Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

In regard to the nomination of Matt Gaetz to serve as Attorney General, the House Ethics Committee should turn over to the Senate the materials and information it gathered during its investigation of Rep. Gaetz. That Gaetz has resigned from Congress means that he is no longer subject to punishment by the House, but the information gathered by the Ethics Committee is germane to his fitness to serve as the nation's chief law enforcement officer.

According to Politico, the panel has previously released reports on lawmakers who resigned. In 1987, the committee published its report on former Rep. William Boner (D-Tenn.) after he resigned from the House, and did the same to former Rep. Donald Lukens (R-Ohio) in 1990 after he resigned. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/15/ethics-panel-gaetz-report-00189863

[Martinned2]

I'm sure they will get right on that.

There's no point in talking about such things. The American people knowingly elected a bunch of crooks, so this report is not going to get released. Instead, those who are trying to save what's left of the US Constitution should focus their attention on identifying issues where they might make a difference. That might be (I hear) Gaetz's confirmation in the Senate, if such a thing ever happens, but not the House Ethics report.

[santamonica811]

It was disheartening listing the Speaker of the House Johnson whore himself on the weekend talk shows, as he tried frantically to explain why he thinks America is best served by deliberately hiding from Americans (and from the Senate!!!!!) if Nominee Gaetz raped a teenage girl, habitually used illegal drugs, etc...and tried to explain why that sort of information (which, of course, could demonstrate Gaetz's innocence) is not relevant when considering him for the fucking highest law enforcement position in the entire country.

Beyond an embarrassment. Johnson has the ethics and integrity of Trump, minus all the charisma. I do have to admit that Johnson's a perfect fit. Sort of like Paul von Hindenburg, in 1930s Germany.

Well, we've got at least two more years of this amoral and unethical shit. I'm just gonna lie back, close my eyes, and think of England.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Presuming that we ever have elections again, I hope that conservatives such as you can regain control over the GOP and destroy the cancer that is the MAGA movement.

[AmosArch]

SM is a conservative? Since when? I know she claims to be a Republican whenever she wants to score rhetorical points on certain topics but its pretty clear from the posting history I might as well call myself a far left Communist while maintaining all my current beliefs.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason, we will have elections again. I don't see 'do away with elections' on anyone's bingo card. I think Senator Fetterman put it well. You need to pace yourself. The holidays are right around the corner.

O/T: Where did that revolting saying - not on my bingo card - come from?

[Martinned2]

There will definitely be elections. Putin has elections too.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Russian and US elections already share similar incumbency rates.

Just an FYI.

[Satchmo_Lives]

We also share similar conviction rates for federal crimes.

I remember people saying Brittney Griner wouldn't get a fair trial because 99% of defendants are found guilty.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As did Franklin Roosevelt....

[myself]

Oh, the GOP wants elections, just like in Ohio.

[Riva]

I think first we’ll destroy the cancers that have metastasized at the DOJ and FBI. And Gaetz and now Kash Patel at the FBI have the experience and motivation to do just that. Which is why DOJ officials are crying and lawyering up. And why we have more pathetic Christine Blasey Ford like crap emerging. It ain’t going to work. There will be accountability.

[jb]

LOL. Gaetz has experience doing what, exactly? I mean, I'm sure there are some people who agree with the guy's positions, but he has never done anything useful in his entire life AFAICT.

[Riva]

He helped expose the Russian collusion fraud and is committed to reforming the DOJ. And if he's so inept, why the f are you all so scared of him?

[Frank Drackman]

You could say that about most Shysters

[Brett Bellmore]

" if Nominee Gaetz raped a teenage girl, habitually used illegal drugs, etc…"

I missed the trial coverage. Perhaps you could provide a link? Google can't seem to turn it up.

[Mr. Bumble]

You aren't following the new jurisprudence where you're guilty (but only if you are a Republican) if accused (by a Democrat).

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble, what do you claim to know of the then-17 year old's political affiliation? What is your source of information?

[Mr. Bumble]

You are such a cunninglinguist. I was (of course) referring to Democrats who are using the claim of the unidentified accuser to tar Gaetz.
Why did the DOJ not prosecute him if the claims were true?
FWIW I am not a fan and have no idea why Trump put his name forward for AG.

[not guilty]

This accuser, through her lawyer, has called for the Ethics Committee report to be released. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/11/14/congress/lawyer-of-alleged-gaetz-victim-release-house-ethics-report-immediately-00189619

Another attorney, Joel Leppard, representing two women who testified to both federal and House Ethics investigators about Gaetz’s alleged misdeeds is coming forward with new details about what his clients told investigators. According to Politico:

— His clients, he said, told investigators they attended more than five and as many as 10 “sex parties” with Gaetz between the summer of 2017 and the end of 2018, during his first term in the House. At those parties, they testified, there were “group sex situations” and illegal drugs were present.

— One of Leppard’s clients told investigators she witnessed Gaetz “having sex with her friend,” who was underage at the time, against what she recalled as some sort of game table, according to Leppard.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/18/matt-gaetz-feels-heat-attorney-general-00190091

Gaetz should of course be given every opportunity to respond.

[Mr. Bumble]

Was any of this information presented to the DOJ. If not, why not and if it was why did the DOJ do nothing?

[not guilty]

I surmise that it was presented, but we don’t know. The DOJ ordinarily does not disclose details of nonprosecution decisions.

The statements of the accusers' counsel to Politico suggest that his clients did disclose this information.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

The doj did respond. They called the accusers not credible. In fact the alleged 17 year old was a former escort for the original accuser, Greenberg, who offered to pay her expenses for her testimony. Greenberg is currently in jail.

[myself]

I love that your standard for an AG is satisfied by the evidence for sex trafficking a minor not being quite strong enough to support charges.

[Riva]

Yeah. This is original. The real disclosures at interest that underlie the Democrats new Christine Blasey Ford(s) is the evidence of their own abuses of power, from the Russian collusion fraud, the mysterious J6 “bomber” to the Biden lawfare. Democrats can and will do almost anything to keep that shit under wraps.

[David Nieporent]

Bot is programmed to spew out random whatabouts whenever cornered.

[Riva]

The average troll understands that Democrats manufacture sexual scandals for all nominations they oppose. With bat shit crazy Dave, who knows? He could really too dense to understand this, but I suspect he’s more dishonest than stupid despite not being the sharpest troll in the shed. And with Gaetz, Democrats and their troll pets are particularly frightened. Apparently, top DOJ officials are even in tears.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is Reid Hoffman (friend of Epstein) paying the legal bills like he did with E. Jean Carroll?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Gaetz responded already: He resigned to try and prevent the report's release.

Were the report a glowing review of his personality and unquestionable ethics, he would not have done so, and various House sycophants would not be campaigning to keep it secret from the public.

[David Nieporent]

Just a reminder that Kevin McCarthy said that the reason he was ousted as Speaker was “Because one person, a member of Congress, wanted me to stop an ethics complaint because he slept with a 17-year-old, an ethics complaint that started before I ever became speaker. And that’s illegal and I’m not gonna get in the middle of it.

“Now, did he do it or not? I don’t know. But ethics was looking at it. There’s other people in jail because of it. And he wanted me to influence it.”

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

It is amazing how Democrats that post here will say anything Rachel Maddow tells them.

He resigned due to Florida's replacement time line be 8 weeks, assuring the appointed replacement congressman can be ready in January.

Sorry Rachel.

[not guilty]

"He resigned due to Florida’s replacement time line be 8 weeks, assuring the appointed replacement congressman can be ready in January."

There is a vacancy in the first district of Florida for the 118th Congress. That vacancy will expire before a replacement election can be held. There is not (yet) a vacancy for the 119th Congress which will take office in January 2025.

[David Nieporent]

It is amazing how Democrats that post here will say anything Rachel Maddow tells them.

He resigned due to Florida’s replacement time line be 8 weeks, assuring the appointed replacement congressman can be ready in January.

Where do you people get these dumb talking points?

1) There is literally no such thing as an "appointed replacement congressman." While vacancies in the senate can be filled by appointment, under the constitution vacancies in the house can only be filled by special election.

2) Nobody can be "ready in January," whatever that means. There is now a vacancy for his seat; there is insufficient time to fill that by special election, so it lasts until his term is over on January 3.

3) On January 3, his new term will start. Assuming he resigns again, that will create a new vacancy at that point. Only then — once the vacancy actually exists — can the state schedule a special election to fill that vacancy. That process under Florida law takes a minimum of 6 weeks. So the district will be without a representative from last week until at least mid-February.

Resigning now does absolutely nothing for those purposes; the only thing it does is potentially block the ethics report from being released.

[Kazinski]

Is she still 17?

It is somewhat ridiculous to say 14 year olds give informed consent to gender reassignment surgery, decide whether or not to have an abortion, move out of their parents homes without consent.

But still any consential sex with anyone over 18 is rape.

Gaetz's party life is reminiscent of Camelot in the 60's, except Gaetz wasn't married then.

[not guilty]

No, the woman is not still 17. If Joel Greenberg was Gaetz's procurer, plea documents indicate that much of Greenberg's contact with a then-minor occurred during 2017. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.378538/gov.uscourts.flmd.378538.105.0.pdf

[Stephen Lathrop]

Mr. Bumble — Trump has been the object of shocking charges, in shocking numbers, from shocking sources. Those sources number far too many high government officials formerly positioned as close Trump staffers and associates, plus an unprecedented number among the senior military.

In short, in too many cases to ignore, the source of the charges has not been a Democrat. It has been a Republican, or a person accurately described as professionally non-partisan.

Thus, lawfare accusations from MAGA types against Democrats are self-discrediting. You would be wise to stop making them. To continue only further positions you and your associates as an opponent of American constitutionalism.

[Riva]

And, in completely unrelated news, DOJ and FBI officials falling over themselves to hire criminal defense attorneys. After wiping the tears from their eyes because of the Trump victory, Really, no joke (both the crying and lawyering up according to NBC reporting).

[AmosArch]

According to Dems you are automatically guilty if you are accused of something. So all we need to do is to make accusations against every sitting Democrat in Congress and we can clean house. Pretty simple. Thanks for the tip guys.

[Martinned2]

...and meanwhile in Trump world even someone who's been convicted is still innocent! (At least if they're a Trumpist.) Convenient that!

[Brett Bellmore]

Let me explain:

In order of seriousness, from least to most:
1) A politically useful accusation devoid of evidence.
2) An apolitical accusation devoid of evidence.
3) A politically useful accusation with a bit of evidence, prosecutors of the opposing party think it’s not worth charging.
4) An apolitical accusation with a bit of evidence, prosecutors think it’s not worth charging.
5) A politically useful accusation prosecutors of the same party charge, but fail to get a conviction.
6) An apolitical accusation prosecutors charge, but fail to get a conviction.
7) A politically useful conviction in a jurisdiction with a very hostile jury pool.
8) An apolitical conviction in a jurisdiction with a very hostile jury pool
9) A politically useful conviction in a neutral jurisdiction.
10) An apolitical conviction in a neutral jurisdiction.

#1 would be, for instance, the Kavanaugh rape accusations. At this level every sane person should blow it off, but hostile partisans won't.
#10 is an ordinary criminal conviction. At this level every sane person should take it very seriously.

You got Trump up to #7 after years of effort, and he’s probably getting cleared on appeal. Gaetz is at most at #3, possibly #1.

[bernard11]

How do you know there's just a "bit of evidence?" Wouldn't releasing the report give us some idea as to what the evidence is?

I mean, it seems you are just announcing, without having a clue, that that's the case. Kind of circular, don't you think?

And BTW, your description of #7 doesn't really count. Or else add an item:

A clearcut prosecution derailed by a judge heavily and blatantly biased in his direction.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's at worst #3, because prosecutors of the opposing party didn't think they could make the case.

[David Nieporent]

The problem with your hierarchy — okay, one problem with your hierarchy — is that it treats everything that's not actually illegal as not serious.

[jb]

And treats the burden of proof for a criminal trial as being the right one for establishing qualifications for a job as well.

Let's try this as an analogy: you want to hire a cashier for your business. A person applies and you like them, but you learn that this person was fired from their last two jobs for stealing from the till. You also learn that the police looked at it and decided that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. Do you just go ahead and hire them because there wasn't a criminal case?

[Brett Bellmore]

I explicitly said "in order of seriousness". It's a ranking, I said nothing of HOW serious each point on the scale would be.

I wouldn't have picked Gaetz, myself. But I think I should be clear that I don't take an accusation even prosecutors in a hostile administration don't think is worth attempting to prosecute as proof of guilt.

[bernard11]

Bellmore the Omniscient speaks.

[Kazinski]

Trump's conviction isn't final, and there is a good chance that Merchan will dismiss Braggs case against Trump:
"Trump's legal team asked prosecutors Friday to agree that proceedings should be paused in light of how Trump's election victory could impact the case, according to an email prosecutor Matthew Colangelo sent to the court Sunday.

Colangelo wrote that prosecutors were agreeing because they want to consider what next steps would "balance the competing interests of (1) a jury verdict of guilt following trial that has the presumption of regularity; and (2) the Office of the President."

Trump lawyer Emil Bove responded in an email that there are "strong reasons" for pausing the current deadlines and eventually dismissing the case.

The email exchange, including a response from Merchan's law clerk granting the request on Sunday, was made public Tuesday."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/11/12/donald-trump-hush-money-case-deadlines-paused/76199834007/

[not guilty]

Brett, the word "if" can do some heavy lifting. As Cassandra said to Wayne Campbell, if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV9U23YXgiY

OTOH, if Gaetz has not raped a teenage girl, habitually used illegal drugs, etc., why would he not want the evidence exonerating him to be examined by the Senate?

[Mr. Bumble]

So the DOJ's investigation and decision to not prosecute means nothing?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Mr. Bumble — It does nothing to justify withholding from the Senate information potentially critical to a fair evaluation of the candidate. Non-criminal activities and practices abound which ought to disqualify a nominee to be Attorney General of the United States.

To insist that information of that sort be suppressed could only deligitmate the Justice Department among the American people. It does not help that Gaetz himself is on tape insisting that if the Justice Department will not do MAGA's will, then it ought to be dismantled.

Ironically, the fact that Gaetz said that is perhaps the best argument that other compromising information could be withheld. Nothing more is needed to disqualify Gaetz. You are unwise to defend him, and a fool if you insist on his appointment.

[not guilty]

A criminal investigation by the DOJ, while certainly not meaningless, is conducted for reasons different from determining whether the target of the investigation is fit to serve as the chief law enforcement officer in the nation.

The criminal investigation asks: (1) is there probable cause to believe that the accused committed a federal crime; (2) if so, can the crime be proven by admissible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) if so, does the public interest favor bringing criminal charges.

A decision not to prosecute is not a determination of innocence, and character and fitness to serve in public office should sweep much broader than that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did any of the accusers report any of this to the local police or DAs?

[not guilty]

Who knows? Why do you ask?

[ducksalad]

Well, part of the confusion is NG’s fault for just calling it “rape” with no further explanation. It appears the actual allegation may be that he did business with an underage prostitute, taking her to the Bahamas to receive the services. Since she herself would be admitting to a criminal offense, it’s unlikely she’d go to the police or DA.

It’s further complicated because (allegedly) the actual receipt of services took place in the Bahamas, where the age of consent is 16.

It’s worth noting that Gaetz’s colleague who pled guilty and got 12 years, Joel Greenberg, was not charged with rape either. He was charged with sex trafficking of a child, production of a false identification document, aggravated identity theft, wire fraud, stalking, and conspiracy.

But not rape, so NG may be stretching a bit here.

[not guilty]

I borrowed the hypothetical "if Gaetz had not . . ." characterization from santamonica811's use of that language upthread. I could have been more precise, but my point was to inquire why would he not want the evidence exonerating him to be examined by the Senate. The most reasonable inference is that the Ethics Committee Report is not exculpatory to Gaetz.

[windycityattorney]

This is the issue... Joel Greenberg flipped on Gaetz but in exchange for cooperation got a more lenient sentence. He is the feds main witness. He is also easy to destroy on cross examination.

Greenberg claimed he paid for certain things for the girls (flights, hotel rooms, procured fake ID's for them) and Gaetz reimbursed him and there is supposedly a paper trail of venmo or other transactions which corroborate Greenberg's proffer/timeline of events.

Having probable cause is one thing...having proof beyond a reasonable doubt is another. I am not comfortable claiming Gaetz had sex with an underage girl based on what is publicly known. I am comfortable saying as a sitting congressman, he was doing cocaine and having sex with all kinds of much younger females and acting like a college frat guy which goes more to his decision making ability and maturity or fitness to serve as the head of the Dept of Justice. So the ethics committee report is relevant to that topic because it is known Gaetz used to brag on the house floor showing pictures of his various floozies to his buddies.

[ducksalad]

It's very plausible that the committee report (and maybe even the DoJ file) exonerates him from any criminal offense but makes him look very bad. It all depends on the payment trail.

If the quick Googling of Bahama law is correct, there's nothing illegal about sleeping with a consenting 17 year old without payment, and therefore nothing illegal about planning the event while in Florida. Gaetz could (perhaps even truthfully) testify that he was invited to a wild party where there would be lots of barely legal sex going on, and he accepted. The payments were just his share of the liquor and hotel bills.

So, legal but obviously not something he wants made part of the official record.

[not guilty]

With the caveat that I don't know what the Ethics Committee report on Gaetz does or does not include, here are some potentially applicable federal criminal statutes.

One who travels outside the country and there engages in commercial sex with a person under the age of 18 violates 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c). Travel in foreign commerce with intent to do so violates § 2423(b). Attempt or conspiracy to do so is similarly punishable under § 2423(f). The penalty is up to 30 years in prison.

Joel Greenberg has pleaded guilty to one count of sex trafficking of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.378538/gov.uscourts.flmd.378538.105.0.pdf Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2:

(a)Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b)Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

If two or more persons conspire to commit a felony offense against the United States and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each is punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 371.

[Riva]

It would be odd if the Democrats didn’t manufacture a sex scandal to oppose a nomination. But they’re especially frightened of the accountability and reform Gaetz would bring to the DOJ. Beyond frightened. Sheer f’ing panic time. Christine Blasey Ford is going to look like a friendly debate at a grade school compared to what they’ll do now.

[windycityattorney]

Does the fact that Gaetz has zero experience prosecuting a case (and only 2yrs practicing law) concern you for someone who is going to lead the Dept of Justice and be the 'top prosecutor' for the federal government? Anything at all concerning about his actual legal experience?

[Kazinski]

I will concede that Gaetz is the least qualified AG nominee since Robert F Kennedy Sr, and there are similar concerns he was only chosen because of his unwavering loyalty to the President elect.

I oppose Gaetz because i think he is a lightweight idiot, and the job is a lot more than just going in and firing people. I got a feeling that the DOJ is going to be spending a lot of time in court defending Trump's inititives, and he needs someone competent to do that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"actual legal experience" "top prosecutor"

Its a political and administrative job.

No AG goes to court [though it is/was a tradition to argue 1 supreme court case].

[not guilty]

John Mitchell was a municipal bond lawyer in the law firm that Prick Nixon came from. William French Smith was Ronald Reagan's personal lawyer. Ramsey Clark had served at high levels in the Justice Department during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, but I suspect that his most attractive credential to LBJ was that his appointment would cause his father to retire from SCOTUS, paving the way for Thurgood Marshall's nomination.

[Riva]

He has experience in oversight of the DOJ and looking into the lawfare rot corrupting the agency.

[Commenter_XY]

It depends on the goal, windy = Does the fact that Gaetz has zero experience prosecuting a case (and only 2yrs practicing law) concern you for someone who is going to lead the Dept of Justice and be the ‘top prosecutor’ for the federal government?

