can be considered improper.

But this is why the "strategic misspelling" exploits a loophole in the law. The section you cited has to do with the situation when an agency finds a document that IS responsive to a search, but chooses to withhold it based on some claimed exemption. That isn't what is happening here. The agency isn't saying "We found this document with 'John Sm~th' but we are refusing to give it to you". If they did, that is when Section (a) (4) (f) would kick in. Instead, the agency is just not finding the document in the first place.

I would also point to this legal precedent:

https://www.justice.gov/oip/re-clinton-no-20-5056-2020-wl-4745104-dc-cir-aug-14-2020-wilkins-j

"It is well established that the reasonableness of a FOIA search does not turn on 'whether it actually uncovered every document extant,' . . . and that the failure of an agency to turn up a specific document does not alone render a search inadequate . . . ."

Meaning, I think, that it's not the job of the agency to turn the poor intern doing FOIA keyword searches into a forensic detective scouring the place for every last item. It is enough that they do a "reasonable" search.

Frankly, while I think the FOIA *idea* is terrific, the law's mechanisms are outmoded given the electronic communication environment that we are in, and there has to be a better way to search for information that can't be easily evaded with 'strategic misspellings'.

[VinniUSMC]

Jeffsarc believes whatever he's told to believe. Or, if he's lucky, whatever he's paid to believe.

[A Thinking Mind]

Nobody is actually stupid enough to have told him this is legal. He wouldn't even believe it if he'd spent two minutes to think about it first. But now that he's actually SAID it, he's emotionally committed himself to arguing it.

Rational people sometimes say stupid things, but then they collect themselves and say, "wait, that was stupid, of course that's not true. Please ignore that I said that," and they move on. This is not the type of rational actor we are dealing with.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So now that I have pointed out what the text of the FOIA law says, are you now ready to say that yes, keyword searches for topics fall within the letter of the law, if not the spirit of the law?

[Don’t get eliminated]

Yes, when I say Lying Jeffy is a psychopath, I'm not being hyperbolic.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

are you now ready to say that yes, keyword searches for topics fall within the letter of the law, if not the spirit of the law?

Let's read that again:

"(D)For purposes of this paragraph, the term “search” means to review, manually or by automated means, agency records for the purpose of locating those records which are responsive to a request."

No. The letter and spirit of the law is that a manual review is part of a responsive request.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I'm talking about what the LAW says. Not what you THINK the law says, not what you emotionally feel like the law ought to say, not your personal opinion about Fauci's general scumminess.

Do you want to prosecute Fauci for breaking the law, or do you want to prosecute Fauci for being a scumbag? Once again you're proving my point.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Now deleting emails - that's different. The evidence that you presented was that Dr. Morens did that. Do you have evidence that Fauci did that?

Isn't all of this a good reason to investigate Fauci, at least? Oh wait, he was just pardoned.

[Mike Parsons]

apparently one that requires a get out of jail free card

[Uncle Jay]

Demanding people wear masks after he said masks were ineffective, demanding lockdowns, saying the COVID vaccine was safe and effective, torturing animals in his labs in Tunisia, and being THE biggest quack in medical history, lying to Congress numerous times about COVID, etc.

[Moonrocks]

If the Republicans had any balls, they would expell all the J6 committee members that just got pardons. Any activity requiring such a pardon should surely disqualify one from holding office.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

EcoHealth disbarred from all contracts from government. But Fauci did nothing wrong.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/health/hhs-cuts-all-federal-funding-and-disbars-ecohealth-alliance-and-its-former

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Fauci knows something that Biden's puppeteers really don't want revealed. He would be the perfect scapegoat and if they are protecting him over the GoF research that resulted in SARS-CoV2, it is because he knows something even worse for them.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

In responce to Biden pardoning tratiors and those that committed crimes against humanity. Trump should make a preemptive pardon to anyone that kills fauci, milley, the liars on the j6 committee, ect

[Michael Ejercito]

A pardon can only be for past alleged acts.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

Really? Because before Biden I thought pardons were for people that have been convicted of a crime.
Why should Trump care about changing the norm?

[Zeb]

Well, you thought wrong. See Ford pardoning Nixon. Prospective pardons are a much worse and more dangerous idea no matter which president does it. There are some norms that should change. This isn't one of them. What I want to see from Trump is putting an end to abuse of presidential powers and misuse of the justice system.

[A Thinking Mind]

Prospective pardons are a much worse and more dangerous idea no matter which president does it.

I disagree. All it does it protect individuals from government. That's all it can do. If the government has the power to be weaponized against a disfavored individual, as we definitely saw happen to Trump (not even counting the illegal wire-tapping of his campaign that DID happen back in 2016), then we should impose zero limits on the power of the government to protect those disfavored individuals. Trump should have the power to pardon himself pre-emptively to stop malicious prosecutions like that.

Even if he were ultimately found not guilty, the process of putting on a lengthy trial for bullshit charges for political purposes is an unnecessary burden. He had to spend a shit-ton on legal expenses in three different districts for basically no reason.

[Michael Ejercito]

Pardoned individuals can still be sued for damages arising from the alleged misconduct.

Marc Rich, I think, had to pay a substantial civil settlement to his victims.

[Zeb]

We're still talking about politicians and other powerful people. Not a group that I trust particularly, whatever side they are on. They are still capable of committing actual crimes. Giving anyone, especially the sort of person who seeks power and influence, a get out of jail free card for future activities is a really bad idea.

[A Thinking Mind]

I said I didn't like it. I just like the alternatives even worse. You say "politicians and other powerful people." Trump is a politician and a powerful person who was disfavored and targeted. Most people who get targeted for political purposes ARE politicians and powerful people. Those are the type of people who will need protection from political prosecutions.

If we hadn't already crossed the threshold of weaponizing cases to target a candidate the establishment really hates, my position might be a bit different. But we've already opened that can of worms, it's not going away any time soon.

[Michael Ejercito]

Correct.

Civil remedies are still available.

"I was pardoned" has never been a defense against a lawsuit for civil damages.

Daniel Perry knows this.

[Zeb]

Trump's going to be president for the next 4 years. So he can pardon anyone who is unreasonably targeted in that time. And he can pre-emptively pardon people for anything that happened during the term. That seems plenty sufficient to guard against that kind of lawfare without opening the new can of worms of pre-pardoning for unknown future acts.

[A Thinking Mind]

That seems plenty sufficient to guard against that kind of lawfare without opening the new can of worms of pre-pardoning for unknown future acts.