It is helpful to think in terms of goals. What do you suppose are Pres Trump's goal(s) wrt DOJ (and FBI)? To bulk up a stellar legal department with more legal beagles? I do not think so. Quite the opposite, I would think. You may be missing the actual goal here.

You don't need decades of legal experience to be 'Neutron Matt' to the DOJ (and FBI). You only need to know the bureaucritters you will be RIF'ng. And Rep Gaetz does.

There are plenty of outstanding excellent lawyers at DOJ who can handle any legal arguments for the AG....meaning the ones who survive the RIFs that are coming from 'Neutron Matt'.

You might know this...Did AG Barr or Lynch argue legal cases while serving in the position?

[apedad]

What's the difference Brett?

You voted for a convicted felon anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I did. And I'd do it again, taking into account the absurdity of the charges he was convicted on.

[VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24)]

But Brett, he's a COnvIctED FelON! Nevermind all the hullabaloo about it being ridiculous novel use of a law, and upcharging for a federal law that he didn't break, that somehow made the misdemeanor into a felony! Nevermind all of that. CONVICTED FELON TRUMP!

Poor apedad, y'all fools will never again be taken seriously.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree that there’s some significant uncertainty about what Gaetz did or didn’t do. Sure seems like it could be helpful if someone had investigated it!

[Mr. Bumble]

The DOJ supposedly did and took no action.

[not guilty]

The DOJ investigated Hillary Clinton and declined to prosecute. Do you regard her as qualified to serve as Attorney General if nominated, Mr. Bumble?

[Mr. Bumble]

Was James Comey the AG?

[not guilty]

No, he was not. Why does that matter? The FBI is part of the DOJ. The Attorney General Loretta Lynch deferred to Comey's judgment.

Do you regard Hillary Clinton as qualified to serve as Attorney General if nominated?

[Mr. Bumble]

No, do you?

[Riva]

Deferred? WTF does that mean? She delegated her authority to Comey? He was her “special” counsel? Anything in writing to substantiate that? Was that in Comey’s notes?

[not guilty]

No, I do not regard Hillary Clinton as qualified to serve as Attorney General if nominated.

She reminds me too much of Lady Macbeth.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your honesty is appreciated.

[not guilty]

It was widely reported at the time, Riva, that Ms. Lynch tasked the Hillary Clinton investigation to Mr. Comey and agreed to follow his recommendation as to whether to prosecute or not.

To my understanding it was not a formal delegation of authority, and no special counsel was appointed. It was a discretionary matter regarding management of the Justice Department.

In that no prosecution ensued, why does any of that matter to you?

[Riva]

Not even sure WTF you’re trying to say, there was no “formal delegation”???? There was NO delegation of any authority with respect to prosecutorial discretion. Comey was not working as a prosecutor for the DOJ.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course there wasn't any formal delegation; If there had been, Lynch would have been in a stick situation if Comey had proven to have a bit more integrity; She'd have had to have taken the hit personally for sparing Clinton, rather than dumping the blame on him.

[Kazinski]

Sure she is professionally qualified, practiced law for years, US Senator, Secretary of State.

I would certainly worry about her temperament and commitment to the rule of law:
"In an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, former Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton discusses why she believes supporters for former President Donald Trump are intimidating "sane" House GOP members and calls for a "formal deprogramming" for MAGA "cult extremists."

[not guilty]

"Not even sure WTF you’re trying to say, there was no “formal delegation”???? There was NO delegation of any authority with respect to prosecutorial discretion. Comey was not working as a prosecutor for the DOJ."

Again, why the hell does that matter? An Attorney General can choose to take advice from any DOJ personnel as to whether a particular person should or should not be prosecuted. No prosecution of Hillary Clinton ensued, and the time for any future prosecution of her has expired. 18 U.S.C. § 3282. So why get your panties in a bunch, Riva?

[Riva]

But the AG didn't do that. She didn't do anything. Comey usurped the role of the AG in his corrupt cover up of Hillary. Just more evidence of the rot at the heart of the DOJ and FBI.

[not guilty]

Once again, Riva, so what?

How does it matter one whit today whether Loretta Lynch declined to prosecute Hillary Clinton or James Comey decided not to do so?

[Riva]

Why does it matter at all? Just more history of the cancerous rot at the DOJ and FBI and why Gaetz is needed for accountability and reform.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Sure seems like it could be helpful if someone had investigated it!

Uh...it (the allegation was that he was involved in a scheme that resulted in the sex trafficking of a 17 year-old girl...not that he had sex with her himself) WAS investigated by the DOJ. Said investigation was completed in Feb. 2023 and resulted in no charges being brought, in part due to issues regarding the credibility of the witnesses that were central to the investigation. Is that helpful enough?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Not really!

There are a lot of circumstances I could imagine that might not warrant a federal criminal prosecution, but that could still be relevant to someone’s suitability to be the attorney general.

Is there any reason that the Senste shouldn’t have access to the report?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sure. If the report is not officially released to the public, to give it only to the Senate committee could set up either a whitewash, or sink the entire question into an inescapable mire if someone chooses to leak its contents. More unsupportable charges of lawfare would be sure to ensue.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

More unsupportable charges of lawfare

LOL! You're more entertaining than anything currently showing on broadcast television, that's for sure.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You said, "Sure seems like it could be helpful if someone had investigated it!" It was investigated. Make up your mind.

[Sarcastr0]

“ I missed the trial coverage. Perhaps you could provide a link? Google can’t seem to turn it up.”

Brett aren’t you the guy who calls Hillary Clinton a felon?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure. It's uncontroversial that she committed acts that happen to be felonies. Comey didn't claim she was innocent, after all, (Quite the contrary.) just that someone in her circumstances wouldn't normally be charged.

Left unsaid is that this would be for political reasons, not legal.

[Sarcastr0]

So your appeal to the authority of the judicial process isn’t just fallacious, you yourself don’t abide by it.

So why bother pretending?

[LawTalkingGuy]

You’re forgetting that Brett is the ultimate authority on everything ever and His Judgment is unerring.

[not guilty]

Brett is often wrong, but never in doubt.

As the maxim goes, he who knows not, and knows not he knows not, is a fool; shun him.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am often wrong, often in doubt, but I believe what I believe regardless of the confidence level I place on it. In this case, fairly high confidence:

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

…

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

This is the line that was edited; In the first draft it read “grossly negligent”, but they changed the language on realizing that the statute actually criminalized gross negligence.

In Congressional testimony he said, “What we can’t establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.”

Yeah, the problem being that the statute in question didn’t require criminal intent. He just pulled that requirement out of his ass to justify not prosecuting.

So, I stand by my conclusion: It is uncontroversial that she violated a law whose violation is a felony, and so it’s appropriate to refer to her as a “felon”, but certainly not a “convicted felon”.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, treating "extremely careless" as something different than "gross negligence" was laughable.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, the problem being that the statute in question didn’t require criminal intent. He just pulled that requirement out of his ass to justify not prosecuting.

Refer back to the part where "he who knows not, and knows not he knows not, is a fool;" The statute in question — like almost all statutes — did require criminal intent. In this case, that intent is gross negligence.

[Brett Bellmore]

And it is admitted in the original draft that she acted with gross negligence.

Are you arguing that the acts that comprised that negligence were accidental? She tripped and landed in having a private server? She accidentally had lawyers without security clearances review her emails for classified information?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Brett, he’s saying you’re wrong about how criminal statutes work despite your supreme confidence.

[David Nieporent]

And it is admitted in the original draft that she acted with gross negligence.

That’s… not how drafts work.

Are you arguing that the acts that comprised that negligence were accidental?

I am arguing that you don’t know what the words “criminal intent” mean. (You are also now demonstrating that you don’t know what “negligence” means. Or, for that matter, what the relevant laws were; having a private server violated no law.)

[Riva]

If you’re so interested in Hillary, won’t it be fun to learn more about her role in funding and perpetuating the Russian collusion fraud through her Perkins Coie cutouts? So much for the Democrats to hide and so little time. I think this may be it for them.

[bernard11]

It’s uncontroversial that she committed acts that happen to be felonies.

So then Trump is a felon, despite all your bitching about NY juries.

[Lennyk78]

No. It's very controversial that he committed acts that happen to be felonies.

It's relatively uncontroversial that he committed certain acts. It's very controversial that those certain acts constitute felonies.

[Dr. Ed 2]

“” if Nominee Gaetz raped a teenage girl, habitually used illegal drugs, etc…”

Even if she was only 17 and still in high school, who says that Gatz knew that?!?

He clearly was a “good catch” and one of the charges against Joel Greenberg, whose guilty pleas led to this, was “making fake licenses.” So she claimed she was 18 and had a valid-looking ID to back that up, what’s Gaetz supposed to do?!?

As to using illegal drugs how many people of Gaetz’s age and social class don’t?!? The Kennedy clan come to immediate mind, and not just Teddy. And I want to see the list of who went to Orgy Island with Epstein….

[jb]

"Even if she was only 17 and still in high school, who says that Gatz knew that?!?"

Not sure about Florida, but in most places statutory rape is strict liability: it doesn't matter if you know or not.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Even if it’s a legal defense, “Congressman in his mid-late 30s hangs out with barely legal teenagers to have sex with them” is still not a great look. Just super creepy all around.

[Frank Drackman]

Your jealousy is showing

[not guilty]

As for any commercial sex act occurring overseas, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(i) provides that in a prosecution under this section based on illicit sexual conduct as defined in subsection (g)(2), it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant reasonably believed that the person with whom the defendant engaged in the commercial sex act had attained the age of 18 years.

[John F. Carr]

On the other hand, 18 USC 1591 does not allow a mistake of fact defense if "the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the person." 18 USC 2422 incorporates the state law definition of statutory rape, which I think is strict liability in Florida. I don't know what section of the US Code Gaetz was suspected of violating.

[windycityattorney]

So on that element... I believe I read Greenberg used his position in state government to use the state's DMV to create fake i.d.'s for the girls. Not just to make them at least 18 but rather 21 so they could go clubbing and purchase alcohol. Greenberg is Gaetz's buddy and I would bet dollars to donuts Gaetz was aware that the girls had govt issued fake i.d.s because his co-conspirator is the one who procured them.

[bernard11]

So she claimed she was 18 and had a valid-looking ID to back that up, what’s Gaetz supposed to do?!?

Are you seriously claiming that Gaetz asked to see her ID?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

is best served by deliberately hiding from Americans (and from the Senate!!!!!) if Nominee Gaetz raped a teenage girl, habitually used illegal drugs, etc

You do know that the allegation regarding Gaetz and a sex-trafficked teenaged girl was investigated by the DOJ and concluded in Feb. 2023 with a recommendation that no charges be brought, at least partly due to witness credibility problems...don't you?

[santamonica811]

Yes. See the countless earlier comments that point out that “behavior that does not rise to a provable (beyond any reasonable doubt) certainty is nevertheless often extremely credible and relevant, in considering whether or not to hire this person for a critically-important job.”

You do get that obvious distinction . . . don’t you?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

See the countless earlier comments that point out that “behavior that does not rise to a provable (beyond any reasonable doubt) certainty

You missed the part where it wasn't just an inability to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt (and charges are brought with less proof than that all the time, which is why many acquittals happen). At least one of their central witnesses had credibility problems...among other things.

You do get that obvious distinction . . . don’t you?

You don't even get the obvious distinction between, "accused of involvement in a scheme that resulted in the sex trafficking of a 17 year-old girl" and "raped a teenage girl", so you might want to step outside of your glass house before casting any more stones. But tell us...what amount of evidence do you think is sufficient to justifiably smear someone's reputation but not convict them in a court of law? Is an unsubstantiated accusation sufficient? (That's largely rhetorical though, as the Blaise-Ford debacle demonstrated that for many in your camp such accusations, no matter how unsupported...or even contradicted...by the available evidence is sufficient for you to determine guilt).

[Dr. Ed 2]

We all know that Pelosi's worse.

[John F. Carr]

Gaetz is not popular within his own party. There might be a majority of some body willing to vote to publish the report. Even more likely, somebody willing to leak the report. Senators are not bound to respect rules of evidence and chains of custody when they vote.

In other news of alleged criminal politicians, we just passed the 51st anniversary of Nixon saying "I am not a crook."

[Brett Bellmore]

Notice that Nixon didn't say, "None of my minions are crooks."

[Sarcastr0]

Are you saying Nixon wasn’t a crook?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm saying he didn't think he was personally guilty, that his subordinates had committed the crimes, and in the case of the Watergate, had even done so on their own initiative. It's not like he NEEDED to break any laws to beat McGovern, after all.

He might have actually been right, if he'd hung them out to dry, instead of engaging in the coverup.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Compared to what Kennedy & Johnson did, Nixon was innocent.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, the coverup was a crime, as well as evidence he was in on the OG crime.

Ignoring the erased parts of the tape, Nixon was caught red-handed on tape paying hush money to some of the plumbers.

That's a crime. Nixon was guilty, he knew it, he lies to the American People, don't defend him.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you forgetting my general opinion of politicians? Of course Nixon was a crook. I just don't consider that terribly unusual, except for the suffering consequences part.

[Sarcastr0]

"He didn’t think he was personally guilty" is a factual statement. That is contradicted by the facts.

It has nothing to do with you baselessly assuming every politician is as much of a criminal as Nixon.

Though your personal exoneration of Nixon as just one of the boys is noted.

[Brett Bellmore]

"He didn't think he was personally guilty." is a statement concerning his mental state. I don't see how the facts contradict that assertion as to his mental state.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Part of the tape got erased.
2. Why would he have personally participated in the coverup?
3. The coverup itself is a crime, making him a knowing crook
4. He sought and accepted a preemptive pardon

Those add up damningly.

You going to argue Pinochet got a bad rap next?

[Bwaaah]

Are you saying you like insinuating false inferences?

No, you are not. But yes, you do.

[Sarcastr0]

Looks like my inference was far from false, if you read what Brett said after it.

[Roger S]

Nixon was not a crook.

[John F. Carr]

That's why I called him an alleged criminal. The team investigating Watergate did not have the benefit of Trump v. United States and mistakenly thought he was a crook.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
Every President gets a Cabinett nominee rejected. From what I read The nominees for SecDef, AG, HHS, and DNI are objects of attack. Team-D had better decide on which on of these is the most important to keep out of office and direct all fire on that one.

Years ago under W, the two targets were Linda Chavez and John Ashcroft. Team-D wasted its ammunition on Chavez and the nation was saddled with Ashcroft.

Personally, I'd choose to block Gaetz

[AmosArch]

Has Gaetz been convicted of anything? Not even a show trial? Wow, I didn’t know Dems were big on pretrial lynch mobs and the guilty until proven innocent thing. Maybe they should run with that when they are accused of being soft on crime.

[Martinned2]

We already learned in the last eight years that the Senate is not allowed to impeach someone unless they've been convicted of a crime, and that being convicted of a crime is no bar to someone being elected President. I guess it only makes sense that we're now similarly discovering that the Senate is not allowed to reject a nominee for office unless they've been convicted of a crime.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's the House that impeaches and the Senate that holds a trial.

[Martinned2]

It's not my fault that this is yet another word that Americans use wrong: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7612/CBP-7612.pdf

[Mr. Bumble]

The King's English is now in a league with the British Empire and the Royal Navy.
Go suck some petrol.

[Michael P]

Alternatively, English has changed somewhat in the two centuries since the UK last used that procedure.

[Bob from Ohio]

"yet another word that Americans use wrong:"

What are you talking about? The lower house impeaches and the upper house tries. The word is used in exactly the same manner.

Its some of the procedures that differed. In the UK, the impeached was immediately suspended from office and arrested, not the case in the US. In the UK the convicted could get prison or even executed, we specifically limited the punishment in the Constitution.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It’s not my fault that this is yet another word that Americans use wrong

Whose fault is it that you're too stupid to read your own sources?

It rests, therefore, with the House of Commons to determine
when an impeachment should be instituted. A member, in his
place, first charges the accused of high treason or of certain
high crimes and misdemeanours, and after supporting his
charge with proofs, moves that he be impeached. If the house
deem the grounds of accusation sufficient, and agree to the
motion, the member is ordered to go to the lords, “and at their
bar, in the name of the House of Commons, and of all the
commons of the United Kingdom, to impeach the accused; and
to acquaint them that this house will, in due time, exhibit
particular articles against him, and make good the same.” The
member accompanied by several others, proceeds to the bar of
the House of Lords, and impeaches the accused accordingly.

[Don Nico]

That's nonsense Martin. The Senate can block any nominee for which it can muster a majority "nay" vote. All the rest of what you said just raises confusion.

[Martinned2]

I think your beef is with Amos, not me. He's the one who was arguing that the Senate is not allowed to know something that it might find pertinent to its decisions.

[Don Nico]

Okay.
The Senate can clearly base its vote on any information it can get in any way.

[Longtobefree]

He hasn't been convicted of anything, but his accusers have.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/11/17/house-probe-into-matt-gaetz-relies-on-witnesses-doj-found-lacked-credibility/

[ducksalad]

Yes, Joel Greenberg, as a convicted sex trafficker presumably trying to get his sentence reduced, is not a good witness.

This is basically a mini version of the Epstein case. Various people have been accused of being on Epstein's list of participating friends. That's not enough to convict, and they haven't been convicted, because the burden

However, it would be spectacularly disingenuous to say that Epstein's criminality should make us disbelieve they were on the list. It just means that (if he were around) his word alone is not credible.

[Brett Bellmore]

It appears to me that Epstein pursued a strategy of inviting over lots of important people who weren't into that sort of thing, just to make it politically more difficult to go after him. So the fact that somebody was on the list, without individualized testimony from somebody who was on the victim side of things, really didn't mean much.

[Martinned2]

What kind of important people did you have in mind? Any particular person you were thinking of who was friends with Epstein?

[Brett Bellmore]

Stephen Hawking, for instance? I'm sure he got pretty busy with the girls...

Trump, of course, used to be pals with Epstein before having a breakup with him and banning him from Trump properties, but as Politifact will assure you, never visited his island.

[Voize of Reazon]

If Matt Gaetz can't be denied a new position unless he is first convicted of a crime, then surely officials can't be fired from their existing appointments unless they are first convicted of a crime.

That will be a great comfort to the 4-star generals and DoJ officials who thought their careers were in danger.

[Longtobefree]

There are lots of options in addition to firings.
The Air Force has a continuing need to staff missile bases in North Dakota, and a base in Eielson that is a prime assignment.
A Navy career can be placed in a destroyer instead of an aircraft carrier.
Etc.

[David Nieporent]

Has Gaetz been convicted of anything? Not even a show trial? Wow, I didn’t know Dems were big on pretrial lynch mobs and the guilty until proven innocent thing. Maybe they should run with that when they are accused of being soft on crime.

Some people have higher standards for senior government officials — particularly Attorney General (!) — than "hasn't been convicted."

[VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24)]

Hasn't even been credibly accused apparently. But Dave knows better.

[David Nieporent]

If he wasn't even credibly accused, then why doesn't he want the Ethics Committee report that says so to be released?

[zztop8970]

Because some of the things that may be in that report, like participating in sex parties, while not illegal, might not look good, or simply be an invasion of his privacy.
You line of argument above is aking to "why bother with the 4th amendment? If you have nothing to hide, why should you object to a search?"
Funny kind of lawyer you are. Assuming you are one, of course.

[Sarcastr0]

Illegal but doesn't look good is relevant to confirmation!
This isn't the Fifth Amendment not testifying against yourself, this is 'I want to bury this legitimately predicated investigation because I have things to hide.'

[zztop8970]

It may be relevant to confirmation, and I expect he'll be asked about it in his confirmation hearing, but it wasn't what I was responding to .
I was answering a dumb question, from someone who is supposedly a lawyer, for why an individual might not want private information about him publicly disclosed, even if it does not contain legally incriminating information.
This is something very basic, that I expect even most schoolchildren would understand

[Krayt]

The purpose of the 4th amendment is to stop fishing expeditions…to find actual crimes, not to plant evidence of fake ones.

Kings knew their detractors, often rich themselves, had fingers in many pies and were just as corrupt as he was. He need only look closely enough to wreck an uppity lord.

It has purpose beyond the abstract concept of “fishing expedition”. They aren’t looking for a rare bad guy, but a probable, almost certain one. The kings, and modern powerful, know this. Bad, but the powerful using government against each other is worse.

If you used Wonder Woman's magic lasso to interrogate everyone in Congress, the halls would have mighty echoes indeed.

[Lennyk78]

Yeah, I do too. Holder is an angry, uppity black who hates whites and weaponized the DOJ against conservative whites.

[Frank Drackman]

You’d be angry too if you were married to (the)Oprah

[Krayt]

It’s been
0
days since this blog etc.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, a helpful piece of information to know is how much of an exception is it (to release the report to the Senate Judiciary Committee)? That was Speaker Johnson's point. Is he right?

Why isn't anyone talking to the DOJ prosecutors who made the decision to decline pressing charges?

[Dan Schiavetta]

They’re not in a position to consider pressing charges until the committee decides to refer the matter to them.

[Mr. Bumble]

WRONG!

[Commenter_XY]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-attorney-general-matt-gaetz-justice-department-9d51501fb6ad5c04b5b4113d3a6a584b

[Dan Schiavetta]

O.K., thanks.

The Biden DOJ decided not to go forward.

It's a sure bet that if the roles were reversed, Trump would order the DOJ to go forward anyway and his servile AG would obey.

[Brett Bellmore]

And you assert this based on the Clinton prosecution, I assume?

[Michael P]

A sure bet, just like happened with Killary!

[Sarcastr0]

Who did Hillary kill?

[Mr. Bumble]

Vince Foster?

[Michael P]

So you accept the sure-bet status of the prosecution?

Or Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.)? Rep. Ruben Kihuen (D-Nev.)? Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.)? And Rep. John Conyers only escaped a Trumpersecution by virtue of dying too early in Trump's first term?

[Sarcastr0]

Not what I said. I am curious about your choice of nicknames.

[Commenter_XY]

My question still stands, captcrisis: Why isn't anyone talking to the prosecutors who made the decision not to move forward with charges?

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose because DOJ rules are that if you don't decide to charge somebody, you're supposed to not talk about the case. Because the DOJ decided that talking about charges that weren't followed up on was just a form of legally immunized defamation.

[windycityattorney]

How do you know the ethics committee didn’t talk to the prosecutors? In their own statement, the committee said they gathered thousands of pages of documents and took testimony from many witnesses.

If there is no ‘there’ there what are all the documents related to? The witness testimony about?

I will quote the ethics committee: “Representative Gaetz has categorically denied all of the allegations before the Committee. Notwithstanding the difficulty in obtaining relevant information from Representative Gaetz and others, the Committee has spoken with more than a dozen witnesses, issued 25 subpoenas, and reviewed thousands of pages of documents in this matter. Based on its review to date, the Committee has determined that certain of the allegations merit continued review. During the course of its investigation, the Committee has also identified additional allegations that merit review.

Accordingly, the Committee is reviewing allegations pursuant to Committee Rules 14(a)(3) and 18(a) that Representative Gaetz may have: engaged in sexual misconduct and illicit drug use, accepted improper gifts, dispensed special privileges and favors to individuals with whom he had a personal relationship, and sought to obstruct government investigations of his conduct. ”

Seems like there is more than mere allegations and Gaetz purposefully obstructed the house investigation; has now resigned to avoid the report coming out and has also avoided disciplinary action by the House – – CERTAINLY all that calls into question why he would be nominated for the top law enforcement official of the federal govt notwithstanding he has only 2yrs experience as a lawyer none of which is relevant to federal prosecution.

https://ethics.house.gov/press-releases/statement-regarding-matter-representative-matt-gaetz

[Commenter_XY]

windy...I don't know = talk to prosecutors. It would appear that the Ethics Committee will be meeting Wednesday to discuss this.

My personal bias is toward the House sharing the information with the Senate. How that sharing occurs is up for debate.

[windycityattorney]

I think the tea leaves are already suggesting if there is NOT a recess appointment; the hearing will be an embarrassment for Mr Gaetz and the GOP. It doesn't help that Mr Gaetz is the Ted Cruz of the house...with members of his own party not particularly inclined to expend any political capital to help him and plenty that wish he would just go away permanently.

Given the nature of the job... it's an overall terrible pick regardless of whether all the allegations are true or not. Yes, Gaetz can probably fire a bunch of people and replace them with the Heritage Foundation's list of Trump ass kissers. Beyond that? He offers nothing. BUT ANYBODY can do the job of firing a bunch of DOJ employees and hiring new ones. Someone with 30years of legal experience or perhaps a retired judge or something can do that AND not have the baggage that Gaetz obviously carries. Which makes me think Trump was operating under the assumption that with the Senate majority in GOP hands, he could strong arm them into recess appointments so no dirty laundry is aired.

The whole thing is ugly and yet another example of Trump not picking people because they would be good at their jobs or are qualified to do the job; but they are loyal to Trump. If that is the sole qualification, Trump could put Don Jr in the AG spot and the fake libertarian MAGA people in these comments would defend that idiotic choice just as much as they defend Gaetz -an objectively terrible pick.

[Commenter_XY]

windy, I don't think 'Neutron Matt' would replace bureaucritters that he RIFs.

If Rep Gaetz wishes, he can withdraw his name from consideration. Since he resigned his seat, I think it is safe to say he is 'invested' in the outcome and wants the AG job. Do you really think Pres Elect Trump cares what the media and establishment thinks of Gaetz? 🙂

Maybe Senator Fetterman is right...Rep Gaetz is nothing but a God Level trolling of DC and the MSM. Kind of doubt it.

[not guilty]

No rule governs release of the information, so no "exception" exists.

In September of 1987, then-Rep. Bill Boner was elected Metropolitan Mayor of Nashville and Davidson County. He resigned from Congress on October 5, 1987. The House Ethics Committee released its then incomplete report on November 5, 1987. https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/comm_print_1987%20part%201.pdf?os=vbkn42tqho&ref=app

Like Matt Gaetz, the Department of Justice had investigated Bill Boner but declined to prosecute. Also like Gaetz, (and true to his surname,) Bill was quite a horndog in his day. While serving as mayor, he became a national embarrassment, flaunting his dating relationship with a nightclub singer while still married to his third wife. He appeared together his girlfriend on Donahue, which was syndicated nationally. His paramour, Traci Peel, told the Nashville Banner that Boner's passion had lasted for "seven continuous hours."

[Mr. Bumble]

You should be working for the National Enquirer.

[not guilty]

I have known Bill Boner for 50 years, sometimes supporting him and sometimes opposing him. His tenure as mayor was a national embarrassment.

[Mr. Bumble]

One among many.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, there is a public persona, and then there is the man himself. What could you share, maybe a personal recollection, about Rep Boner (what a name, btw)? What is he like?

[not guilty]

It's been decades since I had any contact with him, but I remember him being affable, personable, and ambitious as all get out. After he served one term as mayor, he dropped out of the limelight for a while. He later ran unsuccessfully for Davidson County Trustee and then for his old seat in the Tennessee House of Representatives.

His being elected to Congress was fortuitous. Clifford Allen, a longtime fixture in Nashville politics, had been elected to the House in a special election in late 1975 after former Rep. Richard Fulton was elected mayor of Nashville. In the spring of 1978 several candidates qualified to run in the Democratic primary against him. Between the qualifying deadline and the deadline to withdraw, Rep. Allen suffered a heart attack, after which his serious primary opponents other than Boner withdrew from the race. Rep. Allen died before the primary election and Boner, then a state senator, won the Democratic primary easily.

[Commenter_XY]

I enjoy hearing about the personal sides of candidates...not the gotcha bullshit, but what they were like as people.

[bernard11]

As I recall it, none of Allen's other potential opponents filed because he was a heavy favorite. Boner filed quietly, no announcement, nothing. Allen's heart attack came after the deadline, so Boner was it.

That may not be exactly right, but I remember there was considerable surprise when it emerged that Boner would be unopposed.

[not guilty]

He wasn't completely unopposed in the Democratic primary. Charles Galbreath, who then had just retired from the Court of Criminal Appeals, ran a quixotic campaign. State Rep. Elliot Ozment filed a qualifying petition which he withdrew, and he attempted to run a write-in campaign. That got no traction.

My (imperfect) recollection is that Rep. Allen's family put out word before the filing deadline that he intended to seek another term, and some folks who could have been competitive (including State Rep. Mike Murphy, who had finished a surprise second to Allen in 1975) backed off. I recall (from Mike himself) that he was asked to chair a fundraising dinner for Allen during his full term, but declined because he had not ruled out running again.

[bernard11]

IIRC, Ozment was considered kind of a joke.

I also knew Murphy, and thought he would be fine, but he seems to have disappeared from the political scene not long after the election.

[santamonica811]

So you're saying that a Boner suddenly shot up in the polls, and then had a successful erection, um, election.

[bernard11]

His tenure as mayor was a national embarrassment.

Tell me about it. I lived in Nashville through the whole thing.

BTW, NG, I take it you live in Nashville, or did for many years, as did I. I had a fair amount of contact with the legal community there. I wouldn't be surprised if we had some common acquaintances there, or had even met on occasion.

[Commenter_XY]

TN is looking better and better as a destination for a second home. Too crowded near Pigeon Forge.

[bernard11]

What are you looking at, and what are you looking for?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, the Senate can ask the House for any documents they like. There is no constitutional or legal obligation for the House to accede to the request. It is not a straightforward call, since DOJ prosecutors looked into the allegations and decided not to move forward with any charges. Add to that, a tightly contested, bitter election. And a lot of personal animus between Rep Gaetz, and people he has skewered over the years who sit in the Senate.

My personal bias is toward the House sharing the information with the Senate. How that sharing happens is up for debate. I could envision a restricted access regime.

I have to say, it is a sordid tale. Rep Gaetz certainly enjoyed his wealth, and his single life. If he manages to get confirmed, he will relish the task of overseeing the DOJ, and it's right-sizing.

[hobie]

If only Gaetz had left his personal laptop lying around. We'd already have his dick pics disclosed

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"My personal bias is toward the House sharing the information with the Senate. How that sharing happens is up for debate. I could envision a restricted access regime."

Notably you omit the citizens of the States the Senators allegedly represent. I wonder why you don't want the American public to have an opinion on the matter and instead pretend like the GOP still cares about morality and ethics...

[Commenter_XY]

Jason, the Senators vote on confirmation, not the people. I am fine with any American's opinion on the matter. Rep Gaetz always has the option to withdraw his name from consideration. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I do think the Gaetz nomination is an early test for Senate Majority Leader Thune. How he rounds up 51 votes....I have no clue. But he ran for the job and has pledged to do his part in implementing Pres Trump's agenda. Now he has to deliver. I don't envy him.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I thought my point was rather clear, but perhaps you've recently come down with the same illiteracy that Publius is struggling with.

Whom do the Senators represent, and from whom should they be receiving opinions in order to properly represent those desires in the Senate?

I'll go ahead and answer for you: the citizens of the State.

Why do you not want the citizens to have input?

Again I'll answer on your behalf: because you don't want checks and balances, you want the 'GOP' to simply do whatever Trump demands and for the insanity of their subservience to be obscured from their constituents.

You aren't fooling anyone.

[ThePublius]

I think you don't know what illiteracy means.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason is still angry about the election. I don't think the shock (and awe) has worn off yet. He will eventually get to bargaining.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Are you two going to fuck now?

Maybe when you're done fellating one another, you can get back to being a disingenuous coward who mysteriously can't see or answer direct questions.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason my man...you have to pace yourself. Senator Fetterman had good advice. Do you really want to spaz out like this for the next four years? Better check your BP, I don't want you to stroke out on me (seriously).

Denial
Anger <--- You are here
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance <--- One day, hopefully, you can be here 🙂

If it gets to be too much for you, you can always mute me.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I enjoy mocking you and calling you out for being the morally bankrupt coward you are.

You sure have a lot to say for someone who repeatedly runs away from answering direct questions.

[Bwaaah]

C_XY: Maybe he really does enjoy feeling like that?

Anyway, it's good to see you enjoying yourself. 🙂

[Commenter_XY]

Bwaaah...It is a target rich environment, post 11/5/24. 🙂

[Bwaaah]

I once asked my mother-in-law, "Why are you angry?"

Her lips stiffened, her brow furrowed, she pointed and stabbed at me with her index finger and screamed, "I AM NOT ANGRY!!!"

It sure did look that way, though. 🙂

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That's three replies after being asked a direct question that, for some 'mysterious' reason, you refuse to answer, XY.

I wonder if that reason has anything to do with why you're so good at goose-stepping?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Aw, are you my adorable little stalker now? Looking for a desperate reason to cry to mommy about civility despite voting for the most un-civil candidate in the history of America?

Ok idiot, flag away!

[David Nieporent]

Again, Thune's job is not to get Trump's nominations confirmed.

[Bob from Ohio]

In practice, getting the people and programs of a same party president passed is in fact a big part of the the job of a majority leader.

[bernard11]

XY,

How often has the subject of an Ethics Committee investigation been nominated to be AG? Ever?

This is not a criminal trial. If Gaetz is not confirmed he simply goes on about his business. No prison sentence, no fine, no nothing. Equating the two is a giant red herring.

Imagine a candidate for some high office - the Senate, maybe - who is heavily favored. Now someone - the press, say - uncovers evidence of serious misconduct in the candidate's past. Should they not reveal it, because the guy was never convicted?

[Commenter_XY]

Good question...I don't know. Do you? Does anyone? = How often has the subject of an Ethics Committee investigation been nominated to be AG? Ever?

I personally favor the House sharing the information with the Senate, in the interest of transparency for a confirmation hearing. The form that sharing the information takes, is up for debate.

For instance, it could be that the draft report is printed, and that Senators can come to a specific secured office, and view it, sans electronic devices. But no copies distributed, or allowed. Or, the Ethics Committee could just release the report and let 'er rip. There are many options here.

[not guilty]

Please indulge me a counterfactual hypothetical here.

Suppose that President Biden had nominated former Senator John Edwards to serve as Attorney General. He had been investigated by the Public Integrity section of the DOJ but was never convicted of any criminal offense. Democrats then controlled the Senate. Should they have confirmed such a nomination?

[Commenter_XY]

From the outset: The Pres gets to pick his team, and that can involve having colorful and controversial team members. And the occasional asshole.

The adultery and love child would not have been disqualifying. Why? Answer: Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Gone to the White House, ha ha ha. So the sex aspect here (illicit affair, love child) doesn't really matter; consensual r'ship over time, legal agreements for child support, etc. People make mistakes, NG, and atone for them.

What would be disqualifying to me is if Senator Edwards broke the law with fraudulent financial transactions. I look at financial hanky panky very differently.

So...Senator Edwards' adultery and love child, but no illegal financial hanky panky...Yes, Team D should confirm him. The Pres gets to pick his team.

[David Nieporent]

From the outset: The Pres gets to pick his team,

Again, no.

[Commenter_XY]

David, would your objection be answered if I stated the following:
'The Pres gets to pick his team (subject to Senate confirmation)'?

[Dr. Ed 2]

In defense of Grover Cleveland (D), everyone in the law office had slept with the woman, and this was before DNA testing so any one of them could have been the father.

Cleveland was the only one who wasn't married, so he accepted responsibility for the pregnancy and raised the child as his own. That's the decent thing to do -- contrast it to Hunter Biden...

And that was a particularly vile election, the Republican was "Burn this letter" Blaine, liar extraordinaire from the State of Maine.

[David Nieporent]

In defense of Grover Cleveland (D), everyone in the law office had slept with the woman,

In defense of Maria Halpin, Dr. Ed has made all of this up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NG, it's not a question of if the Democrats should have confirmed Edwards but if they WOULD HAVE confirmed him -- and I have no doubt that they would have.

Particularly in a situation like today where there is a desperate need to clean up the DOJ. So throw in the hypothetical that Trump had politicized Justice the way that Obama & Biden have, and that Biden knew that Edwards would clean up the mess there.

You better believe they'd confirm him...

[Frank Drackman]

so why the fuck was he still in Congress? and don't make me dig up Ted Kennedy's pickled old Ass one more time.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

So how much do you know about the accuser in this case? Because it is public. The accuser has made these types of accusations many times against other people. The DoJ found the witnesses completely uncredible. I'm sure this won't stop you from treating the accusations as fact, however.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/11/17/house-probe-into-matt-gaetz-relies-on-witnesses-doj-found-lacked-credibility/

[Noscitur a sociis]

Then why is Gaetz so anxious to not have the report released? If the evidence is so unequivocal, I can only conclude that it exonerates him.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The "hookup culture" -- consensual but casual sex -- does not look good in twelve point type on paper.

He's now 42 years old, been married for over 3 years, probably established in the local Baptist Church and you can't understand why he doesn't want his legal-but-sordid youthful antics broadcast to the world?!?

Let's start with respect for his wife -- she probably knows more or less what he did in his 20s, but should she have to have it broadcast to the world? They're probably considering having children, and do they want this hung around the neck of their child 15 years from now?

[David Nieporent]

The accuser has not made these types of accusations "many times" against other people, and the DOJ did not "find the witnesses completely incredible." That is not what the linked screed, which of course is from a fake news source anyway, said. There is a big difference between the DOJ disbelieving them and the DOJ thinking that a jury might not believe them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" There is a big difference between the DOJ disbelieving them and the DOJ thinking that a jury might not believe them."

In theory, there shouldn't be -- either the witness is credible or the witness is not credible. In theory, a good prosecutor can convince a jury that a credible witness is credible, and an ethical prosecutor who does not personally believe that a witness is credible isn't going to try to convince a jury otherwise.

I believe that the bar ethics rules sorta reflect this...

[Dr. Ed 2]

So he slept with a 17-year-old (who quite likely lied about her age). I highly doubt she was a virgin, and we wouldn't be hearing about this had she managed to catch him as a husband.

I compare this to the other members of Congress who have sold us out to the Chinese. Or who ordered the cops to stand down on Jan 6th. 0r the financial dealings of Nancy Pelosi.

Gaetz was a "good catch" and this is sour grapes.

[santamonica811]

Regarding self-driving cars: As technology advances, I can foresee a day when this is affordable. I have a bunch of question, and I'd love to hear your own views on this.

1. Assuming that the technology is excellent enough so that you are confident that the car can indeed drive better than you can; would you want a car that does all the driving (ie, does not permit humans to override)? Or would you want the ability to override the computer's decision(s)? If so, should we have the ability to override during all aspects of driving, or only in certain driving situations?

2. Assume that you do not have the ability to override. How confident are you that a car can be “correctly” (whatever the hell that word means) programmed in situations where the car must choose between two collisions? Should cars be programmed to always preserve your (ie, the driver's) life? Should they be programmed to always preserve the life of a pedestrian over your life? Should the car prioritize a child pedestrian's life over yours, but maybe not an adult's life? What about if the choice is hurting you vs hurting 2 pedestrians? Or hurting 5 pedestrians? (I'm obviously thinking about versions of the Trolley Car dilemmas.)