That's not what we're discussing here. I don't think there's any legal theory for blanket pardons of future acts. That's certainly not what Biden did, he only pardoned people for any and all crimes they might never have been accused of. And I defend that practice, that you can offer blanket pardons, and that those pardons can be accepted without an admission of guilt.

In fact, sometimes it's necessary to use pardons on people who have been wrongfully convicted. They can maintain their innocence, there's nothing forcing them to confess to crimes they didn't commit, and accepting a pardon doesn't require they suddenly are admitting to guilt. I think the same is true of accepting a blanket pardon, and I think the President should have the full power and authority to issue blanket pardons.

[A Thinking Mind]

To be clear, I'm pretty sure anyone who says, "pre-emptive pardon," including myself, is using that to mean a blanket pardon for crimes that have never been charged nor even contemplated, like what Biden did today. There's no pending charges against Fauci nor any evidence that Trump was going to prosecute the Jan. 6 committee members, but they were pardoned to pre-empt any investigation.

[Zeb]

OK, then we're talking about different things. Pardons to preempt prosecution I'm not wild about, but it's been a thing for a long time now. The comment I was responding to seemed to be suggesting pardoning people for a possible future crime. Which maybe I misinterpreted a bit.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Seems these are prospective pardons for crimes that have not been charged.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

The Purge is a work of fiction and the pardon would only protect against federal crimes. The states would still be compelled to prosecute the murders.

[Michael Ejercito]

They would niot be compelled (at least by federal law), just allowed.

And there are still civil remedies by anyone whose persons or propewrty were harmed by the alleged misconduct. Marc Rich is familiar with that, and Daniel Perry will become familiar with that.

[Fist of Etiquette]

TikTok was offline, banned in the U.S., for all of 14 hours last night.

Trump puts right what his predecessor('s handlers) made wrong.

[Quicktown Brix]

It's gonna be a looooooong day.

[Ken Shultz]

I don't think Biden should be just giving pre-emptive pardons away--not for free anyway. Why not charge something for them! The Catholic church used to sell indulgences that way . . .

Why doesn't Biden simply charge Fauci for the pardon, have Fauci pay the money to Hunter, and then pardon them both again for buying and selling pardons preemptively?

[Mike Parsons]

blast from the past.

Is John coming back today too?

[MK Ultra]

Chumby's also around today. The world is healing.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Wow, wouldn't that be something. Jeff would explode.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

That would be fun to see.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

But, like at a Gallagher performance, not from the first 3 or 4 rows.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

How are we sure Biden didn’t charge for those pardons? He’s done plenty of quid pro quo before.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Hopefully Dr. Jill M.D. seized all of Hunter's electronics before making any pardon deals.

[Ken Shultz]

We know Biden didn't charge for the pardons because he would have pardoned himself preemptively.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

He’s still got 110 minutes.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

32 minutes left. Will Biden pardon his brother? What could Hunter have on him that Jim doesn't?

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Apparently the answer is yes.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Fuckers.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

HAHAHAHA! I am not the only one to call it, but damn! To wait until the last 5 minutes? That really shows a lack of class that will probably never be topped.

Seriously, Harrison will come off better in the future history books than Biden.

[Knutsack]

It's possible that Fauci has some shitty art in a storage garage somewhere.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Glad you're back, Ken. Bring back your long form posting.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

And issue a preemptive muting for sarcasmic for good measure.

[Fist of Etiquette]

If a law is named after a person, it's probably bad...

Then we're due.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

“I know he hasn't done very well against this guy, but I got a hunch he's due.“

/might as well keep up the Major League quotes.

[Small w woodchippertarian]

Didn't Krusty the Clown bet on the Generals to beat the Harlem Globetrotters because he thought they were due?

[Randy Sax]

If you flip a coin 100 times and it comes up heads every time, what are the chances it comes up heads the next time? 50/50.

[Zeb]

Outcomes of sporting events aren't random.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Also the part where the Globetrotter games are scripted events and not actual contests.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Detroit fans beg to differ...

[Don’t get eliminated]

TOO SOON!

[Fist of Etiquette]

Them being the less popular party is a shock to them.

I doubt most of the Dems even believe it to be true.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

They do have a hell of an echo chamber.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

100% of Democrats think Democrats are right. (And that people who disagree are, what's that word?, deplorable.)

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Connecticut parole board pardons illegal immigrant before Trump gets into office to help him avoid deportation. His crime is sex crimes against children and he admits to the board he can't guarantee he won't offend again.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/connecticut-parole-board-pardons-illegal-migrant-pedophile-who-says-he-might-re-offend

[Mike Parsons]

why do democrats seem to be obsessed with protecting criminals and pedos?

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Well, judging from Shrike and Jeffy, I’d say they have a major pedo problem.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

They protect their own. After four years of trying to make pedo publicly acceptable and criminally tolerated, and failing, they have to rush around protecting themselves.

[Bananas]

Such a weird hill to die on - protecting violent illegals and pedos.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

A strange federation of hyper-deviance tolerance and actual pedophiles, er, MAPs.

[Mickey Rat]

They protect their own kind?

[Michael Ejercito]

He can still be sued for damages.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

Trebuchet into shark infested waters. Though perhaps teaching sharks that people shaped and flavored things are food is a poor idea. OK, we could just stick with shooting them.

[soldiermedic76]

I suggest an ant hill and smear them with honey. Make it fire ants.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

No need for honey with fire ants. They will sting anything that moves. I can still see the welts 5 months later.

[Super Scary]

"No, I’m not going to say I promise, but I will definitely try to do my best, my best to keep myself away from situations like that again.”"

Wow, I'm convinced!

[Bananas]

That's good enough for jeffy!

[A Thinking Mind]

The only place the word "pardon" comes into this story is the headline. Parole boards don't issue pardons, that's an executive action. Parole boards are generally only in the business of hearing issues of parole.

He was released to parole. They thought he'd have a better chance at fighting deportation if he was released, but he's still a convicted felon.

[Mickey Rat]

Which is still a terrible reason for doing it.

[A Thinking Mind]

I agree, just want to point out that this person is NOT protected from being deported, and is likely extremely vulnerable to deportation. Factual accuracy matters.

[Don’t get eliminated]

When he offends again the parole board shoild be hung from lampposts.

[Fist of Etiquette]

The president did not name names, but it isn't difficult to surmise that he was referring to Tesla and X CEO Elon Musk, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Amazon executive chairman and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, among others.

Hell hath no fury like a Democrat scorned.