In a split-second driving situation, of course, we humans react as we react...we have only a half-second to decide. Or a tenth of a second. So, in real life, we don't make a formalized calculation. A computer, on the other hand, if correctly programmed, can do all this thought-process in a millisecond, and can respond accordingly. In act, it's already been pre-programmed to analyze, calculate, and make the "right" decision, in exactly these kind of "no time to think" situations. (And, presumably, this car/software/AI gets regular updates, so it will automatically get the benefit from the results of other self-driving cars, as they report back these situations, the expected outcomes, the actual outcomes, and so on.)

Will we--the general buying public--know the algorithms for this sort of situation? In other words, if I buy (for example) a BMW, can I make my purchase, knowing that this particular car will always prioritize my life, as the driver? Versus buying a Honda, where I know in advance it will always prioritize a pedestrian's life over a driver's life? Versus buying a Toyota, which will always prioritize the party it sees as acting most lawfully in a given situation? Should a buyer be able to override these factory settings. I am selfish, let's say, but still want a Honda? Should I have a way to change some setting in my car, that will change it to, “Always save the driver of this car?” Or, I'm selfless, and I want to change the setting on my BMW to “Save the life of the innocent.” instead of the default 'selfish' setting.

What are some of the other ethical issues you can see coming up? (Again, assuming that the technology is so terrific and so reliable that even we cynics quickly become completely convinced that under normal driving situations, we'd be perfectly safe dozing off in the car and even taking a nap as the car does our morning commute.)

How far off in the future do you think self-driving cars will be mainstream (ie, at least 5-10% of the cars and trucks on the road)? How far off until they are at least half the cars on the road?

What major legal or ethical issues do you see coming up? What legal protections should be enacted, in order to nurture better technology? Or, should we just let the existing marketplace take care of the inevitable bugs and glitches, and let the civil court systems handle things?

[Martinned2]

Wouldn't it be nice if the US had a legislature capable of thinking about this stuff? For all of our complaining about the commerce clause, regulating self-driving cars does seem like something that would logically be within the Federal Government's bailiwick.

For reference, the EU has had a specific legal basis for authorising self-driving cars since 2019. (Art. 11 of the motor vehicle approval regulation.) That has put the ball in the Commission's court to come up with more detailed rules and principles: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/automotive-industry/vehicle-safety-and-automatedconnected-vehicles_en

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, since this year the UK has an entire Automated Vehicles Act: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/10/contents

And no, this is not one of those "regulators getting in the way of innovation"-type situations. The questions santamonica811 raised require input from lawmakers, because car manufacturers need to know how to avoid getting sued and/or locked up. And ideally they need for lawmakers to come up with a consistent answer to those questions.

If lawmakers do nothing, the legal uncertainty will slow down innovation. (Which is why, in the US, states like California have done their own lawmaking. That's definitely helpful from car makers' POV, but it doesn't get them the consistency they need. You don't want to have to build a car that switches to a different set of rules every time it crosses a state border.)

[ducksalad]

You don’t want to have to build a car that switches to a different set of rules every time it crosses a state border.

Why not? Human drivers do it all the time with rear seat belts, speed limits, and (until the late 80's) the open can of beer. Someone who flew on Iran Air told me that the flight attendants announce when the plane crosses the border and the dress code kicks in.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Wouldn’t it be nice if the US had a legislature capable of thinking about this stuff? For all of our complaining about the commerce clause, regulating self-driving cars does seem like something that would logically be within the Federal Government’s bailiwick.

It would be, if the required technology was anywhere near ready for prime time. But it isn't.

[Commenter_XY]

SM811...IANAL, but I see a) insurance and b) liability as two upfront issues. In a world of subscription-based autonomous vehicles, do you even need auto insurance? Is the 'programmer' who wrote the code for the autonomous vehicle liable if the code 'fails'?

1. There must be a human override in all instances.
2. Prioritize protection of the occupants of the car

[Krayt]

The cars ideally reduce accidents. If they fail doing this, you still have fewer accidents. Suing lawyers may delay this, costing more lives by delaying introduction, even as they squeak they save lives and improve things, then go look at their bank accounts as the deaths pile up without robo-cars.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The cars ideally reduce accidents. If they fail doing this, you still have fewer accidents.

How do you still have fewer accidents if they fail to reduce accidents?

[Krayt]

They may have accidents for other reasons, while still reducing accidents vs. humans.

Lawyers profiteering off this misery, causing the delay of net benefit robocars, are hence mass murderers even as they preen they, themselves, are just good guys improving products and saving for megayachts.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

They may have accidents for other reasons, while still reducing accidents vs. humans.

What part of your own words…

“If they fail doing this” (reducing accidents)

…are you not understanding?

Lawyers profiteering off this misery, causing the delay of net benefit robocars

Lawyers aren’t delaying the general deployment of robocars. The fact that the technology is not yet ready for general deployment is.

[Brett Bellmore]

I do agree that under a subscription based system where the car is autonomous, it should be the company maintaining the subscription, not the subscriber, who is insured, because the subscriber isn't in control of whether or not accidents happen.

[SimonP]

It's interesting to me that you pose these questions solely from the perspective of the driver, while driving. Shouldn't pedestrians have a say, in whether algorithms be designed to plow over them in order to save a car's sole occupant, its driver?

Any driver considering the questions you've posed ought to take a step back from them and ask the same questions from the perspective of a parent whose child might be walking to school, whose own parent may be going to the grocery store, or who might themselves be walking across or along a street.

The reason the questions are vexing is that we know that any sane policy approach would be oriented towards minimizing deaths overall - which might, in some possible scenarios, mean taking action that doesn't place the driver's safety above the safety of non-occupants. This raises the hackles of the manufacturers: No one would intentionally buy such a vehicle! But catering to that natural response just means accepting, from a policy perspective, embracing a number of fatal crashes for non-occupants, as the "cost" for achieving a net reduction of harm - itself a kind of perverse outcome.

If only we had some forms of transportation that didn't require putting individuals in large, two-ton vehicles and then building streets to accommodate them!

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the owner of the car is entitled to, at the very least, have their own property treat their own survival as a tie breaker.

But santamonica811 is making some interesting assumptions about how good the car would be at figuring out how to minimize casualties. You'd think such god-tier predictive capacities could avoid accidents in the first place, or deploy alternative mitigations means, like external air bags.

[SimonP]

I think the owner of the car is entitled to, at the very least, have their own property treat their own survival as a tie breaker.

And, like I said, I'd invite you to take a step back from this myopic take to consider whether the costs you're thereby externalizing onto non-occupants is one you, as a potential bearer of that cost, would view to be a reasonable one.

I would take the position that, if you are the one who is endangering others by operating a two-ton piece of machinery at high speed, in public, then there is no reason at all why I, as someone who is not doing so, ought to be content to bear the costs imposed by your making a slight error of judgment or being surprised by an unforeseen obstacle, or whatever. You're bringing the risk. If it comes down to whether your decisions and actions kill me or yourself, why should you be "entitled" to kill me?

It would be easy to see this, with any other dangerous piece of equipment other than a vehicle. Consider, for instance, a world where the Second Amendment were construed broadly so as to entitle everyone to carry grenades in public. Exercising this freedom, you decide one day to bring a live grenade with you while going to the grocery store. While shopping, due to no fault of your own (other than bringing the grenade with you to the store as legally permitted), some child pulls the pin from the grenade, thereby causing its imminent explosion. You can dive on the grenade yourself, thereby causing your likely death but potentially saving bystanders. Or, you can toss it away, ideally in some direction where no one is standing - but understanding that there will always remain some risk that you actually kill someone else by doing so.

Are you "entitled" to toss the grenade away? If your tossing it away causes someone else to be killed or seriously injured, are you properly blamed?

I think we would all intuit that, while it might make sense in the circumstances to toss the grenade as safely as possible, the resulting death/destruction would be your fault, ultimately a consequence of your decision to bring a lethal instrumentality into a public place, even if the events subsequent to that initial decision are not your fault.

So the question is - why are cars different, as a matter of policy? Why do we treat the death and destruction that they inevitably cause when operated by millions upon millions of people as a necessary cost? And why is that a cost that so many of us must bear?

[Krayt]

Avoid the accidents. Then, do what a human driver would do, and plow into a crowd to save his own life.

Why is a robo car careening out of control to begin with?

I have a friend whose wife was sued 30 years ago. It was a scam operation they had done before, but no matter. Load up a car with people, wait to turn right onto a busy street, and pull right in front of you so you can rear end them.

The lawyers claimed that she could have avoided the accident by choosing to pull into the opposing lane and doing a head on of somebody else. Ergo I get money in my pocket.

One insurance wanted to settle, the other had a policy of fighting it out. I have no idea the result. He left the group a few months later.

[SimonP]

Do you have a point?

[Krayt]

The point is lawyers will sue because you saved your own life, even if it wasn't your fault to begin with.

I don't know the robocar rollout quality. I do know it will be delayed long past when it is a net benefit to saving lives, because fears of lawsuits driven by lawyers.

[Brett Bellmore]

My mom got hit with that scam in Canada back in the late 60's. (Us kids were in the back seat.) A whole bunch of people piled out of the car and became 'witnesses'.

A Canadian cop who knew what was going on told her he'd delay on filing the report, so that she'd have time to make it back across the border, and could wait out their giving up with less fuss. And so they did eventually.

[ducksalad]

SimonP

People already do this more or less explicitly. I've heard more than one person say they bought a large, heavy vehicle specifically so that they'll have a better chance in an accident - despite the fact that this raises the total kinetic energy in any collision, and thus inflicts more risk on everybody.

Or more minor stuff. Keeping your high beams on longer when approaching another car helps your vision at the expense of the other driver.

[SimonP]

Seems like something we could do a better job of regulating, huh?

[Brett Bellmore]

Isn't the whole point of self driving cars that you're NOT the one operating it? You're just along for the ride? So you have to look at this from the manufacturer's perspective.

And, yes, manufacturers routinely prioritize their own customers' welfare over others, so long as doing so doesn't require placing an illegal risk on somebody. Why wouldn't they? They're being paid to.

As a tie breaker, and you're a third party, why do you care which way the tie is broken?

[SimonP]

I don't have the patience for your idiocy today, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you don't understand what a "tie breaker" is?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, it is never a surprise to hear you think society at large ought to suffer to spare you an obligation to act reasonably. You long since made it clear that is your take on gun policy. The car stuff is just more of the same.

[Brett Bellmore]

You and I are both equal in society's eyes, society is only properly concerned with how many accidents there are, and a "tie breaker" means, if you don't understand it, that the same number of people die either way.

I agree that If I were in control of whether the accident occurs, society might properly prefer that I be the victim, in order to motivate me to avoid the accident. But we are discussing a self driving car, and I would have no control over whether an accident occurs, so there's no point in trying to motivate me.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Is anyone aware of an instance where there was any point in trying to motivate Bellmore?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I don’t have the patience for your idiocy today, Brett."

And yet you inflict your own much greater idiocy on the rest of us. Sounds like the type of behavior you're complaining about.

[ducksalad]

Some issues I can see coming up that would be of interest to civil libertarians:

When can police download the car’s stored information about where it’s been? What if the car is in continuous contact with a city-owned traffic management system, can they download all that?

Under what circumstances is it acceptable for the car to ignore the passenger’s express orders?

Is it ever acceptable for the car to lock in the passengers against their will? What if it’s a child riding alone, or a prisoner being transported?

Eventually the government will mandate programmed no-go or restricted zones, at least for sensitive areas and smart highways approaching capacity. How much discretion does the state have in deciding who gets an exception? Some cases are easy: first responders, residents vs non-residents, people who paid the downtown access fee. But what about giving privileges to veterans, teacher of the month? Can the mayor hand out VIP highway access passes? What if he gives out thousands of them and they're all people who voted for him?

Self-driving cars will be convenient for the intoxicated. Can the intoxicated person legally override the car’s decision by voice commands? Does that constitute driving while intoxicated?

[santamonica811]

Hmm. Interesting questions. (For ride-shares; I would assume that part of the contract you sign before you're authorized to book rides would be language like, "We, Company X, maintain a full log of all trips, for insurance purposes. We will not release this trip information, except (a) in response to an accident or (b) in response to a subpoena, unless (c) you give us written permission to release such records." In other words, passengers would have only a limited expectation of privacy.

(When I Uber or Lyft, or take a taxi, I assume that I have zero expectation of privacy, and that these companies/drivers can disclose whatever they want about my trip location, and what I say to the drivers while I'm in their vehicles . . . so I don't think this will be a major sea-change in terms of my own privacy.)

[jb]

Others have made similar points, but it seems like the logic should really be "don't get in accidents". I'm sure there's some theoretical situation where you might want to have anticipated and coded in an ethical decision calculus, but really I'd rather the people building these things just focus on minimizing the chance of getting into an accident and leave it at that. We have millions of road miles of them driving; they're already considerably safer than humans (although in somewhat more constrained environment so not clear how comparable the metrics are), and I don't think there's been any situation in which someone thought the thing that was missing was a solution to the trolley problem.

[Absaroka]

I dunno. You are the computer programmer for the thing. You program in rules - don't run red lights, unless an ambulance is behind you with the siren on. Don't hit pedestrians, etc, etc.

What's the rule when you realize you won't be able to stop before rear ending the car in front of you? That might include just hitting them anyway, or swerving into the adjoining lane, or off the road onto the grass. But what if there is a pedestrian there? What if there is a puppy instead of pedestrian? What if it's off a cliff?

The software will be making a decision at that point. You can explicitly have it prioritize, or just say 'we'll just let whatever random thing the particular software in this vehicle does to resolve conflicts happen'. But deciding to not make a decision is also ... making a decision.

With humans, you can just let the individual decide at the last moment. But if you are the guy programming AutoDriver 4.0, you are, explicitly or implicitly, making the decision when you write the code.

[santamonica811]

Yup. You summarized (what I see as) the potential dilemma much better than I had done.

[bernard11]

Can't much of this be dealt with by assigning liability to the manufacturer?

First of all, if the self-driving car gets itself into the mess Absaroka describes, isn't that a case of faulty design? Why was it following so closely?

Second, it seems to align the incentives properly. The manufacturer may (or may be required to) purchase a large enough policy to cover these things, or it may "self-insure," i.e., choose to bear the risk. Either way drives up the price of the vehicle, so the manufacturer has an incentive to improve safety.

So the victims get compensated - including the driver, BTW, if he is injured. This does create a dilemma for the manufacturer. Have the car drive into the crowd, but protect your customer, or send the car into a wall, or off a cliff, or something, greatly minimizing your liability, but killing or injuring the driver.

From a general social point of view isn't the second alternative preferred?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

but it seems like the logic should really be “don’t get in accidents”

Given that there are situations in which an accident is an unavoidable result, and the only choice you might have is the nature of the accident, that's a pretty simplistic and reality-ignoring position.

[Harvey Mosley]

I believe there needs to be way to override in some circumstances (if the car has to be connected to the driving network, if it needs to be driven manually to a repair shop, etc.) but maybe only when the car is first started can you override and drive it yourself.

As for number two, I think the car should prioritize the safety of those who have not created the instant situation. This would almost always prioritize the safety of the occupants of the self-driving car versus non-self-driving cars, pedestrians, and cyclists.

Another option I could maybe be convinced to accept would be that the car prioritizes those who would most likely be killed versus those who would most likely only be injured.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Democrats in PA are openly insurrecting and trying to steal the PA senate seat. They are brazenly and publicly stating they are ignoring courts and the law to make then count illegal ballots in their effort to steal the election.

Why is that being tolerated by the Democracy Defenders?

[not guilty]

Who is "insurrecting," JHBHBE? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTRKCXC0JFg

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-democrats-openly-admit-counting-illegal-ballots-mccormick-casey-race

Insurrection.

[not guilty]

You are proving my point, JHBHBE. "Insurrection" does not mean what you seem to think it mean.

Don't forget Molly Ivins's First Rule of Holes: STOP DIGGING!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

We saw after J6, "insurrection" is completely malleable.

[Commenter_XY]

To his point. Senator Casey, loser of the election, has brought in Marc Elias, to assist with the legal strategy to count defective ballots and change the electoral result. The Bucks County Election board (and I think Centre, Montgomery) is counting defective ballots (per PA Supreme Court rulings) and adding them into their final total.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bucks-county-commissioners-vote-to-count-illegal-ballots-in-pennsylvania-recount/ar-AA1u6J0s

It is not insurrection. What would you call it?

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean contrary to PA SC ruling, don't you?

[Commenter_XY]

I do. It isn't just Bucks County, either. The gap now is ~25K votes. It bears watching.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The thing to watch is how the ballot totals seem to keep climbing too. Two weeks after the election ballots just keep magically appearing!

But if the Democrats "win", then it will be criminal to accuse them of cheating, of course, because that harms our sacred democracy and the only things we'll be allowed to say is this was the "most secure election in history". Like in 2020.

[Mr. Bumble]

Shades of LBJ and ballot box 13.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are they at least keeping segregated totals? If so, I'd say contempt of court.

If not, it's an open effort to steal the election, and every charge they could possibly be subject to should be brought.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, it is a doozy. Check out Diane Marseglia, a member of the Bucks County Board of Commissioners. That isn't an isolated instance, either.

[jb]

AIUI, this is part of the current recount effort so there must be some mechanism by which they can tell which ballots have these "date on envelope" flaws.

[Brett Bellmore]

There’s supposed to be such a mechanism: They compile a separate count of the categories of ballots, so that you’d know how many votes for each candidate were recorded in the category of ballots the court has already told them are illegal to count. That way they can be added to the other votes, or left out, as determined by the court, reversibly.

But, that’s the point: They’re already doing something they’ve been told by competent legal authority is illegal. If they’re willing to do that, why not just toss the ballots in with the legal ballots, so that it’s impossible to undo what they did after the fact? Then even if they get in trouble, they’ve nailed down the consequences of their violation beyond reversal.

Which is why I said, if they're just counting them, but keeping them segregated, it's just contempt of court. If they're not segregating them, it's an effort to steal the election, and it's time to go to town on them legally.

[jimc5499]

Brett. In the 2020 election the Governor and Secretary of State of Pennsylvania issued an order to destroy the privacy envelopes of mail in ballots. They did not run this past the Legislature for approval making it illegal. The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court recognized this as illegal, but, said that the Governor and SOS had good intentions. The privacy envelope contains the signatures and the dates that were contested before the PSSC issued the ruling making these ballots invalid. In 2020 the State Attorney General refused to do anything about this. By the way that AG is now Governor. Do you really think that anything is going to be done about this?

[damikesc]

The mere fact that she admits, on video, what she is doing should eliminate any qualified immunity claims. Prison time MUST be handed down for this.

[David Nieporent]

Qualified immunity is a civil law concept; it does not apply to criminal acts.

[Michael P]

Republicans believe jail time is a credible result: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-dem-gov-josh-shapiro-sides-state-supreme-court-ruling-not-count-certain-mail-in-ballots

(So does Diane Ellis-Marseglia, apparently.)

[David Nieporent]

How is that responsive in any way to what I wrote?

[not guilty]

Whatever measures are taken will in all likelihood be ineffecutual. Per Article I. § 5 of the Constitution, the Senate is the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.