[JFree]

CEO Lives Matter

[Truthfulness]

Absolutely. All lives matter, JFree. But you don't believe that, and you know it.

[Fist of Etiquette]

The only thing that cannot be seized is your mind...

That social credit score is going to sink fast.

[Randy Sax]

The reason for the 2nd is to protect the 1st.

[Mike Parsons]

"Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy"

...he said after draping George Soros with a medal of freedom.

Get right fucked, hypocrite

[Fist of Etiquette]

Public servants like Fauci (who worsened countless lives while lying to the public) "are the lifeblood of our democracy...

Replace democracy with bureaucracy. The Biden administration certainly did.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

Hmmm science from NY let's check in
Mayor's of new york
1973-1994 (d)
1994-2001/2002*(r)
2002-2013*(i)
2013-now(d)
Wow why did NY become a shit hole in the 90s get cleaned up and is a shit hole now again?

*this is Bloomberg term where he ran a republican to ride gulianis coat tails than switched to independant, and everyone now knows he's a global homo socialist

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Chicago can beat that. Hasn’t elected a Republican as mayor since 1931.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

I was pointing out NY got cleaned up when they had a non rino r

[Fist of Etiquette]

Digital hygiene.

How do I delete all my Reason comments?

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Ask shrike.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

Post a link to child porn. It worked for spb original account

[Randy Sax]

Am I the only one who read that as Dental hygiene?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

To tell the tooth, that was my first read too.

[Zeb]

You are not.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

FFS. Just when I thought I could trust my own eyes, my brain takes a shortcut and betrays me. What else am I wrong about? Are Marxists really just looking out for my best interest?

[Kungpowderfinger]

Step 1: It's not really happening
Step 2: Yeah, it's happening, but it's not a big deal
Step 3: It's a good thing, actually
Step 4: People freaking out about it are the real problem
Step 5: Biden issues pardons

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Who else wants to contribute to a fund-raiser to take Fauci hunting, deep sea fishing, mountain climbing, or some other fun outing?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

What crime did Fauci commit?

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Why don't you ask the guy who pardoned him, fuckface?

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

He lied under oath dozens of times for one. He kept gain of function research alive for the military despite being explicitly told to stop for another.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Okay, post some evidence of this.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Give it a rest. You knew the original answer, you know this one. Those links have been posted before, probably dozens of times.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

No, what I've heard is a lot of rage and anger at Fauci and a bunch of people here who want to hold a show trial against him because they hate him so much. I've heard very little about real crimes that he might have committed.

But this is the game that you all play around here:

Commenter: I am outraged about X!
Me: Could you provide some evidence for your claim?
Commenter: I don't need to, just look it up yourself!
Me: Oh, okay then. Do you mean this piece of evidence here? Because it doesn't claim what you are claiming.
Commenter: Stop putting words in my mouth and defending the indefensible!

I mean, you all just want to bully people into accepting your claims without having to provide evidence for it.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

You and sarc are impervious to cites.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Why would anyone post the evidence again when you've already ignored it ten times?

Your reputation proceeds you.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I have yet to see clear and convincing evidence that Fauci broke the law that actually exists.

I have seen plenty of outrage theater demanding that Fauci be hauled before a star chamber and publicly executed after a show trial.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Are you fucking telling us that you need a citation for what Fauci said to congress?

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

QB probably needs one too.

[Don’t get eliminated]

I don’t call him Lying Jeffy for nothing.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

You want a link that he lied under oath?
Are you that fucking retarded?
Did you not hear the same testimony as everyone else?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I'd like some evidence for your claim that what he said was a lie, specifying exactly what you think was the lie and exactly why you think it was a lie.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Trump's lies during the debate weren't illegal either. Neither one of them should be convicted for perjury.

This is you above, accidentally admitting that Fauci lied, but you forgot that he was under oath, so that is indeed perjury - oops. Now you're reverting to, "he never lied". You really are a putz, jeff.

I guess this is one of those times you accuse me of "playing gotcha games".

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Jeffy loves his false equivalency, trying to equate possible lies during a debate when no one is under oath to lies under oath before a Congressional committee.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Jeff is a fucking liar. Pure and simple. It's what he's paid to do.

[Jefferson Paul]

This is you above, accidentally admitting that Fauci lied, but you forgot that he was under oath, so that is indeed perjury - oops. Now you're reverting to, "he never lied". You really are a putz, jeff.

I think you're 100% correct that chemjeff forgot Fauci was under oath for his lies but now chemjeff too dishonest to admit it so he plays more equivocation games.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-committee/senator-rand-paul-accuses-dr-fauci-of-lying-about-gain-of-function-research-at-wuhan-lab/4970412

He fucking lied. He lied about lying, he lied about why he lied and had the balls to call a Senator a liar when he was caught.

Did you miss the part where EcoHealth Alliance just got banned? Did you miss all his emails with EcoHealth where they conspired to bury the lab leak theory? He lied, he conspired, and then he lied some more.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Jeff knows all that. He was fucking sealioning again.

He was demanding a cite to keep us occupied with looking up examples that he could then pick apart for grammar, and claim they didn't say what they said on obtuse technicalities he made up.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Hey, do you want to come on the outing, too?

[Idaho-Bob]

There's a really awesome place to hunt in Idaho. And it is aptly named.

The Frank Church - River of No Return Wilderness.

[Randy Sax]

Put him in a submarine and tell him there is a paper with proof that masks work at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Only with Dick Cheney.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

And Liz.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Something for sarc to ignore.

https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/20/trumps-critics-only-oppose-his-tariffs-because-they-oppose-him/

Except for the Civil War income tax’s life, tariffs were America’s primary revenue source until well into the 20th century. They didn’t just disappear once overtaken by taxes — they have been a constant revenue source since.

Tariffs already exist on many goods coming into the U.S., including anything that doesn’t come from the 20 countries we have trade treaties with. America has a trade-weighted average import tariff rate of 2.0 percent on industrial goods. With half of all America’s imported industrial goods entering duty-free, many goods face tariff rates above 2 percent.

Tariffs are not inflationary: inflation is a monetary phenomenon — too much government-made money chasing too few goods — as Milton Friedman argued decades ago.

And tariffs won’t increase prices by the same percentage increase of an imposed tariff. This would only occur in the case of a product with inelastic demand (i.e., demand not falling with price increases) or no substitutes (i.e., no cheaper comparable products that could take its place).

As a consumption tax, tariffs are a more economically beneficial way to tax than America’s current taxes on production and investment (income, payroll, corporate, or capital gains). Of course, this beneficial effect only occurs if taxes on production and investment are lowered, and Trump has called for lowering taxes in these areas.

Yes, free trade is optimal. We all understand British economist David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage. However, free trade does not exist. Not here and certainly not abroad, where U.S. exports often face higher tariff rates than these countries’ imports face from the U.S.

Much criticism of Trump’s tariffs — both imposed and proposed — is based on politics and the establishment media’s opposition to him. As Democrats and the establishment media’s silence at the Biden administration’s somnambulant trade policy of the last four years demonstrates, Democrats are hardly in a position to call out Trump on trade, and the establishment media is hardly in a position to play the role of unbiased arbitrator.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

There you go. This is just another variant of an ad hominem style of argument. You're not even pretending to defend tariffs on their merits, instead you're just attacking the people criticizing them because they are supposedly mean bad people. Even if every single one of Trump's tariffs' critics are horrible awful scumbags, their intellectual arguments against the tariffs stand on their own merits.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Where the fuck is the ad hominem, you dipshit? Jesse just showed how the federal government has historically used tariffs for their budget without causing inflation.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Jeff and sarc are adopting each others retarded posts.

It is hilarious.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

It's creepy.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Does chatter during reach-arounds count as pillow talk?

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Those aren’t pillows!

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Did you read the post? It clearly conveys the potential merits and effects on the market, including price reaction and buyer reaction to price. Only the bolded paragraph highlights your accusation. Cherry picking to fit your assertion.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Even if he read it, he wouldn't understand it. Jeffy is not that bright. He frequently fails to understand the talking points he is parroting.

See also: What crime did Fauci commit? ad nauseum.

[Don’t get eliminated]

Even if he understood it, he’d still lie.

[Don’t get eliminated]

Wow, did you actually read what he posted?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Tariffs are not inflationary: inflation is a monetary phenomenon — too much government-made money chasing too few goods — as Milton Friedman argued decades ago.

Oh, okay then. So Biden's out-of-control spending wasn't inflationary either then. Right?

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Nice false equivalency. You damn well know that Biden made the money printer go into overdrive, dork, and it’s adding to the money supply that causes inflation.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Jeff's really got his lying cap on this morning.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Like Biden, Jeff is having a flaming last stand.

[Rick James]

What? This thing over here isn't inflationary, so that other unrelated thing also can't be?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Fiscal policy is not monetary policy. If that is true for Trump's tariffs, it is also true for Biden's spending.

[Don’t get eliminated]

Lmao. Keep going Lying Jeffy, you’re doing great!

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

False equivalency, Jeffy.

[Bananas]

Holy fuck who do you think you're fooling?
Printing money increases the money supply = inflation. There is no evidence tariffs cause inflation.
Either you're the dumbest motherfucker alive or you're lying.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Why not both?

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

He’s not called Lying Jeffy for nothing. He is the most disingenuous commenter here.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

As a consumption tax, tariffs are a more economically beneficial way to tax than America’s current taxes on production and investment (income, payroll, corporate, or capital gains).

I for one agree with this - IF AND ONLY IF these tariffs are treated in a neutral manner. That is not the case with Trump's proposed tariffs (neither with Biden's).

The tariffs of the past were more like "import duties" of today. They were a tax levied on everything that was imported. Didn't matter what it was or where it came from.

Modern tariffs are not that, they are tools to manipulate international trade supposedly to benefit one group or another. Some goods have different tariffs depending on what they are and where they came from. It's not really a revenue-raising scheme, it is a political manipulation stunt. And even when formulated with the best of intentions, it still has the paternalistic purpose of the government trying to "nudge" citizens where they should buy their goods. Why should the government be manipulating trade in order to tell citizens where to buy their stuff?

And who decides what goods from what places get which tariffs? The executive. If you really want a tax regime based on tariffs, shouldn't it be Congress deciding these things? Isn't that where the real constitutional authority to tax lies?

Finally, where do the proceeds from tariffs go? In the past they might have simply gone into the treasury as general revenue, but Trump et al. have been very explicit in telling us all that he intends for the revenues from tariffs to be distributed to those who are purportedly the victims of retaliatory tariffs. So in essence it's a vote-buying scheme. Trump puts tariffs on Chinese goods, China puts retaliatory tariffs on American agricultural products, Trump gives tariff proceeds to American farmers while telling them "look at how much money I'm giving you!" If anyone else had proposed such a scheme, you'd call it a vote buying scheme and you'd be right.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Lol. Got Jeff to rage 3 times. Fucking hilarious.

Truth and evidence just pisses the Marxist off.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Give him a break, today's a tough one for him and his buddy.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

His little buddy seems to be sleeping off his drunkenness from last night.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

I oppose them for the same reason our founders included Article I, Section 7, Clause 1. Executive branch taxation is unconstitutional and evil. No one man should have that power. Go fuck yourself, JT Young.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Thats a weird take given the use of tariffs at the start of the country.

My guess is you only want Congress to be able to set limits, but they started deferring being involved in every decision day one.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

They were passed by Congressional legislation, not Executive Order. That is a modern contrivance.

I would say ok, if the president went to Congress and got authorization for entering into negotiations with [insert country name] with a limit or no limit for how much he taxed on said country's products for a period of time that can not exceed the current houses term.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

You can find examples of tariff decisions in the early 1800s based on the executive power to work with other nations. This wasn't a question early on. Not every trade pact is or was a treaty. Often the executive did it under the power granted through foreign interactions.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

So what, does that make it just? Lots of things in the 1800s, I also don't agree with.

Tax rates are set by Congess. Full Stop.

[sarcasmic]

I'm not going to respond to everything in the quote, nor am I going to respond to any responses. Got things to do.

First of all it's dishonest and stupid to equate 2% revenue tariffs with the 25% protective tariffs Trump is proposing.

Second, the reason why small governments (like the fledgling federal government) like tariffs is that they don't require a big government infrastructure like the IRS to collect.

Third, the government that those tariffs funded was tiny and within the bounds of the Constitution, unlike what have today.

As far as them being inflationary, that depends on if they're 2% or 25%. The former is not. The latter is, simply because it will cause a general increase in prices. On the plus side it can be undone, unlike monetary inflation.

And I agree that a consumption tax is better than a tax on productive activity. However I will only support such a tax if it replaces the current system, which it cannot simply because of the size of the government. Tariffs would have to be in the 200% range to do that, and that of course wouldn't work because nobody would pay them.