I recall a contested U. S. Senate election in 1974 in New Hampshire. The Republican nominee, Louis Wyman, initially appeared to have won the general election by 355 votes, but a recount showed the Democratic nominee, John Durkin, to have won by ten votes. A second recount showed Wyman up by two votes. Neither the Senate Rules Committee nor the full Senate could resolve the challenge, so the candidates agreed to run in a special election. The Senate declared the seat vacant on August 8, 1975, pending the outcome of the new election. In the September 16, 1975, special election, Durkin defeated Wyman by more than 27,000 votes.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The Boys Who Cried Election Fraud shouldn’t get to complain about legal tactics when they tried to throw out ballots the last time using spurious or outright false evidence of fraud. I mean you will but no one has to take you seriously ever again.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" I mean you will but no one has to take you seriously ever again."

Certainly true, but if you don't "Cry Election Fraud" yourself when your side does it, why should anyone take you seriously ever again?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Again? The people who needed to admit that they were wrong about 2020 being stolen didn’t. They didn’t take any of that seriously. And the electorate rewarded them. So there’s really no point in expending the energy on mollifying bad faith actors who don’t care. You really think if Democrats say Casey is doing something fraudulent and refuse to back him that Trumpists will suddenly see the error of their ways? No. They’ll still say California was stolen or something stupid.

[damikesc]

"The Boys Who Cried Election Fraud..."

....but enough about Democrats.

[Sarcastr0]

Good luck pushing the thesis that Dems are the election fraud guys.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean they don’t need luck. The people who pushed it have been rewarded with all three branches of the federal government. Comparatively few people got in real trouble for it. And not to make light of the burdens of incarceration but they’ll be pardoned and have lucrative speaking careers. The people who really got fucked are the lawyers who are going to lose their license…but that was bound to happen to Rudy no matter what. And I’m not convinced Eastman, Clark, Cheseboro, or Ellis won’t be able to get licensed by a friendly state at some point.

Lying worked and they won.

[Sarcastr0]

Lying worked when they managed to set the narrative.

Setting up the narrative that Dems are the ones that always cry voter fraud is going to be a heavy lift given what they've been yelling for the last 4 years.

Best guess, it'll be chaff so they can cover for the self-serving ridiculousness of their own claims as they up their attacks on the legitimacy of our democratic system.

[Michael P]

Hey, let's ask the governor of Georgia whether the state counts votes correctly. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/01/stacey-abrams-georgia-2024-elections-00186645

[Sarcastr0]

Keep trying chief, you've got a lot of work ahead of ya!

[Michael P]

So do you, in trying to defend the party that wants to ignore election law in order to count dubious ballots.

[Sarcastr0]

No new goalposts.

You were arguing Dems were crying election fraud.

Now you yourself are doing it. Kind of the opposite thesis really.

This kind of arguing with yourself wouldn’t happen if you believed things other than my side right.

From what I have seen, I think the PA thing is dumb and kind of a tantrum, but hardly fraud. Wow look at me dinging my party of choice! You should try it sometime. Make you look less like a tool.

[David Nieporent]

What "party" do you think is doing that?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Good luck pushing the thesis that Dems are the election fraud guys."

Um, the Dems are currently openly committing election fraud.

[Sarcastr0]

Doing it openly means it's kind of a shit attempt at fraud, no?

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, it means you think you have the power to impose your fraud without consequences.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think they call that fraud.

I also think it’s pretty silly to think that’s going on in a federal election in PA.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What would you call claiming a candidate got more legal votes than he really did?

[Michael P]

You think the state’s supreme court ordered those election officials to comply with a previous order from the same court just for kicks and giggles?

There is someone being silly here, all right, but it’s you.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh they should have compiled, and I hope they do so now. And maybe they will get in trouble depending on what PA law says.
Unless this is some legal strat I’m missing but it looks like no.

But open failure to comply is not fraud.

[Commenter_XY]

The important thing....The PA Supreme Court, using King's Bench Authority (I had to look that up), ended the madness. The attempt by Senator Casey (and his legal stalking horse Elias) to count defective ballots and change the electoral outcome has been defeated.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The claim that it's not fraud if they cheat openly is one of the most precious things I've ever heard.

[TwelveInchPianist]

As they say, you don't have to convince the people who vote, just the people who count the votes.

[Martinned2]

To catch my American friends up on political developments elsewhere. (Each in its own comment, for reacting convenience.)

In Germany the coalition has collapsed because the social-democrats and the Greens decided that they were no longer willing to put up with the liberal FDP's blocking of large sums of aid to Ukraine. The SDP and the Greens now govern without the FDP until elections are held in February.

The CDU will probably win the elections and Friedrich Merz will be prime minister. He will probably form a coalition with the SDP, who will kick out Olaf Scholz, their current leader and the current PM, either before the elections or after, and replace him with Boris Pistorius, who is currently the defence minister and is probably the most popular individual politician at the moment. Traditionally in Germany the leader of the junior coalition party runs the finance ministry or the foreign office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Merz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Pistorius

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Include in there how they are trying to ban the second most popular party in the name of "saving democracy" before those elections, and they will arrest you for tweeting no-no ideas... you know, to save freedom.

[Armchair]

Sorry, us Americans actually have news and understand the real reason.

Basically, the German government wanted to pay for climate change issues off budget. But Germany has a balanced budget in their constitution, except for emergencies, and that got shot down. It needed to be paid for on budget. So the coalition collapsed because the Greens couldn't get their $$$.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/31/us/coronavirus-vaccine-timetable-concerns-experts-invs/index.html

(FYI that 60 Billion Euros for Climate Change is almost 10 times the Ukraine aid)

[Sarcastr0]

Your link seems utterly off topic to your claim.

[Armchair]

It's like you have nothing better to do than troll me.

But in this case, you're actually right for a change. Below is the correct link. The previous link was from last night.

That's the trouble with providing links constantly. Sometimes, a mistake gets made. You might try providing links on a constant basis.

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-germany-cant-square-a-e60-billion-euro-circle/

[Sarcastr0]

What do you think trolling is?

[Michael P]

That's when you post anything here.

[Martinned2]

In the European Union the European People's Party, the main political group of the centre-right, is increasingly cozying up to the factions further to its right, like Meloni's ECR (originally founded by David Cameron's Tories) and even the far right.

In policy terms that has meant undoing key planks of the Green New Deal that were passed last term, like the Deforestation Regulation. But in the short term the consequences have been political: The European Parliament is still doing its confirmation hearings for the new Commission, and the social-democrats and the liberals have refused to sign off on Raffaele Fitto's nomination as Commission Vice-President and Commissioner for Cohesion, because he's too close to Meloni.

This, in turn, has drawn Teresa Ribera into the firing line. She's the social-democratic nominee for Commission VP (and in line to replace Magrete Vestager as the Commissioner for Competition). Obviously there is no shortage of Spanish conservatives who were willing to take shots at her, given that she's currently a deputy-PM in the Spanish government.

It remains to be seen whether both Fitto and Ribera end up losing their VP titles, being withdrawn altogether, or simply surviving. More generally the EP's "grand coalition" of conservatives, liberals, and social-democrats is in real jeopardy. And realistically the EPP can't run the place with the ECR, because they don't have the votes, and they don't want to do too many deals with the far right because the EPP are conservatives, not populist crazies.

[Martinned2]

In the Netherlands last week the government almost fell because one of the state secretaries resigned over racist comments made in cabinet. In the wake of that resignation, her whole party considered its position, but ultimately they caved (terrible polling atm) and pretended that nothing racist had ever been said. Given how many far right politicians are currently in cabinet, literally nobody in the country believes that.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/11/dutch-cabinet-crisis-averted-after-nsc-ministers-opt-to-stay/

Meanwhile, everybody is wondering whether the PM is going to release the transcript of the cabinet meeting in question, so that everyone can see for themselves. These transcripts are usually state secrets, but that can be waived. In this case there is a middling case for doing so, if for no other reason than that four members of parliament (the leaders of the four coalition parties) already saw it, which is a bit awkward and unusual.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/11/schoof-rules-out-releasing-minutes-to-clear-up-racism-claims/

[John F. Carr]

(from link) "ministers had compared Moroccan youngsters to pus"

I gather this is because they were blamed for attacks on Israeli soccer fans. While rude, it hardly seems worth toppling the government over.

And the Migration Minister said antisemitism was in the genes of Muslims. That strikes me as the worse statement, but she was not forced out.

[Mr. Bumble]

When did Muslims become a race?

[Martinned2]

Here is a good English-language summary of exactly how anti-semitic the riots were and weren't, and how much any of that had to do with the subsequent political crisis: https://wordsforpress.wordpress.com/2024/11/19/the-integrity-problem-is-far-bigger-than-the-integration-problem/

[Martinned2]

In Japan, finally, the LDP failed to win an absolute majority of the votes in the recent election for the first time in ages. But its leader, Shigeru Ishiba, has succeeded in pursuading parliament to let him continue at the head of a minority government.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/11/world/asia/japan-prime-minister.html

IIRC there was some talk of the LDP forming a coalition with one or more smaller parties, but Ishiba does not seem to have done that. Most of the small parties abstained in the confidence vote instead, which got him over the line, but obviously creates a risk that next time he'll be out on his ear.

[Brett Bellmore]

It sounds to me like 'liberal' parties, world wide, don't have enough independence from each other, and so are all making some common mistake that's ticking off a large part of their electorates.

Of course, given the state of free speech rights across the world, they'll probably decide the mistake was not censoring the opposition enough...

[Martinned2]

Imagine being so oblivious to think that the Japanese LDP is liberal in the US sense of the word...

(And arrogant enough to bloviate about it despite one's ignorance.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Says the Master of Arrogance.

[Brett Bellmore]

You might have noticed the sneer quotes around 'liberal'. I'm well aware that 'liberal' means different things in different countries. About the only commonality is being to the left of the local center, and not actually being liberal in the sense of systematically embracing liberty.

[Martinned2]

If you think the LDP and the FDP are "to the left of the local center [sic]", you should probably stick to commenting on US-based topics.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett is mad about semantics again.

[SRG2]

Brett: stop digging. You fucked up. Have the grace to admit your ignorance and move on.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, perhaps I should change that to "ruling" not "'liberal'" parties; I hadn't realized that the LDP was only 'liberal' in the "Democratic People's Republic" sense.

But it does appear that ruling parties across the world have been making coordinated mistakes lately, I think they're not acting independently enough from each other.

[Sarcastr0]

Didn't we recently have a post about how it's silly to the point of legally frivolous to get mad about political party names?

[Brett Bellmore]

Um, where have I been getting mad? I assure you that I'm quite calm and collected.

[Josh R]

The LDP is the center-right party in Japan. The Consitutional Democratic Party is the center-left party.

[Mr. Bumble]

Gonna need more jails....

[Commenter_XY]

Thought Experiment

Under the Constitution, the Executive executes foreign policy, the Congress declares war. We now have the intersection of the Executive, and Congress: the recent decision by POTUS Biden to directly assist UKR in battlefield use of long-range ATACAMS against RUS; despite an explicit, public warning by RUS that this action will constitute an act of war by the US (and NATO, by extension). The likelihood of war that directly involves America is steadily increasing.

What, if anything, should the Congress do, knowing the likelihood of war with RUS is increasing, based on their explicit, public declarations?

When should Congress debate going to war...the day before America attacks, or the day after America is attacked?

What kind of event would need to happen for you to say, 'Yes, the Congress must speak now' prior to the outbreak of hostilities involving US troops?

[Martinned2]

As long as Congress doesn't want a debate (and it doesn't), that whole question is academic.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean the Democrat controlled Congress?

[Martinned2]

Allow me to introduce Mike Johnson, the House Majority Leader. Because it seems you haven't noticed that the House has had a GOP majority for the last (almost) two years.

https://www.house.gov/leadership

[Mr. Bumble]

US legislature is bicameral.

[Krayt]

There will be plenty of opportunities for the Russian state media to laugh and broadcast, "Thanks, Gramps!", as Republicans do Putin's bidding.

[Frank Drackman]

Good, I like Putin.

[Krayt]

Why do you like an oppressive dictator, literally the best at murdering and jailing his political enemies?

This taints anything you say, and, believe it or not, is not some brave virtue signalling.

Do you like Hitler, too? It’s bad form to bring this up, but he also claimed ethnic nationals were a reason to demand land, backed by military threats.

And the west gave in, and it didn’t stop.

Again, those words out of your mouth are not some honorable virtue signalling.

I can handle poorly thought-out policies not to help, like expense and danger, but, and I’ll go out on a limb here, please correct me if I’m wrong, you want “Hitler” to win?

[Frank Drackman]

He was elected, in elections arguably less corrupt than US ones, he does what's best for his country and his people, unlike most US POTUS's, Hitler? Godwin much? I could say the same things about Zelensky (they even have the same first name for Vlodimir's sake!) Like with the Ear-Ron/Ear-Roc Wah, best thing would have been to kept them fighting eternally, like that Hurricane on Jupiter, so I'd prefer the current hostilities to continue, now it's even draining resources from the North Koreans,

Frank

[Krayt]

Amazing. Every word you said is wrong. Russian state trolls participated in all the fraudulent hot air via astroturfing, and people bought into it.

In no way, shape, or form can Putin be said to have been elected more fairly, as he murders and jails opponents, including direct competition for his position.

And the election in the US was not stolen. When sworn in, nobody says they found any actual evidence. It’s all talking head nonsense, like a guy pushing Bermuda Triangle stories.

“Remember. You’re not on an evening panel news show. You’re under oath and go to jail for lying. Now, it’s vitally important to this nation to see actual evidence of fraud. What do you have? Remember, lying goes to jail. You should have nothing to fear.”

Sworn in talking heads: Not much, sorry.

[damikesc]

Funny....Trump was the one President where Putin did not invade anybody.

[SRG2]

So is your brain, but it doesn't mean that either are working well.

[Martinned2]

You're right, the US legislature is bicameral, but unless the US Senate gained the power to stop the House from debating something while I wasn't looking, that's not really relevant to the conversation we were having.

[Noscitur a sociis]

the recent decision by POTUS Biden to directly assist UKR in battlefield use of long-range ATACAMS against RUS

I’m not sure you’re accurately characterizing this development

When should Congress debate going to war…the day before America attacks, or the day after America is attacked?

.

I’m not sure what you’re asking. The U.S. isn’t attacking anyone, so the only thing for Congress to debate is whether we should preemptively declare war. (I think there’s a pretty solid consensus that the answer to that is “no”.)

[Mr. Bumble]

A dangerous game of chicken.

[Krayt]

Yes, the US has a history of letting dictators run rampant because we're scared. Excellent policy suggestion.

[Commenter_XY]

Nas...this is a thought experiment, and a relevant one I would think. RUS has explicitly threatened war in response to the US directly assisting UKR in the use of long range ATACAMS missiles against RUS facilities in interior RUS.

At what point should the Congress address and debate it? For you personally Nas, when do you say....Yeah, we're at the point where Congress needs to debate this.

In theory, when should the Congress debate, before or after the outbreak of hostilities with RUS?

I know they aren't easy questions, it is why I am asking the VC Conspirators. I am concerned we are sleep-walking into a conflict for which we are unprepared. And the timing aspect (between administrations) is a confounding factor.

[Josh R]

Nas answered your thought experiment: no need to debate declaring war unless you want to go to war right now.

[Noscitur a sociis]

At what point should the Congress address and debate it? For you personally Nas, when do you say….Yeah, we’re at the point where Congress needs to debate this.

I’m still not following what it is you think Congress should or could be debating.

[Jmaie]

deleted as repetitive of other commenters below

[Absaroka]

"despite an explicit, public warning by RUS that this action will constitute an act of war by the US (and NATO, by extension)."

Putin says a lot of things. Right now he has his hands full enough with Ukr that he is renting North Korean troops and hoping he can hold on[1]. He is, I think, bright enough to know that attacking NATO today, while he is so weak, would end his rule and life.

"The likelihood of war that directly involves America is steadily increasing."

I disagree. That likelihood increases if he conquers Ukr and has a few years of peace to rebuild his strength.

[1]Ukr is also holding on by its fingernails right now ... it;s like 1918 with both sides stretched to the breaking point.

[Frank Drackman]

"Renting North Korean Troops"??
like Saudi Arabia/Kuwait/NATO/Europe has been "renting" our troops for the last 80 years, except it isn't even renting since at least the North Koreans get something for their troops.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, Putin is getting the troops, and NK is getting paid. That sure sounds like renting, unless you're suggesting NK isn't expecting to get the live ones back after the war, in which case "buying" would be more accurate.

[Absaroka]

As an aside, I read some pundit speculating that any surviving NK soldiers (for example, wounded severely enough to no longer be able to fight) would not be allowed to return home, because Kim Jong Whichever isn't about to let them tell their family how much better things are outside NK. Kim Jong Whichever is just sick enough to make that plausible.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, that does sound plausible.

In which case you'd expect part of the deal is that Putin won't just use these troops, he'll use them up. So "buy" is the right term.

[ducksalad]

I think the two of you may be overestimating how nice Kursk is right at the moment.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're overestimating how nice NK is any time in the last few decades.

[ducksalad]

No, it’s just that I doubt the NK soldiers will be given weekend leaves in St. Petersburg with pocket money. I imagine almost all of their time is confined to muddy tent cities with freezing weather starting to set in, eating stuff brought in cans from NK or provided by the Russians.

[Absaroka]

" I imagine almost all of their time is confined to muddy tent cities with freezing weather starting to set in, eating stuff brought in cans from NK or provided by the Russians."

IOW, lot's nicer than North Korea :-). The Russian Army has a lot of failings, but malnutrition, not to mention outright starvation, aren't all that common there.

(the story I heard - and mind you it wasn't any kind of classified briefing - was that Russia was indeed providing rations (because ... NK doesn't have rations to spare). Bit of a dietary shock, I'd wager.)

[David Nieporent]

isn’t about to let them tell their family how much better things are outside NK.

In theory, that's right, but these are people being sent to a bloody battlefield, not to hang out in Moscow (let alone the west) and go shopping. "How much better" do you think things are on the front lines in Ukraine?

[Commenter_XY]

So when should the Congress debate, or involve itself, in Absaroka's view?

[Absaroka]

They should immediately vote to supply generous aid to Ukraine, so the stalemate is resolved against Putin. When the war turns against Putin he will fall, and perhaps with saner people in charge we can have a few decades of peace, if not an alliance, with Russia. But in any event it will lower the risk of a general war in a few years when Putin decides to take back the Baltics.

[David Nieporent]

Congress routinely debates and involves itself, because it's always a budgetary matter.

[Commenter_XY]

That is a good point, David = Congress involves itself via budget debate.

[John F. Carr]

Putin and Medvedev say a lot of things. None of them rise to the level of an ultimatum. Blinken could summon the Russian ambassador and ask, "does Russia believe that a state of war exists between Russia and the United States?"

All this talk about strikes into Russia has me thinking about the classified documents cases in the news. The report that Israel may be preparing to attack Iran could land somebody in prison for ten years. Yet senior officials are very chatty about the attack plans of another ally. Surprise is valuable. Why do they want to tip off Russia?

[John F. Carr]

Military aid to Ukraine was authorized by Congress without targeting restrictions. The missiles are Ukraine's, not Biden's. There is no need for a new vote under the letter or spirit of the law. The president does not need Congressional approval to call a foreign leader's bluff when no act of war is involved.

If American soldiers are deployed into combat or Biden directs an act of war, then we return to the usual debate about the War Powers Act.

[Commenter_XY]

Is there a standard, legal definition of an act of war?

[John F. Carr]

There are some customary rules. For example, the blockade of Cuba during the Missile Crisis might have been an act of war.

To the extent the rules are customary, people may disagree. If Putin wants to declare war on the United States he has his casus belli. Remember how that worked out for Panama?