Have fun attacking me. I'm not going to read the responses. Toodles.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Sure you will.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Got things to do.

Feel free to do this every day. You're hardly ever here anyway, so what's the difference?

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Yeah, whatever, dingbat. We know you’ll be back to read the responses and comment.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

'It's fitting that Joe Biden goes out in this hubristic manner, because it's exactly how he's behaved for the duration of his single term. Note his phrasing—"I'm affirming what I have long believed"—as if the beliefs of the executive alone are enough to simply bring an entirely new constitutional amendment about!'

DON'T YOU EVEN LIVED EXPERIENCE? By the "logic" (and emotional morality) of the left, believing something trumps facts, reason, math, and law.

Sigh. If only this was true. Then all the pussy hat-wearers and soy boys would voluntarily report to breeding farms and work camps, and stop cluttering up our society and discourse.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

DON'T YOU EVEN LIVED EXPERIENCE? By the "logic" (and emotional morality) of the left, believing something trumps facts, reason, math, and law.

Okay, so now do the Team Red voters who voted for Trump because they were upset about the price of eggs.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Are you telling us that inflation isn't a huge problem for Americans? How does that equate to not calling the guy in the dress Xer?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Please tell us how Trump is going to lower the price of eggs.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Why, you waiting to make an omelet a la Lenin?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Here is a clue. Voters who were outraged by inflation and the price of eggs, who voted for Trump because they thought Trump was going to lower the price of eggs, were voting through emotions and feelings, not based on facts, reason, evidence and logic.

[Michael Ejercito]

They wanted to punish the party in charge.

[Don't look at me!]

Get rid of the failures.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

"Please tell us how Trump is going to lower the price of eggs."

Who knows. Stop throttling cheap energy perhaps. Get rid of the USDA?

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

And when was the last time you bought eggs, dingbat?

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

He only buys candy eggs. Those malt candy ones.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Is that in the same order as his Costco sized drum of cheesy poofs and Ben & Jerry’s?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

You mean the frustration people felt when egg prices actually spiked? And during an episode of broad price increases and actual inflation? Sure, perhaps most of the change in egg prices was due to other factors, but do you really think blaming Biden and Democrats for the cost of eggs--in the broader swell of prices-- is anywhere near as misguided as the left embracing post-modern bullshit, including rejection of objective reality itself?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I think they are both symptoms of a larger problem that people on both teams suffer from, which is a complete information overload created by easy access to the wealth of information on the Internet (particularly social media), and a lack of an effective ability to sort the facts form the bullshit. So because of this, instead of trying to make the effort to determine the facts, a lot of people - perhaps most people - instead just retreat to believing the "facts" that are accepted by their trusted inner circle. So a person on one team may not be sure if Trump is a Russian asset, and that person hears so many conflicting voices and sources it's hard to tell what's true and what's not, so instead that person just accepts that yeah, he probably is, because so many of his friends say he is. And another person on the other team doesn't really understand why the price of eggs is so high, but his friends tell him that it's because of Biden's spending policies so he just accepts that instead.

That's why both teams have shifted away from trying to grow their membership by advocating for policy based on facts and reason, and instead have decided to try to grow their membership by creating an appealing lifestyle brand for others to adopt. Once you adopt the Team Red/Team Blue lifestyle brand, then those already in the tribe become the "trusted sources" and will guide your decision-making for you. You don't have to think about whether tariffs are good or bad, or whether abortion is right or wrong, you can just feel secure in your own little tribe and trust that the elders in your tribe have your best intentions.

[Don't look at me!]

Jeff thinks he’s the “smart” one.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

To be fair...

He is a post modernist so he just redefined smart to include retards.

[Don’t get eliminated]

Cope and seethe Lying Jeffy. You’re making today even more fun than I thought it would be!

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

'"We don't know whether to prepare for a funeral or a festival," one relative of a soon-to-be-released hostage told the BBC. Israel and Hamas have agreed to a ceasefire, now in phase one.'

Sorry, guy, but no matter how things turn out for your loved one, by engaging in hostage trading, you have guaranteed more funerals in the future.

[Ska]

I'm hoping the prisoners got a free pager and iPhone on their way out.

[(Good Riddance Robert L. Peters) Weigel's Cock Ring]

Our long, national nightmare is just about over. The biggest miracle of all is that the pathetic old asswipe somehow managed to not get impeached.

Oh well, good fucking riddance asshole, and we do NOT thank you for your "service" to the country. Get lost and take the rest of your crazy, fucked up family with you. Speaking of which, I hope that your evil cunt wife Jill doesn't poison you to death tomorrow so she can start looking for her next husband. I guess you kind of deserve to fully enjoy the six to twelve months you probably have left in this world.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Only 100 minutes right now.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

I wish Biden and his clique could also take with them the contingent of Democrats who still believe that Joe was great, and the agenda they want to impose on us is justified. Maybe they could all do the immigration thing . But where?

[Don’t get eliminated]

Haiti is definitely not a shithole country, so that sounds good. Hillary already has connections there I hear.

[Commenter_XY]

Devil's Island sounds good.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

This inauguration is going to have Milei, Nigel Farage, Katie Hopkins, Musk, Bezos, Pichai, Cook, Altman, Zuckerberg, Meloni, Orban, Bolsonaro, plus all the MAGA in a small area today.

What are the odds that the Davos crowd and the alphabet agencies take advantage of this?

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Perhaps this is the real reason the inauguration was brought inside. To prevent the Davos creeps from pulling any bullshit today.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

I'm not sure I'd count on the competence of the Secret Service even in an indoor location, given their recent record.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

They allowed 2 people to get close to Trump with knives in 2015.

[Michael Ejercito]

It is not a miralce.

Republicans are not as bat-shit crazy as Democrats.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

'Everything old is new again, NYC edition.'

If people claim rights to unappealing behavior in public spaces, then what happens if we eliminate those spaces?

Most of us do not want bums camping in city parks. I completely agree that being a bum is not a legal violation in a free society, and that bums have the same rights as everyone (ignoring the special treatment some argue for, thus letting bums break rules). Can we change the ownership status of parks from "public" to some form of group private ownership? Can every city resident be granted a share of ownership? And if so, does the access to parks and enforcement of behavior in parks then change in significant ways?

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

Gulianis did that to clean up central park, it worked great

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I completely agree that being a bum is not a legal violation in a free society, and that bums have the same rights as everyone

Great! Now the next step is where you have to tolerate some unappealing behavior done in public by people exercising their rights that ultimately does not harm you, only irritates you.