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
Let suppose that Putin wants to "make a point" to the US and NATO. He announces that as a result of Mr Biden's action he is having his military conduct an underground nuclear test in Novaya Zemlya. How does the US react to the test?

[Commenter_XY]

See, we are moving up the escalation chain Don Nico. We use ATACAMS, they use Iksander short range ballistic missiles. There aren't many more escalation steps before you hit nuke.

How to 'react' to a nuke test? Is there a treaty...if so, file notice of treaty violation. No treaty applies? Well, options are limited, it isn't like we are going to resume nuke testing on a large scale. Shit, I don't think we even detonate anyome....it is all supercomputing, from what I understand.

[Don Nico]

In 1993, President Bill Clinton extended the moratorium agreement with Russia on nuclear testing. The moratorium was mandated by US legislation that became law in 1992.
But there are not actually any penalties for Russia breaking the agreement.

[Bob from Ohio]

"How does the US react to the test?"

Yawn?

Its Russian territory. Why should we care?

[Commenter_XY]

Pretty close to NATO (Novaya Zemlya). Bordering it, actually. We (or our allies) might have some things in the area we would rather not have affected by a nuke blast.

[Don Nico]

C_XY.
The NZ test site is above the Arctic circle quite far from Sweden or Finland. In and of itself, a underground explosion there is no disturbance to NATO.

[Don Nico]

Bob, Wake up!
We should care because another nuclear arms control agreement has gone down the drain.
We should care because Mr Putin is will to break a taboo as threaten upon Ukrainian territory
We should care because Russia might be testing a new class of nuclear device.

[Bob from Ohio]

I'm wide awake. Such performances by a second rate declining petro-state just do not concern me much.

[Commenter_XY]

You know, I would normally be inclined to agree....except for the fact that RUS does have nuke capacity. That changes the mental calculus.

[Don Nico]

You actually have no response whatsoever to my reply. But, you are welcome to remain a fool.

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico, I note that Pres Putin has indirectly threatened to use battlefield nukes in Kursk with his announcement of doctrinal change in use of nukes this morning. He sounds more and more like a man who has made a decision.

[Brett Bellmore]

Putin is running what amounts to a third world country with nukes. Of course he's going to threaten to use the nukes, if they aren't a looming threat he gets beaten in a conventional battle. The only reason he's been holding his own is that the fear of his nukes has caused the West to demand that Ukraine fight with one arm tied behind their back.

His problem is that it's a trump card that he can only actually play once, and then his country gets erased from the map.

[Don Nico]

"and then his country gets erased from the map."
Sure Brett, and the Western Europe (not to mention the US) is dead from the nuclear fallout.
The stupidity of people who look forward to a massive nuclear exchange amazes me.

[Absaroka]

"people who look forward to a massive nuclear exchange"

That's worth talking about. No one looks forward to a nuclear exchange.

But nukes are here to stay, Iran will get them. South Korea and Japan could have them in short order if they ever start to doubt the US commitment, etc. So, going forward, how do you deal with a country that says 'give me what I want (for example, a neighbor) or I'll start a nuclear war, even knowing my own country will be destroyed in the process'.

'Well, OK then, our hands are tied, take over your neighbor, and we won't even give them aid' doesn't seem like a tenable strategy going forward.

As an aside, you want to be reeeaaal careful with wars, nuclear or not. Nuclear wars have the attribute of happening fast, but old fashioned wars can be pretty destructive even if they happen in slow motion relative to nukes. When Austria-Hungary started that simple little punitive war over the assassination of their Arch-Duke, they surely didn't see WWI coming down the road.

[Don Nico]

"But nukes are here to stay, Iran will get them. "
Absaroka,
There is still a small window to prevent that, but it seems clear that Biden will permit that window to close.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, you are making very dangerous assumptions.

First, Pres Putin using battlefield nukes (in Kursk) is increasingly likely. The question is how to respond. My prediction is America will loudly protest, and do nothing more than re-iterate that every millimeter of NATO territory is sacrosanct.

The more interesting question to me is how America reacts when there are American casualties arising from that battlefield attack. That could change the game...maybe.

Second, no one is going to hit RUS with nukes in response. And RUS will not be erased from the map. If they use battlefield nukes in their own territory, there really isn't much to say.

Third, the Achilles Heel for RUS is energy prices. Tank them, and RUS is in very serious trouble in 12 months. Sometimes LNG ships and oil tankers get lost at sea for reasons unknown. It happens.

If you assume Putin plays that 'battlefield nuke' card only once, re-examine that assumption. The Baltics are where I look next. I could see RUS ending the informal blockade of Kalingrad.

We need to think through our nuke posture, and where it might be appropriate to use battlefield nukes in defense of NATO. We don't have a lot of time.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"First, Pres Putin using battlefield nukes (in Kursk) is increasingly likely. "

The weaker the anticipated Western response, the more likely something like that is. The manifest risk-aversion that the West has shown to date makes something Russia using tactical nukes more likely.

If we do things that show we're not afraid of Russia, they won't use nukes.

[Commenter_XY]

TiP, for the next 60 days, we are in transition between two hostile political administrations, with different views on UKR. It is a time of maximum danger to America, and an opportune time for Pres Putin to make good on a nuke threat (if that is his intent). Delivery matters, too, with nukes; meaning how it is delivered will modulate any response. We would react very differently to an adjustable yield artillery shell that wipes out a battlefield than we would a ballistic missile that wipes out a city.

Just remember, you are trusting the judgment of POTUS Biden and his NatSec team. The same team on whose watch all this shit went down (UKR, ISR). Not exactly a comforting thought.

[David Nieporent]

It is a time of maximum danger to America, and an opportune time for Pres Putin to make good on a nuke threat (if that is his intent).

That is really really really really terrible logic. In two months, a servile president will be in office. Why would it make sense for Putin to take any action that would provoke a severe response from Biden when he could just wait a brief time and get whatever he wanted from Trump?

[bernard11]

Such performances by a second rate declining petro-state just do not concern me much.

They concern me. I think a second-rate declining state, petro or not, may be more likely to use the nukes than more powerful countries.

[Sarcastr0]

This blog does deliver the cranks.
We have the 'I love RT' full appease Putin Ukraine can suck it crowd
and the 'Imperial Pax Americana' nuke Putin crowd.

Good lord.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The missiles are Ukraine’s, not Biden’s."

IIUC (and I may not) removing the targeting restrictions requires the intervention of US personal, which is what Russia is claiming is the act of war.

[John F. Carr]

I never heard that. I assumed Ukraine was told if American-made weapons were used contrary to Jake Sullivan's wishes further deliveries would be at risk.

[Commenter_XY]

That is what I was alluding to = direct assistance by US

I have a similar understanding as TiP above. You need US military personnel to unlock ATACAMS advanced targeting capabilities. There is no way we just handed the 'ATACAM Keys to the Kingdom' to UKR, considering how untrustworthy and corrupt they are. Only a complete blithering idiot would do that.

[Absaroka]

Can you elaborate on the hardware/software implementation of the ATACMS geographical restrictions? There is some tamperproof chip built in with a series of lat/lon coordinates that trace out the former Ukraine/Russian border, and the guidance system won't accept target inputs that cross the line?

That seems implausible to me. Why would we build in such a system?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Why would we build in such a system?"

So that the missiles can't be used to hit targets that we don't want them to hit?

[Don Nico]

The US has a very long history (since Kennedy signed a law in 1962) of developing a series of ever more advances permissive action links (PALs) for nuclear weapons that less sophistication versions of PALs are on ATACMS is not surprising. Their precise nature on specific weapons has always been classified. However there is a good YouTube video.

[Absaroka]

Your belief is that PALS include geographic limitations?

Are there other weapon systems with this kind of geographic limitation? F-35's, F-16's, JDAMS? AMRAAM?

I've seen lots of reporting that the geographic restrictions are 'if you use them outside these ROE we will stop sending you stuff'. That comports with some of the restrictions, i.e. 'Only use them on military targets like troop concentrations', which doesn't seem like a restriction you could bake into silicon.

If you can share any source describing a lat/lon based hardware enforced restriction, I'm all ears. Until then, it sounds pretty dubious.

[Don Nico]

My belief is that if the US has said that there are such links, then it takes an affirmative action to unlock them. I don't know the exact nature of those links are on ATACMS .
You're welcome to remain dubious, as the Army is not telling any of us what the restrictions are.

As for piloted weapons systems, they are already nder human control.

[Sarcastr0]

It's among lots of things Russia has said to rattle sabers over the past year.

Scott Ritter over at RT has been pushing it a lot - saying the Russian nukes are coming, and are an appropriate response.

Been leading to a lot of dumb e-mail forwards from relatives telling me to get out of DC.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
If it were to come to that, just moving out of the DC metro area would likely not be of much help.
You might as well stay put.

[TwelveInchPianist]

This is what Russia is claiming. I don't know if it's true or not, and it doesn't really matter.

These missiles use specially encoded GPS systems that many of our allies can't access, so the claim is plausible.

[ducksalad]

What kind of event would need to happen for you to say, ‘Yes, the Congress must speak now’

IMO we’ve had such events every year of my entire life, and with a single exception (Afghanistan in 2001) Congress should have said “no” to every one of them.

Biden’s move is reckless, but I can think of dozens of POTUS moves that were more so.

[Don Nico]

I think that Mr. Biden's move is meant to try to put Mr. Trump in a box.

[ducksalad]

Quite possible, I thought the same thing.

Not a whole lot different than negotiating to give away Afghanistan to the Taliban and then leaving it to your successor try to do it in a way that is orderly and isn't a national humiliation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"despite an explicit, public warning by RUS that this action will constitute an act of war by the US...what, if anything, should Congress do?"

Declare war. If the RUS thinks what we're already doing is an act of war, there' no reason not to obliterate every RUS asset in the theater, end the war, and save ourselves a bunch of money.

[Don Nico]

"there’ no reason not to obliterate every RUS asset in the theater,"
Amazing how stupid that idea is.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I disagree. Putin only does this stuff because he gets away with it. If he stops getting away with it, he'll stop doing it.

[Don Nico]

And who is going to do that 1a"? Ukraine has been trying for nearly 3 years. Only the US has that capability.

[TwelveInchPianist]

As I said, if Russia's position is that the US is already intervening int the war, there's no reason not to intervene effectively.

[Don Nico]

So, you’d start a nuclear war. There goes the last shred of credibility that you may have had.
Note that as Russia has not declared war on the US, the US would be starting a war as opposed to merely funding a proxy war with Ukrainians paying the price. Pathetic and muted.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Note that as Russia has not declared war on the US, the US would be starting a war..."

Sigh. No, the US would be finishing a war that Russia started.

You've presented no evidence that Russia would start a nuclear war. Pathetic and muted isn't an argument.

[Mr. Bumble]

Make America fun again. Replacing Let's Go Brandon, the Trump Dance:
https://x.com/ByronDonalds/status/1858279440473833782

[Doug Huffman]

I believe that it is a principle of good authorship and good public speaking to not over use a word. For me, such a word has been schadenfreude, so recently I learned of EPICARICACY, the synonym in English.

[SRG2]

Thank you! While we're on overused words, kakistocracy has begun to be overused, so I coined "mephitocracy" -rule by the foulest and smelliest.

[MoreCurious]

Now that the election is over, I hope VC readers will have some advice for parents whose kids want to grow up and be elected president some day. At what age should kids be taught that it's okay to be vulgar, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, misogynistic bullies? And when should the males begin to sexually assault women? When should they begin to commit their first felonies? And, finally, should they begin hawking bibles before or after they're elected?

[Krayt]

"And, in spite of all that, just punch the other side hard enough and you will win, in spite of that, not because of that. The other side is just that awful, too."

Too.

[Krayt]

"We're not awful, and on rare occasions, we get rid of the guy, not promote him!"

Yes. Think about that. We'll skip the profound awfulness of directing the investigative power of government against an enemy, deliberaty, in initiative after initiative, for the better part of 10 years.

Just presume you are pleasant folk who want to pay a visit on a Sunday afternoon. And yet...

[Brett Bellmore]

My advice is that it's never OK to be vulgar, phobic, or miso[fill in the blank], but one should remember that not being any of those things does not mean you won't be accused of them by people who disagree with your politics, so don't get too stressed out over it when it happens, or let other people force you to abandon your considered positions in order to avoid baseless accusations.

[Sarcastr0]

This is why it is foolish to believe you when you claim you don’t care for Trumps character.

When pressed you will just turn on a dime and believe whatever you need to.

[Brett Bellmore]

I do care about Trump's character, I'm just not willing to pretend that Harris' character was fantastic, or that it was the only consideration. I voted against him in the primaries, that should be sufficient.

[Sarcastr0]

Another turn on a dime.

You didn't say anything about Harris above, you argued the accusations about character were false.

Which itself contradicts your saying you don't like Trump's character but blah blah blah.

You used to be out there, but consistent. Thanks to this election, that's gone now.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You didn’t say anything about Harris above, you argued the accusations about character were false."

"I hope VC readers will have some advice for parents whose kids want to grow up and be elected president some day."

I was answering the question asked.

[MoreCurious]

Baseless claims, Brett? Which ones, exactly?

[Brett Bellmore]

They hypothetical claims that my son, who is a moral exemplar, might face.

[MoreCurious]

Vulgarity baseless? Sexual assault baseless? Felonies baseless? Have you been stranded on the space station for the past four years?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I've been regularly exposed to my son. He's grown up pretty decent, aside from a tendency to shout excessively while playing video games.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why are you accusing his son of vulgarity, sexual assualt, and felonies? I guess it's just the left's nature to make baseless accusations.

[MoreCurious]

You need to work on your reading skills, especially comprehension. No one, including me, has accused anyone other than Trump of vulgarity, sexual assault, and felonies. If you're in the mood to defend someone, why don't you amuse us by trying to defend Trump's appalling behavior.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You said, "Vulgarity baseless? Sexual assault baseless? Felonies baseless?" in response to a hypothetical conversion about Brett's son being accused of such things. It's your own freakin' hypo.

[Dan Schiavetta]

MoreCurious:

Good point.

Two warm, loving families who produced upstanding people (the Bidens, the Harrises). And instead, the Trump family.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, warm and loving. Like sleeping with your sister-in-law, showering with your daughter, ignoring a grand child, screwing your children's nanny .....

[MoreCurious]

So are those the reasons you didn't vote for Biden?

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess you didn't get the memo, Biden wasn’t running.

[MoreCurious]

You obviously thought he was because you're the one who brought up the bullshit about his behavior.

[Mr. Bumble]

Have another cup of coffee. Your comment mentioned both Biden and Harris as being upstanding and having warm, loving families.

[MoreCurious]

Have another cup of coffee. It was captcrisis who made the remark about Biden and Harris, not me.

[MoreCurious]

Still working on your reading comprehension problem?

[Michael P]

Someone smarter or wiser than you might have learned from the recent US election that just calling people names is not a winning political ploy.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's going to take at least a couple election cycles to learn that, because doing it is so emotionally rewarding even if it doesn't work.

[Commenter_XY]

I’d say three…the fever may break by 2036. They're still in the anger phase.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Trump is the all time champion at name calling and he won. What’s your point?

[Michael P]

SimonP, unlike you, understood why I wrote "just" in my earlier comment.

[SimonP]

Yes, it is apparently more effective to ramble incoherently, riffing on possible policies based on whatever the mood music seems to be, so that everyone just kind of views you as the vehicle for their frustration and hopes.

[MoreCurious]

Pointing out the truth, Michael, is not calling people names.

[Michael P]

Exactly so. You should try more of the former and less of the latter.

[MoreCurious]

Intriguing answer. Now is the perfect time for you to point out anything I wrote that is not the truth.

[Michael P]

Well...

At what age should kids be taught that it’s okay to be vulgar, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, misogynistic bullies? And when should the males begin to sexually assault women? When should they begin to commit their first felonies? And, finally, should they begin hawking bibles before or after they’re elected?

Four questions, zero truth.

My cat's hairballs are more useful than you.

[MoreCurious]

A little reality check just for you, Michael:
1. Truth: Trump is a vulgar, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, misogynistic bully.
2. Truth: Trump sexually assaulted women.
3. Truth: Trump has been convicted of felonies.
4. Truth: Trump hawks bibles.
5. Truth: More than half of U.S. voters apparently have no problem with any of the above.

[Michael P]

Truth: You didn't write any of that the first time.
Truth: You wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and slapped you in the face.
Truth: You're just upset that you backed a senile fool and then an incompetent DEI hire.

[David Nieporent]

#5 isn't true. The latest count has Trump below 50%.

[SRG2]

Oh, did Trump not call people names?

And can we have some actual honesty here from Trump supporters? It’s hard, but give it a try. It’s not as though the accusations against Trump are untrue. He is a convicted felon, his charity was closed down because of his ill-dealings, he did stiff contractors, he did discriminate against black renters, he did sexually assault women, etc. Own it.

[Don Nico]

And he called Rubio-of-the-little-hands "little Marco."

[Mr. Bumble]

...and now he nominated him to become SoS.

[SRG2]

One can always get back in Trump's good graces by sucking his dick bending the knee.

[jb]

As far as I can tell, it works pretty great. Any time the winner of the election talks about people on the other side of the political divide, he makes sure to call them names.

Or are you saying that you also need to compliment people who are sucking up to you? Because you're right, Trump does a lot of that. So maybe you need to do like 40% calling people names and 40% fluffing people up, and 20% saying that you're going to solve problems without actually saying what you're going to do about them and then you've got the winning formula.

[Frank Drackman]

almost 2 weeks and still in the Anger stage? gonna be a long 12 years for you

[Bwaaah]

You should teach them that all of those attributes are bad.

What you won’t be able to teach them is how poisonous snarky parents can be to their children’s attitudes toward the world. You will be modeling widespread contempt for people, as you do.

What are you really trying to say?

[MoreCurious]

What I'm really trying to say -- as if you don't know -- is that there is simply no good reason for more than half the voters to vote for a vulgar, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, misogynistic bully. Of all the Republicans in this country, that's who the party decided was best able to represent Republican ideals and achieve Republican goals. That's pathetic.

[Bob from Ohio]

"simply no good reason"

Harris was the other choice. There is your "good reason".

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh you don’t have to play the “I had no choice” game. We all know you LIKE his awful character traits. This is a safe space, just admit it.

[Bob from Ohio]

“I had no choice”

I didn't even vote. I was talking about Trump voters as a group. My vote always goes to the GOP candidate, if I vote.

He's like everyone, a mix of good and bad traits. Biden and him are very similar, you just like Biden so ignore his bad points.

Your side once nominated Bill Clinton, so you are not in a position to argue awful character in any event.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Your side once nominated Bill Clinton, so you are not in a position to argue awful character in any event.”

I was 3.

Also I don’t like Biden much.

[Kazinski]

See below for Alex Soros' take on why Trump won.

But I think he misses the point too, if the Democrats had a moderate candidate like Roy Cooper, Andy Beshear, or Josh Shapiro or a technocrat like Jerome Powell it would have been no contest.

When the UK was faced with a real Hitler, they installed a National Unity government that put aside partisan politics until the threat was ended.

Democrats figured Trump and Donbs were so unpopular they could elect as radical a candidate as they wanted, and thats why they lost. And the progessive wing of the party would rather lose than see the party move towards the center.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it would have been no contest."

Correct, Trump's margin would have been a lot bigger!

Those men are all just Mike Dukakis.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, I have advised both of my children not to run for POTUS, but to be president of Goldman Sachs, instead. Far better pay.

[Bwaaah]

That should allow them to get through life without being accused of illicit sex.