You are never going to eliminate all public spaces unless we go full anarchist, which isn't going to happen. So the next best thing is a degree of tolerance by all parties involved.

This sort of thing is true for all of our rights - free speech rights means we all have to tolerate some degree of unsavory or offensive speech. Gun rights means we all have to tolerate some outrageous display of guns. Fourth amendment rights means we have to tolerate that some criminals are going to 'get away' with crimes because the police did an illegal search. There is no realistic world in which we have a regime of liberty and no one is inconvenienced or bothered by it.

[Michael Ejercito]

That is a good point.

[Michael Ejercito]

Those unappealing behaviors can be criminalized, subject to constitutional constraints.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

And that's the other alternative. When enough people believe that they are entitled to live free of unappealing behavior, they will vote to criminalize behavior that doesn't violate anyone's rights but just irritates them. And that's when you lose liberty.

[Small w woodchippertarian]

I don't care enough to complain to the ACLU (who wouldn't care enough to listen anyway), but if panhandlers are allowed to sit in the median with signs as protected speech, why are businesses subject to signage laws? Conversely, why aren't the panhandlers required to have signs that meet signage standards? They're trying to make money, so they're engaged in business...

[Zeb]

Businesses get around signage rules by hiring people to wear sandwich boards or hold signs. So I don't think the panhandlers are getting special treatment there particularly. I do tend to think that a lot of limitations and regulations on commercial speech aren't really justified under the 1st, though.
Panhandling and stuff like that is annoying, but shouldn't be illegal as it is just speech in public. Setting up camp on a public way or park is another matter, though. And isn't doing anyone any favors as it mostly just enables destructive and disruptive lifestyles of crazy, addict homeless people.

[Small w woodchippertarian]

I hadn't thought of the sign holders/tossers, good point.

[Kungpowderfinger]

It's also possible that a new round of pardons will be announced for January 6 rioters. Some 1,600 people were prosecuted for their roles that day, with 240 still serving time, so a mass pardon could certainly be on Trump's mind.

As opposed to the POS Biden Administration who felt it was important to preemptively pardon the Jan 6th House Committee.

Party of the people, indeed.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

It's sadly hilarious which one of these things is touted as being worse than the other.

[Michael Ejercito]

Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy
We already have that.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

From the same guy that said trust the experts

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Same guy who gave Soros the highest honor.

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

Does an 82 year old man use the word "literally"? Just asking questions...

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"...Public servants like Fauci (who worsened countless lives while lying to the public)..."

And whose illegal funding of the research caused perhaps a million deaths.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

"'Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead,' said Biden"

Hey, the old fucker said the quiet part out loud. Is this some sort of brag? I assume he means the WEF global billionaire-funded government-security state-propaganda media-entrenched bureaucracy-industrial complex that has partly succeeded in dismantling our Constitutional government, free markets, and rule of law with equal application to all.

[Mike Parsons]

they legit tried to buy the last election with all of the billionaire, establishment, and hollywood power and lost.

Unreal the level of projection

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Projection, like catastrophic thinking and victim complex, must be standard components of leftist psyche.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

Rumors have already circulated about Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents getting in position to start cracking down on illegal immigrants in Chicago on Tuesday; it's possible new executive actions pertaining to border policy will also be announced today.

Fuck, why concentrate on Chicago? It's not like the majority of them are there. They have a bunch, but not even as many as the "should" have as a per capita percentage as the rest of the country. Same with New York City. And for being "Sanctuary Cities" they should be required to carry twice the load of anywhere that isn't one, on that front.

Like, send a pile of ICE agents to Las Cruces, Albuquerque, Tucson, Phoenix, El Paso, San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, etc., instead. Those places didn't ask for the problem, but bear the brunt of it anyway.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

At least a couple of reasons.

1. Chicago is the epicenter, the heart of today’s Democratic Party, not New York, not California. It is where most of this modern crap in the Democratic Party originated. You might as well do a show in the heart of the beast, and not just on the edges.

2. The state, county (Cook), and city have been extremely vocal that they are a sanctuary and will not cooperate under any circumstances. What better place to make it understood that you’re going to go through with this than in the most vocal area against it?

3. The border areas are probably going to go along with the deportations.

[Minadin]

Haven't they also had a significant number of (typically Democrat-voting) locals getting visibly and vocally upset about the influx of illegal immigrants and the funding / support / resources that are being diverted to them (and away from locals)?

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Very much so. So much, that they may be ripe for conversion from Democrat to Republican.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

4. The blacks that live there absolutely hate the illegals, because the illegals are taking welfare. In a media landscape where skin color is everything you will see blacks thanking trump for getting rid of the illegals.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Illegals are taking welfare from blacks as much in political capital and attention as in monetary transfers. Gratitude towards Trump might be short-lived.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

Progressives have a 14 sec attention span. (that's why they avoid long form podcasts like the plague and rely on soundbites)
All you need is a shot clip of poc cheering trump.

[Rockstevo]

Exactly why you should not send them there, a few reasons:
1. why tie them up in court when they will be more effective elsewhere and
2. Let the people stew until they revolt against the Dems.
Eventually they will turn against them on their own and force cooperation. Hell they may even start trending more red, it was not that long ago they had a Republican governor.
In short, make an attempt and when they are blocked by the local and state government point out you tried but the people you elected care more about these illegals than protecting the citizens. They may have CNN and MSNBC to cover for them but they are little by little losing their iron grip on all media.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

FYI, Tucson is deep blue and for years has been waving the sanctuary flag. They are closer to the border than every city on the list except El Paso, but deserves every instance of illegal immigrant overload they get.

[Vernon Depner]

Governments of border cities and counties are compromised by the cartels.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Maybe, but Tucson politics are dominated by the huge university liberal community and thousands of (ex) hippies, plus a very active socialist wing of LatinX.

[Randy Sax]

How many times will Trump be impeached this go round? Lets set the record.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Speaking of Presidential popular votes, which the left constantly does to remind us that Trump did NOT get a majority (Fact check: true, but just barely with 49.92%) and thus HAS NO MANDATE!

But fun, if meaningless, to consider some other percentages. Kennedy got over 750,000 votes, despite asking state voting commissions to remove him from the ballot (and the totally not-illegal or cheating decision by partisan commissions to ignore his request). If we subtract votes for Kennedy from the popular results, then the percentages become Trump 50.2% and Harris 48.7%. And of course just comparing Trump and Harris voters yields 50.8% vs 49.2%.

[Ska]

I'd rather not play the stupid "3d party votes really belong to" game.

[Jefferson Paul]

He wasn't arguing that those RFK Jr votes should count as for Trump. He was saying that RFK dropped out of the race, and it's only because of Dems playing games that those states didn't remove him from the ballot. (the same states tried to keep RFK off the ballot, initially thinking he would pull more votes from Biden, then Kamala.) They thought keeping RFK on the ballot would cause some voters who would otherwise vote Trump to vote for RFK. If you remove those RFK votes (but not give them to Trump) then the total number of votes in the popular vote go down, which would mean Trump has a majority.

[Super Scary]

"Speaking of Presidential popular votes, which the left constantly does to remind us that Trump did NOT get a majority "

States like California counting ballots nearly a month later will do that.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Hey, it takes time to get to the desired vote counts.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

For those still imagining that Biden had any agency for the last year or so:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMt_MwvvSQc

[Commenter_XY]

The corrupt POS is gone.

[Kungpowderfinger]

It’s official, you’re the shittiest president in US history, Joe.

Take a bow.

*Cue horn fanfare

[Michael Ejercito]

Fuck Joe Biden

[Mike Parsons]

A thorough fuck off to maybe the worst POTUS of all time.

Dont let the door hit you, you angry old kid sniffer.

[Bananas]

I feared for Vance's kids when Biden got near them.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Why do you think Elon always carried his son on his shoulders?

[Minadin]

"maybe"?

[Rick James]

What fresh hell awaits us on this Inauguration Day? Possibly a flurry of executive orders, including one to crack down on immigration, if incoming President Donald Trump gets his way.

By 'crack down' do you mean 'enforce the law'?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Laws are racist!

[Zeb]

Isn't that what it usually means?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Fuck Fauci. And Hunter, and Miley, and any other war criminal.

And, for now, ignore them. Let's indict the Big Guy himself. And then see where the distribution of guilt, like shit flowing downhill, goes.

ps. And no more "old man is too forgetful to prosecute" defense.

[Don’t get eliminated]

Dr. Jill isn’t too forgetful, and we shouldn’t pretend she wasn’t involved.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

While she is so mad at the DNC establishment, we could probably flip Dr. Jill.

[Commenter_XY]

Since they (the pardoned) now have immunity, they can be subpoenaed, compelled to testify truthfully. If they lie, it is perjury and obstruction.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Then, after the pardonees perjure themselves, they can look forward to a long, drawn out and expensive justice process.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Since they (the pardoned) now have immunity, they can be subpoenaed, compelled to testify truthfully. If they lie, it is perjury and obstruction.

The Burdick case cited previously in today's comments actually came to the opposite conclusion. A pardon cannot interfere with the right to freedom from self incrimination.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Which, interestingly enough, is what Wilson was trying to do to Burdick. He was trying to make Burdick and Curtis self incriminate themselves. Just more evidence of what an asshole Woodrow Wilson was.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Yes. And Hunter can't take the fifth so he can can be prosecuted for contempt/perjury now that his pardon period has expired.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

It seems only 1/3 of the country doesn't hate Biden but don't be fooled. All the turning on Kamala is veiled disgust with Biden. When it all comes out , he will probably get a decent rating from 1/5 of the country. So it seems from my neighborhood. One guy put "MAGA " in lights on his roof ,with red white and blue bulbs making up a flag

[Kungpowderfinger]

“Biden pardons Jan 6th House Committee”

Bizarro world checks and balances

[Bananas]

Jeffy (and later when sarc recovers from last night's bender) here to push the talking point that all of these preemptive pardons are because of what Trump might do.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Lying Jeffy is probably getting hazard pay for today.

[Vernon Depner]

Let's hope he's been selected for the honor of self-immolation.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

That candle would burn for twenty years. There's more whale oil there than in Moby Dick.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Well, Jeffy is Moby Dickhead.

[TJJ2000]

That's some crazy hypocrisy from the same clan who literally made all the *by-gender* lawful entitlements on the books.

Funny how they can't just REPEAL (or at least stop pitching) their own sexist laws.

[AT]

Cecile Richards is dead.

Lord, we pray that she found such repentance on her deathbed that should be sufficient enough to shine grace upon her. Else, we pray for her lost soul as it is consumed by an eternity of darkness and suffering. May the light of her countless innocent victims be always remembered.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

The Japanese Buddhists have a story that the aborted and miscarried are forever stacking stones at the Sanzu-no-Kawa river bank (the Japanese equivalent of the Styx). They use these to throw at murderers and the unjust.

[Moonrocks]

Every day I see something I am convinced I hallucinated. Today, this was that.

Speaking of, we live in a world where a Chinese student may enter an American university ready to discover the virtues of liberty and free markets only to be taught that freedom is slavery, capitalism is poverty, and America is the evil empire.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

That is probably OK with brainwashed Chinese kids, but does not seem to sit well with those who fled Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Tibet, etc. You know, "Nazis".

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Glad to see that they still teach JRN302 - Gaslighting Media at Stanford.

a compilation of Chaiman Mao Zedong's quotations, which some translate as "Little Red Book"

"Which some translate"? It was a pocket-sized book with a red cover.

Nobody in China would think for a moment that "Little Red Book" referred to Stanford or Bain Capital. Quotations is the 2nd most printed document in the entire history of the world. An estimated 8 to 10 BILLION copies have been printed, more than the Koran or the Declaration of Independence, only surpassed by the Bible.

The goal was for "ninety-nine percent (of the population of China to) read Chairman Mao's book", according to a catalogue of publication records of the People's Publishing House. Provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions across China were ordered to build hundreds of new printing houses to publish the Quotations during the second half of 1966, which pushed the limits of the Chinese printing industry.

[Bananas]

Haha. When Trump was talking about MLK, every Dem stood to clap except for the Clintons and Schumer.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Fuck Billary and Schumer.

[Bananas]

Anyone know why the Clintons are there but Jill and the Obamas aren't?

[Vernon Depner]

The Obamas have stopped appearing in public together. Looks like their marriage might be on the rocks.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

THe Big O is what we used to call a 'gay boy' someone who lacks masculinity either because of a innate feminity OR because raised by and coddled by females his whole life. It is what the militray hated about him, the feminity.

[Vernon Depner]

He needs Michelle next to him to balance that out.

[(Good Riddance Robert L. Peters) Weigel's Cock Ring]

Jill and Barack were both there, Michelle was not.