I think you have to be somewhat crazy to want the POTUS job. I can see why Trump is interested. But when I see anybody who appears to be normal, and yet wants to be President, I feel like there's something going on there that doesn't make sense; something important I'm not seeing.

I might be lazy in thinking they probably crave power itself...to be the Big Man (and that includes the women who seek to be President).

[Commenter_XY]

Better pay, too. You can afford better hookers on GS pay. 😉

[apedad]

Texas Senators Could Be Recalled Under New Proposal

Under State Representative Brian Harrison's proposal, either of Texas' senators could be recalled by a simple majority in both chambers of the Texas Legislature. Harrison argued the legislation, Texas House Bill 1267, would "ensure our U.S. senators serve the best interest of the state of Texas."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/texas-senators-could-be-recalled-under-new-proposal/ar-AA1u5s1m?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=3fe75d17552340fbbffcbe05ed5e6cc9&ei=16

So this is obviously not aimed at the current Rep Senators (Ted Cruz and John Cornyn), but at eventual Dem Sens.

And is it constitutional since Art 1, Sec 5 states, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

Oh and this is cute.

SECTION 3. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
Act takes effect September 1, 2025.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would say that it's obviously NOT constitutional, since expulsion requires a two thirds vote of the Senate, and you can't constitutionally substitute a majority vote of the Texas legislature for that.

[Krayt]

How does the US constitution defining the powers of the US senate give a state senate the power to recall a US senator?

It wouldn’t surprise me, though, if there was a weasely path of argument that relied on vestigal eclectoral stuff. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander: We love democracy. Until we don’t.

[Brett Bellmore]

It would have been arguably constitutional prior to the amendment providing for direct election of Senators. Which probably has a lot to do with why the cancerous expansion of the federal government didn't really get going until after that amendment: Prior to it, the states actually had some leverage over the Senate, even if they seldom exercised it.

[apedad]

17A was ratified on April 8, 1913.

"(B)y the turn of the twentieth century, the United States controlled territory spanning ten thousand miles from Puerto Rico to the Philippines. Its economy had surpassed the United Kingdom's to become the world's largest. Economic growth was supercharged by increased production of steel and the adoption of new sources of power like oil. The United States boasted a powerful—and tested—navy, which could defend U.S. interests both in the Americas and now further afield. Indeed, the United States sent over a thousand marines to Beijing in 1900 to help put down a domestic uprising that threatened U.S. commercial interests."

I'd say 17A was not cancerous and instead just the opposite in that it helped us to become the greatest, global superpower - which even a century later is unsurpassed.

[Brett Bellmore]

What made us the world's greatest superpower was being a really large country with generally safe land borders, that was not smothered in regulation and crony capitalism. Once the generation of Senators prior to the 17th amendment were gone, we lost those latter advantages, but not getting pounded into rubble in WWII sure made for a serviceable substitute.

I think at this point we're suffering from imperial over-reach, and would be far better off ceasing to be the world's police man, and tending to our own concerns. But the rest of the developed world might have to be weaned off dependence on our military.

[Mr. Bumble]

All of this thanks to that racist, anti-semitic egomaniac Woodrow Wilson.

[Michael P]

1913 is after what most people would call "the turn of the twentieth century". Even if you take a broad reading of when the turn of the century was, you're giving the 17A credit for things that happened before it was ratified -- or even formally proposed in 1912.

[apedad]

No, I'm not giving the 17A credit for things that happened before it was ratified but was trying to illustrate that 17A was part of how we became the greatest, global superpower.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'm pointing out that not facing serious external threats, having plenty of natural resources, being large enough for all relevant advantages of scale to accrue internally, and not being smothered in regulations and entrenched interests, is how we became great. Not direct election of Senators, or the subsequent explosion of federal government power.

To a large extent that latter actually negated our other advantages, but was compensated for by the rest of the world getting beaten up during WWII, while we suffered practically no attacks at all on our own territory.

[apedad]

We didn't become great sitting in our great, big backyard.

We became - and remain - great by expanding into and influencing the world; diplomatically, financially, militarily, socially, technologically, etc.

And we must add not always honorably and sometimes horribly.

[Brett Bellmore]

From the Economist.

As you can see, we were growing rapidly as a fraction of the world economy, from the time of our founding to the EARLY 1900’s. Most of the economic growth relative to the rest of the world predated the New Deal.

And we were economically a great power before the 17th amendment.

[bernard11]

And we were economically a great power before the 17th amendment.

And after it as well.

You are engaged in pure post-hockery.

[Michael P]

No, apedad is the one engaged in pure post-hockery: "I’d say 17A was not cancerous and instead just the opposite in that it helped us to become the greatest, global superpower."

That's a shining example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fantasy, starting with -- as Brett pointed out -- ignoring that we were already a world power before 17A, and were continuing a trend of becoming more preeminent when it was passed.

[bernard11]

And I’m pointing out that not facing serious external threats, having plenty of natural resources, being large enough for all relevant advantages of scale to accrue internally, and not being smothered in regulations and entrenched interests, is how we became great. Not direct election of Senators, or the subsequent explosion of federal government power.

You are claiming these things, not pointing them out. I see no reason to think that direct election greatly stimulated or retarded growth. And if you are worried about entrenched interests, it seems to me that election by state legislatures is vastly more likely to lead to corruption, entrenched interests, etc.

To a large extent that latter actually negated our other advantages, .

Nonsense.

[Commenter_XY]

That is precisely why I wish to repeal 17A.

[bernard11]

Why?

Are you agreeing with Brett about the "cancerous" expansion of federal power.

Personally, I see no cancer, and to the extent the federal government sometimes goes too far, well, states do too. Where is the guarantee that:

a. They wouldn't overreach.

b. They wouldn't do worse. Jim Crow was a state project, after all, for example.

c. Without the 17th the country would have been better, not worse, off.

This "The federal gov't is inherently evil and incompetent" assumption is pretty tiresome.

[Commenter_XY]

I dislike the cancer analogy, intensely.

The reason to repeal 17A is to vastly diminish the power of national political parties (Team R, Team D), and to restore the balance (or tension, as some have described) between the states and the federal government.

There is a severe imbalance in favor of the federal government, and that is what must change, fundamentally.

[Don Nico]

It doesn't.
Any attempt by a state to recall a member of Congress is prohibited by the Federal Constitution.

[John F. Carr]

Section 3 may be routine in Texas legislation. There is a waiting period for legislation. It can be overruled by a supermajority vote. We have essentially the same constitutional rule in Massachusetts. An "emergency preamble" can be added to a bill by a supermajority vote of the legislature. Otherwise the enacted bill has to wait 90 days to become law.

[Commenter_XY]

Should a State Legislature have the right to recall a Senator representing their state? Yes, 17A provides for direct election.

17A text
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

It is silent on the question of recall. Or is it? You tell me.

[Brett Bellmore]

The fact that it is silent on the supposed power of a state to recall a federal officer is sufficient. There simply isn't any reason to suppose such a power exists, it wasn't even taken to exist prior to the 17th amendment!

[Commenter_XY]

Wait, a state could (and did) recall Senators for consultations, prior to 17A. Offhand, I think several Senators were recalled for consultations by their respective state legislatures before the vote(s) on the LA Purchase.

[Brett Bellmore]

Recalled for consultations, and recalled from office, are rather different things. "Come home so we can talk with you." vs "Come home, because we just fired you."

[Krayt]

The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Since the Supreme Court ruled The People voing to have independent reristricting committees satisfied the Constitution's requirement all states have a republican form of government, does that mean The People select the electors after a big circle?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A sate legislator introduced a bad bill which doesn't seem likely to pass. Proceed with the outrage.

[Swede425]

Holy hell, the salt in here today!
I guess all those lib chicks closing their legs is really starting to get to some of you.
Planned Parenthood really needs them to stop doing that. It's not good for business.
Say, anybody else the slightest bit concerned about all of these ballots still being counted in places like Cheatsylvania?
When do lawyers get to pounce on that? Is it only a crime after they declare the Democrat the actual winner?
I'm guessing AG Gaetz is going to be interested in that. So I get why so many people might have concerns with him. I can't wait!

[John F. Carr]

"lib chicks closing their legs"

The Babylon Bee observed that the rise of the right is causing liberal women to behave like proper Christians.

[Swede425]

It's the New Resistance.

[Ska]

Friction will always be the main thrust of the behavior.

[Bwaaah]

An inside joke?

[Jmaie]

Maybe a reference to Korea’s 4B movement?

[Don Nico]

Until they get horny enough.
It is all stupid egocentrism either way.

[Moderation4ever]

I noticed during the election that VP elect Vance was not speaking of mass deportation but starting with criminal immigrants. This theme seems to have been picked up on by many Republicans and I notice Speaker Johnson talking similarly on lates weekend shows. The thing is this seems to have been this countries policy all along to deport immigrants that commit crimes. I would also note that many of these criminals are likely already in jails. Leaving me to wonder if the new policy gets the person out of jail? If you are an immigrant documented or undocumented and you commit murder in this country, do you serve time in prison or just get deported. Getting deported leaves the person possibly free on the streets although a different country's streets.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't get it, I thought Cums-a-lot fixed the border so well she didn't even need to go there.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's been policy, inconsistently followed, to deport convicted immigrants (Who haven't yet been naturalized, obviously!) but I think generally only at the conclusion of their sentences.

But at the state level a lot of jurisdictions have had a contrary policy of not informing the INS of convictions of immigrants, especially if they're illegal immigrants.

FIY: After the recent election, you can stop calling illegal immigrants "undocumented", it's clearly not working.

[Moderation4ever]

You call them what you want and I will call them what I want. I don't harp on people for using the term "illegal" and expect the same consideration.

As for my point in the original comment, it seems that saying criminal immigrants in this country obscures the fact that many if not all those criminals may be in custody. What is the policy for an immigrant with a long criminal sentence. Do you deport them before or after they have served their sentence? And if they remain in this country, getting three hots and a cot, for the time they are sentenced, have you not failed in deporting all criminal immigrants?

[ducksalad]

I think it’s already not uncommon for arrestees for minor-to-medium offenses, who are also in the country illegally, to have their charges dropped or put on hold in favor of deporting them. The deportation itself satisfies the deterrence and retribution goals that a criminal penalty would.

The questions ought to be (when deciding whether to imprison or deport):
1. What is the likelihood of the person returning again to the US if deported, and what is the risk if they do return?
2. Is deportation sufficient to satisfy the state’s desire to see criminals punished?

[Moderation4ever]

Sounds reasonable but that is pretty much the status quo and not some new effort.

[ducksalad]

As mentioned elsewhere, at least some of it is going to be amping up the amount of press releases, social media talking points, and general grandstanding around the Deportation of the Week. Same deportations they do already but with ten times the boasting about saving America from violent predators. Ten times the attention to the victim, preferably a female US citizen. Also lots of attention about when the person entered, if and only if that entry was in the periods 2009-2016 and 2021-2024. You get the idea.

I also think certain governors are going to push a strict policy of having LEOs turn over anyone they encounter w/o papers to immigration authorities, even if it ends up with no criminal charges or it's a traffic ticket.

There'll also be counter-grandstanding by the opposition, about the US citizen that will inevitably be deported by some overzealous officer, about the grandma that got deported after calling the cops to report a robbery, etc. These cases will be factual but perhaps not representative.

There will be a few widely publicized raids of workplaces but right now I don't think they have the resources to hit more than 1% of businesses, and don't want to risk the electoral backlash of too many US citizen Hispanic Trump voters getting hassled even if they're quickly released.
Just my prediction.

[Michael P]

Why wouldn't one prioritize criminal immigrants over other illegal immigrants when deporting people?

And "many" is doing a lot of work in your comment. Democrat jurisdictions let most criminals go free very quickly, if they even get arrested in the first place. Especially if the criminal is of interest to ICE.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If deported, they won't re-enter?

[SimonP]

It remains an open question whether Trump's promise to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants was just his "border wall" for the 2024 cycle. An outlandish promise, designed to convey strength, that fizzles on the back end, when the plans get bogged down in legal requirements, costs, corruption, and the constant infighting that characterized his first term and even his current transition period.

A lot of MAGA commenters here laughed off the dire warnings of "fascism" in the mainstream media outlets by saying that Trump wasn't much of a fascist on his first go around. And, true enough, his picks during this transition period seem more of the same - bizarre incompetence, playing the news cycles, making big promises but little plan to deliver.

[ducksalad]

Just like they did with the election fraud, they can substitute loudness and repetition in the media for actual numbers.

Pick some newsworthy deportees that did something especially lurid and talk loud about it in press conferences. Start a new news cycle about once a week to give the impression it’s happening a lot.

As few as 52 deportations per year, properly promoted and exploited, could satisfy the types that hold up “Mass Deportation Now” signs at rallies. Anecdotes trump data for those people.

If they could find an actual Haitian pet-eater to deport that would get them as much credit as half a million farm workers.

[Commenter_XY]

A couple of things at play here.

An illegal alien convicted of a crime of violence will probably serve out their term, and then get their ass deported upon completion of sentence.

An illegal alien convicted of a non-violent crime, will probably not serve their term; instead, the INS will ship their ass back home before they get sent to the clink.

Illegal aliens caught otherwise go through an abbreviated legal process, then get deported.

It makes sense to start with violent criminals, then work your way down the list. I personally don't have a problem dumping their criminal ass back in their home country, and letting the home country deal with them...in their way. They don't belong here.

[David Nieporent]

I would just point out, not necessarily responding to C_XY's comment directly, that 100% legal immigrants, including those with valid visas and even green card holders, are subject to deportation if they commit certain crimes. ("Crimes of moral turpitude," which is a murky phrase that keeps lots of lawyers employed.)

My SIL is/was a Brit, and she didn't necessarily see any advantage in getting her U.S. citizenship once she became eligible. But I pointed out that citizens are never deportable for anything they do after they become citizens (other than renouncing said citizenship, of course), whereas non-citizens are always subject to that risk. (She's incredibly unlikely to ever do such a thing, but as a lawyer I focus on risks, likely or otherwise.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Also, citizenship doesn't need to be renewed. That was the key factor for my wife.

[Sarcastr0]

Permanent residency also does not need to be renewed.

[David Nieporent]

The status doesn't need to be, but the document does.

[Sarcastr0]

Right - though the document is evidence, not status. The status is permanent, as it says on the tin.

Though I just learned failure to renew is a misdemeanor.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Green cards have to be renewed every 10 years.

[bernard11]

Illegal aliens caught otherwise go through an abbreviated legal process, then get deported.

For no good reason, and some bad ones.

[Commenter_XY]

They do not belong here, bernard11. The country voted for change, especially wrt illegal aliens remaining in this country.

[Sarcastr0]

Listen to yourself.

Consider history.

Realize what you echo.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who do people who support immigration restrictions echo, given that pretty much every country has them?

[Sarcastr0]

Folks said the same thing about Jews. After the right laws are passed, of course.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Every country has restrictions on Jews?

Are you seriously equating restrictions on immigration to restriction on Jews?

IIRC you even favor some restrictions on immigration, no? I suppose you favor some restrictions on Jews as well?

[Sarcastr0]

No one here is talking about restrictions on immigration; we're talking about saying this about an insular minority:

"They do not belong here. The country voted for change."

Is that common across tons of countries? It is. Does it have a history with a lot more bad than good? Sure does!

Is it a helluva stark thing for a Jew to say? I think so.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No one here is talking about restrictions on immigration;"

Uh, Gaslightro, they are talking about illegal aliens. You know, people who violate restrictions on immigration.

You, and just about everybody, support immigration restrictions, which necessarily create a class of people who don't legally belong here.

"Is it a helluva stark thing for a Jew to say? I think so."

Jews can't support immigration restrictions like everybody else?
Why not?

[Michael P]

The party of the KKK and internment camps is here to lecture people who reject illegal immigration on treatment of "an insular minority"!

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "Is it a helluva stark thing for a Jew to say? I think so."

Not behaving like a Jew is supposed to behave? That's a helluva thing for a liberal to say. Notice how your bigotry rolls out like it isn't even bigotry anymore? It's second nature for you now.

[Commenter_XY]

I know history, and I know the breaking the law is wrong.

More importantly, I know what people like you represent.

[bernard11]

Weren’t you saying, not long ago that justice and the law are not the same thing.

Quite bluntly, deporting people whose only offense is that they crossed the border illegally, some years ago, and who have comported themselves well since, is unjust and immoral. And the people doing the deporting, or cheering it on, are not motivated by a desire to rigorously enforce the law, come hell or high water, but by bigotry.

The xenophobia is patent – look at the Springfield business, which involved people here legally. That was a disgrace which ought to have disqualified Vance and Trump. But the xenophobes liked it.

We let minor offenders, even major ones, off quite easily much of the time. Fines, probation. Statutes of limitations. But suddenly, because someone came here lacking the proper papers, they are branded for life, and subject to having their life drastically affected, even ruined, possibly even ended, because they wanted to escape a bad situation.

I frankly consider an illegal immigrant who has done what I described, including the behavior part, an American.

Those pushing deportation are moral cretins. Many of them probably consider themselves devout Christians or Jews. This is where we are.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, take your complaint about the law to the Congress. And ditch the xenophobia sob stories, too. Talk to Pocahontas, she is your Senator. My spouse waited 10 years to come in through the front door; she is far less sympathetic to illegal aliens than I am. For her, it is extreme disrespect, and she is not wrong. Not only is it extreme disrespect to America, but also it is extreme disrespect to every immigrant who followed our legal process.

Illegal aliens are just that: criminal lawbreakers who do not respect our law, and therefore they will leave. I don't care what color they are. I don't care what gender they are. I don't care what nationality they are. I don't care what religion they have or don't have. I don't care about their political beliefs. I don't care where they are from. I don't care about any of that; I care only about status...If you are an illegal alien, leave this country and go home.

I am fine with mass deportation of illegal aliens, at a very rapid pace. The faster, the better. Need to raid workplaces? Do it. And imprison the owners of the company and anyone who aided and abetted. No bail for them, until trial. Need to mandate eVerify? Do it. And make sure that people who deliberately don't use it find themselves in court, and then potentially prison. Need to activate authority to use more US airlines airplanes to send illegal aliens back? Do it. Need 5B to finish the wall, once and for all? Do it.

DACA...Different case. Pres Obama's heart was in the right place, but DACA was legally wrong. Needs a different solution.

The H-1B visa program needs a long look. That program looks like a Big Tech loophole that needs closing.

[hobie]

Except for that Fox News guy, all of Trump's administration picks have been billionaires, long-time swamp creatures and elites. I take it elites are suddenly kosher?

[Moderation4ever]

It pretty common for high level government appointments to be to wealthy individuals.

[SimonP]

"Wealthy" relative to most Americans, perhaps, but Republicans are the ones appointing billionaires.

[SimonP]

It will take a beat for MAGA to decide how to spin it, I think.

The House is talking about the first legislative accomplishments they want to hand Trump. It's a budget-busting tax cut, obviously. When it comes to lowering the corporate tax rate, apparently, cost is not a problem - something something trickle-down voodoo etc. - so there's been no talk of pay-fors for that bit, but Johnson has started tut-tutting about that tax exemption for tipped workers. Now, now, working class! You can't have your tax breaks unless it comes out of Social Security!

[David Nieporent]

It may be hypocritical, but a tax exemption for tips is an incredibly stupid policy on every level, so paying for it may just be a way to block it without expressly calling Trump incredibly stupid.

[Don Nico]

Matt Gaetz, Tulsi Gabbard, a billionaires?