I think the Obama's marriage is in serious trouble. I wonder if at least of it is that Michelle wants to get the hell out of D.C. and start living a normal life already and Barack refuses to? It's abundantly clear at this point that she has no political ambitions of her own.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Obama took a lot of flak for talking and laughing with Practically Hitler at the Carter funeral, so this absence is probably performative.

[Bananas]

As much as I've always loathed Bill and Barry, I can't help but sympathize with them. It's not a coincidence that they both look 20 years older than their ages.

[Vernon Depner]

They need to up their doses of adrenochrome.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

YOU remind me of Biden, clueless and pompous. Everybody knows where you got that

Adrenochrome is a fictional drug featured in the 2007 Inspector Lewis episode "Whom the Gods Would Destroy". In the episode, a group of Oxford students kill a prostitute to harvest her adrenal glands for adrenochrome

[Vernon Depner]

^^^no sense of humor.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

We need sarcasm tags.

[Don’t get eliminated]

I prefer Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

^Random asshole. Fuck off and die, shitpile.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

If only you at least knew how to write.

Flak from who?
why is talking and laughing de facto wrong
Why is it okay for him to laugh at a funeral anyway
And 'probably' means you don't know sht as always.

YOu like to write crap thinking yourself some Mencken. SO deluded.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

What the fuck?

[soldiermedic76]

Who's sock is this?

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Like we can tell at this point. They are all circling the bowl.

[Vernon Depner]

We will build canals on Mars!

[Bananas]

A man. A Plan. Mars!

[Vernon Depner]

The look on Barron's face when Trump was talking about taking back the Panama Canal and going to Mars was priceless. I was afraid he'd throw up.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

There will be MORE dirt on Fauci --- NOT LESS -- and gang now because Biden stupidly removed it from legal consideration. He always does the exact wrong thing. ????

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Now if only everyone who keeps telling us how they hate what America has become would leave.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Trump, yesterday:

“Starting tomorrow, I will act with historic speed and strength and fix every single crisis facing our country,”

I guess he really is the Messiah then.

[Commenter_XY]

Unlike Biden, a corrupt POS.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Fuck off, Jeffy.

[Bananas]

How do you not have any shame? You got caught in this very thread accidentally admitting that Fauci committed perjury, after a dozen or so posts denying he committed any crime. I can only assume that you're getting paid to post.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Fifty cents a comment.

[MWAocdoc]

Pre-emptively pardoning Fauci = admitting that he is very likely culpable for several violations of Federal law. Thanks, Joe!

[Juliana Frink]

Fauci, Miley and the J6 Kangaroos are among the most vile and corrupt elitist pigs of our time. We must demand they be called before investigating committee after investigating committee, if that is what it takes, in order to fully expose and document their crimes, under threat of perjury (the irony!). And no, it's not a "perjury trap" if they understand the choice between them lying under oath or giving a full accounting of their crimes. And those of their accomplices all the way up the food chain! The scope of their wickedness must to be etched upon the collective memory for all to see and vigorously condemn. We the People deserve no less!

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Yes they can be charged with perjury and contempt as of today.

[Juliana Frink]

I propose a huge monument to be erected in DC - in bas-relief of enormous proportions in stone, depicting the crimes of those pardoned by the puppet Joe Biden at the last minutes of his detestable term. The monument would consist of giant slabs - panels - too large to be torn down by mobs of woke useful idiots. Each panel would depict a particular crime. For example:

Panel One, entitled "The Treason" would depict General Mark Milley on the phone with his Chinese counterpart, assuring him of his intention to betray his Commander in Chief.

Panel Two, entitled "The Genocide" would depict Dr. Fauci, evil smirk on his face and syringe in hand.

Panel Three, entitled "The Conniving" would depict the entire J6 committee gathered at a bench conducting their fraudulent activities with gleeful abandon.

Incorporated in each panel would be a lengthy description of their crimes as revealed at the hearings in which they have incriminated themselves in order to avoid a perjury charge. At a future date, when it has been determined that the 2020 election was INDEED stolen, and everything Biden had done for four years as a fraud can be cancelled wholesale, including his pardons, THEN some footnotes can be added to each panel describing the ensuing punishments.

Hey kids! Any ideas?

[(Good Riddance Robert L. Peters) Weigel's Cock Ring]

I gotta say, I like this John Fetterman fellow more and more every day. Showed up in the same trademark hoodie and shorts he wears every day!

I can't help but have real respect for someone that authentically himself who gives zero fucks about what the holier than thou types on either side think. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up leaving the democratic party and going independent at some point.

[Don't look at me!]

Would you hire him ?

[(Good Riddance Robert L. Peters) Weigel's Cock Ring]

I guess it depends at least in part, on exactly what it was I was hiring him for?

I very well might not. Nevertheless, I trust that he is generally saying what he truly believes more than I do some of these republicans who always talk an amazing game, biut almost never deliver on any of their promises.

[Kungpowderfinger]

Looks like Biden had to pardon his entire fucking family so they don’t all go to prison for influence peddling.

I was going to comment that it was too bad Jimmy Carter didn’t live to see it, but I suspect he went to his grave knowing he wasn’t in contention anymore for the shittiest US President.

Way to make history Joe, you’re #1!
*cues national anthem

[BadLib]

Congress should propose an amendment to the US Constitution that any amendment sent to the states for ratification expires and can no longer be ratified if more than seven years passes between the amendment being sent to the states and three-quarters of the states having ratified it. Such an amendment should also define a method of retracting a ratification of any amendment which has not yet cleared the three-quarters bar.

This gives voters in every state the opportunity to kick out their elected officials who refuse to ratify or insist on ratifying an amendment against the voters' wishes while insuring that the absurdity of the ERA (and the Twenty Seventh Amendment!) are not seen again.

An amendment should only be ratified if three-quarters of the states at, effectively, an instant in time agree it should be.

Demographics of states change due to many factors including aging, natural resource depletion and/or usefulness, climate change, politics etc. The bar should not be that "sometime in the past 200 the voters in every state, for at least a few days, supported the amendment even if there was no point in time when more than one state's voters supported it".

I view the lack of such a time limit for ratification as one of the flaws of the Founders. (As is there being a mechanism for adding a state but no mechanism for removing a state from the union - even voluntarily).

[mad.casual]

Do You Feel Equal Yet?

Less so than ever.

[XM]

"Do You Feel Equal Yet?"

I mean, sort of. It'll take some time before I feel I have at least equal value in this nation as refugees from failed nations who are treated like VIP.