[Mr. Bumble]

Is there any Trump nominee who won't be considered "controversial"?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes. Prof. Erik Loomis, a liberal professor, for instance, cited his Interior pick as a "regular" sort.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/11/just-a-regular-bad-republican

His CIA pick has generally been deemed normal too.

[SimonP]

There have been several that have just been continuations from the first term. They might not be "picks I as a non-MAGA type would like," but they are otherwise perfectly ordinary.

Gaetz, Gabbard, RFK, Hegseth - those are bonkers. Ditto with the attempt to circumvent accountability by tapping Elon and Vivek for what appears destined to be little more than a weekly drip of "$100k toilet" outrage-porn.

That said, it might be nice if we had people in Commerce or Treasury that are more focused on dealing with the working-class concerns that propelled Trump to the presidency than they are in securing and financing tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.

[Commenter_XY]

I am actually most interested in the economic team. Nothing yet.

[bernard11]

Me too.

And I tremble in anxiety over what incompetent buffoons he might select. It's always possible, I suppose, that some of his Wall Street supporters might explain that naming lunatics to Treasury or the CEA would be a very poor idea. Naming one to be Fed Chairman would be catastrophic, though we have a couple of years before he has that possibility.

[Commenter_XY]

Marc Rowan

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"the working-class concerns that propelled Trump to the presidency"

I thought it was fascists and racists who propelled Trump to the Presidency?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Facists, racists, Latinos, and American Indians.

I can't believe all those land acknowledgements did nothing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Gaetz, Gabbard, RFK, Hegseth..."

RFK has bipartisan support

[Josh R]

RFK sounds a lot like Bernie when he rails against the influence of corporate lobbyists that lead to crap in our food, water and air. But his beclowns himself with conspiracy theories such as Wi-Fi causes cancer and chemicals in water turn kids transgender. Democrats should dump him (and it is embarassing if Polis is against a measels vaccine mandate). It will nonetheless be interesting to see how Trump world reacts if RFK pushes regulations against corporations.

[Moderation4ever]

His Chief of staff.

[David Nieporent]

Is there any Trump nominee who won’t be considered “controversial”?

Yes. Nobody has called Rubio controversial. He wouldn't be my first choice, but he's a conventional Republican pick. (Indeed, probably the best one can expect from Trump.) So are Burgum and Noem and Stefanik. Sure, Stefanik — like all of his other picks — is being rewarded for political loyalty rather than real qualifications or experience, but she's not crazy/stupid/utterly unqualified like Gaetz/Gabbard/RFK/Hegseth.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Noem is cited as controversial for various reasons. One might not agree. But she is being cited as controversial by many people (that is, not the usual suspects alone).

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Have you never seen a comma before?

JFC.

[Frank Drackman]

Kristi Noem isn't remotely one of those, Hobie-stank

[hobie]

She's an elite. They all are. They all hold the highest echelons of power and have done so for awhile. Now then, since your training is in chicken sexing, you could make a plausible Sec. Ag. And you are not an elite, therefore it wouldn't be toweringly hypocritical to hire you. Capiche? Plus you're a misogynist and racist which ticks some boxes

[Michael P]

It's hilarious that the rabid left criticizes Trump for appointing people who don't have enough credentials, and then turns around and criticizes him for appointing people -- and many of the same people! -- because they have too many credentials.

[Mr. Bumble]

Tomorrow marks two weeks since the election and California is still counting votes.

[ThePublius]

As is Pennsylvania, who are openly defying the PA supreme court and stealing an election with illegal ballots.

[Frank Drackman]

it's a formality, but doesn't "45/47" get California's Electrical Votes once his Popular Vote victory is confirmed? and New York's, Washington State's, Oregons......

[Roger S]

It is plainly crooked that Calif. and Penn. do not produce a count. Florida counted them all in a couple of hours.

[Commenter_XY]

Asset backed Social Security...Constitutional? Batshit crazy? Somewhere in-between?

I recently ran across an outline of an arcane proposal from the late 40's, recently resurrected and updated. Namely, to remove social security from the federal budget, and fund it exclusively by asset sales (like oil, gas, gold, rare earths).

Is something like that even 'legal'...can Congress do that? I would think that they could.

What would be a barrier to adopting that approach?

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course it would be legal, as long as you're talking about federal assets. Once you get over the long dismissed constitutional issues with having a SS program in the first place.

The primary obstacle previously would have been that SS taxes were well in excess of SS payments, so taking it off budget would have reduced federal revenues available to buy votes. As the SS system went into negative cash flow in 2010, that's no longer really a consideration.

[Krayt]

The whole point of the "lockbox" was to avoid what we're having to do now:

1. Cut SS (not gonna happen)
2. Increase taxing (probably not gonna happen)
3. Borrow it anyway

1. Actually happens, in cryptic ways. Increase the retirement age. Float the idea of removing limits on annual "contributions" and taxing full income. This latter would be admitting it wasn't actually a retirement savings program. Everyone knows it, but no more pretending you're investing in anything.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ponzi schemes don't have "lock boxes".

[Brett Bellmore]

Without a requirement that the national debt actually be paid down, it was more of a wistful hope than a point. Reagan got rolled.

[hobie]

"Shouting Racial Slurs, Neo-Nazi Marchers Shock Ohio’s Capital"

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/neo-nazi-march-ohio.html?unlocked_article_code=1.a04.XYVB.509LVICvk9p-&smid=url-share

Godalmighty, I completely forgot that with Trump comes the flourishing of hate groups and Qanons.

I know you deplorables swell like toads when we liken our entrenching extreme nationalism, antisemitism and racism to 1930. But you must admit, it tracks

[ThePublius]

You're so full of it. How do you link this to Trump? The closest thing to the Nazi part in America today is the Democratic party. And virtually all of the antisemitism and racism in the country, particularly on college campuses, and in government, is coming from the left. As an example, NYS has now enshrined racism in their constitution!

Nazism was born of the left - of socialism, and concomitant authoritarianism, which is necessary to implement socialism or communism.

[apedad]

Did you see those leftist bastards flying their Nazi flag in Colombus, OH, on Saturday?

I fully denounce them.

C'mon and join me!

[Mr. Bumble]

Fellow Feds?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Nazism was born of the left

Weird how the German conservatives helped put it into power then. Must be a coincidence.

[ThePublius]

How is that? Please enlighten me. Who are these supposed conservatives who helped put the Nazis in power?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well Paul Hindenburg, a conservative Prussian Junker and monarchist, appointed Hitler Chancellor after pressure from conservatives like Kurt Von Schleicher Frantz Von Papen, and the leader of the conservative and monarchist DNVP Elard von Oldenburg-januschau. After the Nazis rose to power with conservative support the left elements of the party, like the Strasserites, were purged along with some of the conservatives who erroneously thought they could control Hitler (like Von Schleicher).

[Frank Drackman]

Nazi is German abbreviation for National Socialist Worker's Party Stupid,

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah. And it was put into power by conservatives. Whoops.

[hobie]

You forgot to address the nationalism and racism part, Publius. Just a bit of oversight I'm sure

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your manchild literally quoted Hitler and has been checking boxes off of the authoritarian playbook for years.

See if someone can draw you some flash card photos so that you might learn a thing or two and not be such an ignorant twit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

[Bob from Ohio]

"flourishing of hate groups "

It was a dozen men.

Much larger hate groups occupied many of our colleges last spring.

[Don Nico]

Hobie,
The HAMAS supporters are hate groups enough for me.

[Krayt]

I hear they have something in common.

[Frank Drackman]

it's Ham-Ass

[hobie]

"Palestinians will not replace us!"
"Palestinians will not replace us!"

[Bwaaah]

I was sitting in a park laughing (about non-political stuff) with two seventy-something friends yesterday. In this neck of the woods (downtown Manhattan), there's a presumption that Trump is evil and everybody knows that. Since we're still in a de facto post-election mourning period, when people laugh with abandon in public, it tends to offend a significant number of angry left-leaning people.

A man walking by turned to us and said, "Hey...keep the language down...there are children around here." (I guess one of us used a word. There were no children around at the time.) We went silent as a good first measure for dealing with a passing angry person.

He then leaned in to one of my two friends and angrily shouted the kind of nasty stuff that people on the left routinely say to people on the right here at VC. He said, "You think saluting the Third Reich is funny?" He then struck my friend with his walking stick.

(I jumped up and chased him away.)

It's no wonder the New York Times leaps across the country to find some extremists (and what they are saying), and to pretend they are representative of normal Trump supporters (as you do). Please consider what normal Democrats (like you) are saying these days, and try to imagine the statistical effects of that trend on real life criminal behavior.

Your theories usually don't comport with my observations.

[hobie]

Did a nasty marxist/communist/pedophile/pet-eating/mentally ill liberal say mean things to you, Bwaah?

[Bwaaah]

Probably regularly, but I don't pay attention. Assault is another thing, asshole.

[hobie]

I think the gist of my comment went over your head, Bwaaah

[Bwaaah]

My friend got assaulted yesterday by a crazy person wrapped up in popular political rhetoric. What was your point?

[hobie]

It's still over your head. You know, your inability here to see both sides is educating. I cannot tell if you're mendacious or just part of the scheme. Probably both.

[Bwaaah]

I honestly don't get your point.

[Michael P]

He doesn't have one. He just has hate.

[bernard11]

What makes you think this guy, who is obviously mentally ill, is a liberal, or has any particular political thoughts, other than not liking Nazis?

the New York Times leaps across the country to find some extremists (and what they are saying)

MTG and Paul Gosar are not roaming aimlessly around a park. They are in Congress. JD Vance is VP-elect. Maybe you have some examples of what you are talking about.

[Bwaaah]

I’m talking about the difference between, 1) talk, and fear of talk, and 2) assault. I only offer one example: my friend having been assaulted yesterday. A neo-Nazi march wouldn’t bother me any more than an anti-Zionist march or, to be honest, a Climate Emergency march. We get lots of that stuff around here.

Bloviate on, I’d say to all that.

I would add my observation that the anti-Nazi theme of the assault I witnessed yesterday is one I’ve never seen on the streets before. I don’t think that’s a fluke. I don’t actually know the crazy guy’s politics, or anything else about him, as crazy guys go.

[Sarcastr0]

What in the world?

[Noscitur a sociis]

What makes you think this guy, who is obviously mentally ill, is a liberal, or has any particular political thoughts, other than not liking Nazis?

Since this guy exists purely in Bwaaah’s imagination, I’d expect Bwaaah to be a leading authority on his political views.

[Bwaaah]

I didn't make this up. I don't make shit up. And as I said, "I don’t actually know the crazy guy’s politics, or anything else about him, as crazy guys go."

Is denial all you got? There's nothing here but an ugly, but true, anecdote. My sense was that it was somewhat symptomatic of the moment, although I don't/can't know.

[Sarcastr0]

Not just an anecdote: "I would add my observation that the anti-Nazi theme of the assault I witnessed yesterday is one I’ve never seen on the streets before. I don’t think that’s a fluke."

[Bwaaah]

No. Not just an anecdote. I was also pointing out that his few brief remarks sounded like the kind of hate-filled, over-the-top, politically charged vitriol that I see in angry comments here. Such vitriol is now common in non-extremist, mainstream Democrats that I meet and read. I don't find that invective near as common in mainstream Republicans. (Aside from VC, my perspective may be warped by living in one of the most left-dominated populations in the country.)

[BrotherMovesOn]

[BrotherMovesOn]

moved

[John F. Carr]

"A Brookline man has been indicted on charges that he allegedly tricked a woman he had been dating into taking pills to end her pregnancy, under the guise that they were iron pills."

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/11/15/mass-man-indicted-for-allegedly-misleading-his-ex-into-taking-meds-to-end-her-pregnancy/

Both voluntary and involuntary abortions are easier now that one can order Misoprostol and Mifepristone online.

The man was not charged with an illegal abortion. The charges are poisoning and assault and battery.

[hobie]

Well, better ban them two drugs, yes? They could be misused in off-label ways. Like ivermectin

[TwelveInchPianist]

I suppose in some states they could have charged him with murder.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts the threshold is fetal viability. In some red states the same act could be murder.

One of the charges is assault and battery on a pregnant person, which is a felony instead of a misdemeanor. General Laws chapter 265 section 13A(b).

[John F. Carr]

Two pro-Palestinian protesters have finally been arraigned for assaulting an Israeli Harvard student. What should be a simple assault case has dragged out for a year because Harvard University and Middlesex Couty prosecutors are reluctant to charge people for pro-Palestinian protests. Next year the court will hear their motion to dismiss because not enough white people were arrested at the same event.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/11/16/harvard-students-arraignment-hupd-bias/

A lawsuit against Harvard for failing to protect Jewish students recently got past a motion to dismiss.

[Commenter_XY]

This one is 'icky'. The Israeli student was filming the faces of the HU students participating in the die-in. Why? Who knows. Could it have been to threaten future employment prospects? Maybe, maybe not. The two other students, who were charged, were trying to prevent the Israeli student from filming, and made physical contact.

My question: Are either of the students charged here on a student visa?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That Jew was filming someone demonstrating in a public place? The presumption! He should just pay his jizya and be grateful they don't kill him.

[Commenter_XY]

There was a little more to it than that, meaning having the temerity to not paying jizya (nice one). It was filming by basically getting the camera obnoxiously close their faces. Along with some commentary (that I probably would have agreed with). Regardless, doesn't justify assault.

We have a theology student, and a law student. You'd think they would want to talk this out, get some early vocational practice. But no.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“It was filming by basically getting the camera obnoxiously close their faces.”

Unlike responsible, professional TV journalists. If someone punches a TV journalist in the face because of harassment, the puncher gets arrested.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Of course we'll have to wait for the jury verdict (if there is any) before speaking with confidence on the details, but this sounds like some people got all mad when someone decided to film their publicity stunt.

[Commenter_XY]

It does. They should have talked it out. I would expect a theology student and a law student to be more amenable to talking things out. It is their chosen career, in different fields.

[SRG2]

As Matt Gaetz has apparently done nothing illegal, the House should release its presumably exculpatory report ASAP, to stop the slurs.

[Moderation4ever]

That certainly seems sensible. The House should help the nominee clear the air as quickly as possible.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I hear that Trump might appointment him via recess appointment.

[apedad]

A 44-year-old woman has pleaded guilty to transmission in interstate commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another, announced U.S. Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani.

Abigail J. Shry admitted that on Aug. 5, 2023, she placed a call to the chambers of a federal judge and made derogatory statements and threats to anyone that went after then former President Donald Trump. She also made a direct threat to a then sitting congresswoman, all democrats in Washington D.C. and all people in the LGBTQ community.

At the hearing, Shry claimed that at the time she made the calls, she did not think it was illegal to do so. She said she thought it was freedom of speech and that she did not intend to act on the threats.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr/alvin-woman-admits-death-threats-against-public-officials

Ok, we can look at the 1A aspect which she claimed especially since she took no actions to complete the threat, i.e., didn't buy plane tickets, etc., which could lead to her receiving a lenient sentence - HOWEVER - she's got a history (Sep 2022, July 2023).

[not guilty]

The DOJ press release does not include all of what the accused said giving rise to the indictment, but the accused's language directly quoted therein may well have been First Amendment protected. The press release states:

In her calls, Shry stated, “You are in our sights, we want to kill you. If Trump doesn’t get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly...” She added that “you will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of it.”

(Ellipsis in original.) The date of the call is identified as August 5, 2023 -- 15 months prior to the 2024 general election for president.

The threatened harm was predicated on the occurrence of a future event that may not have happened -- the failure of Donald Trump to secure election as president. The First Amendment precludes punishment, whether civil or criminal, unless the speaker's words were "intended" (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder. Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66, ___, 143 S. Ct. 2106, 2116 (2023), citing Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 109 (1973) (per curiam). The element of imminence is missing here.

A statement is hypothetical and conditional may not be a true threat. See, United States v. O'Dwyer, 443 F.App'x 18 (5th Cir. 2011), citing Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969) (statement not a true threat considering in part its "expressly conditional nature").

Like I said, we don't know what else particularly that the accused may have said, and her guilty plea, if accepted, forecloses the First Amendment inquiry. We likewise don't know what other considerations may have prompted the plea, but it might have been a triable case.

[John F. Carr]

The government gets a lot of guilty pleas and some convictions affirmed on appeal in cases where I as a juror would vote not guilty because the threat is too conditional or refers to potential violent actions of third parties.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The First Amendment precludes punishment, whether civil or criminal, unless the speaker’s words were “intended” (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder. Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66, ___, 143 S. Ct. 2106, 2116 (2023), citing Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 109 (1973) (per curiam). The element of imminence is missing here.

1. The entire point of the Counterman holding is the the first amendment doesn’t require that the speaker intend the statement to be perceived as threat to be punished: it’s enough that the speaker was reckless.

2. There’s no imminence requirement for a true threat to be punishable. The part you’re citing is discussing incitement to unlawful action, a different first amendment exception.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Side Quest: A Visual History of Roleplaying Games was an interesting graphic account of the history of tabletop role-playing games. It explains the history, including how role-playing was used in war strategy. Maybe, someone can put in the data in a computerized model and determine likely results in the next four years.

[Martinned2]

There's a headline you don't see every day:

"Dems Backed by Jewish Lobbies Join Republicans to Push Free Speech-Crushing H.R. 9495"

Because I know that everyone on this blog is an unconditional champion of free speech rights, and that everyone on this blog carefully studies primary sources before taking a view, here is the actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/9495/text

(The objection is to section 4.)

I assume everyone is going to start calling their Congresspersons in about 5 mins?

[Krayt]

The article is light on examples. The bill clearly mentions a list of actual material support (defined elsewhere) apparently actually in use, which I assume is literal material sent, or money.

[David Nieporent]

It's the same as the "material support" definition addressed by SCOTUS in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, so it includes training and expert advice. But only given directly to a terrorist group.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Congress passes so much shit bills I’d have to set up a phone bank to oppose them all.

Having a non-judge (secy of state) conduct the judicial function of deciding terrorism cases, is wrong. And unconstitutional. But that horse has left the barn and won’t come back until the Supreme Court grows some testicles.

(Even the female justices - they don't have testicles, which is no one's fault, not even the Romans', but they do have a *right* to have testicles.)

[Ed Grinberg]

Prof. Volokh explained the law on this last year:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/10/27/advocacy-in-support-of-hamas-vs-illegal-material-support-of-hamas/
I think it’s quite likely that the bill Mr. Rowles (and, apparently, you) so vehemently object to comports with the law (as outlined by Prof. Volokh). If so, why would any normal (i.e. non-terrorist-supporting) person have a problem with it?

[Martinned2]

For the record, I'm considerably less worried about it than the blog I was linking. My main opinion is that the US executive branch has too many discretionary powers already, and that right now is hardly the moment to be creating more.

[ReaderY]

One of the flaws in the American system that Trump recognized even as a businessman is that the legal system is incredibly expensive and takes forever to get anything done.

If Trump is able to get a Senate leadership willing to go into full recess without “pro forma” business sessions to permit recess appointments satisfying Noel Canning, he can potentially appoint whoever he wants to federal positions.

And at that point, the folks who move first have the advantage. Opponents have to use the slow, cumbersome court system. Even if he doesn’t win any convictions, his Justice Department can hound personal and political enemies and cause them a great deal of time and expense. He can quickly enforce new rules before the courts enjoin them.

He can also, potentially, simply ignore court orders and injunctions and keep going. What then? The judiciary is not the least dangerous branch only when the other branches pay attention to what it says. What if they simply ignore it?

[SRG2]

Wrong location

[bernard11]

One of the flaws in the American system that Trump recognized even as a businessman is that the legal system is incredibly expensive and takes forever to get anything done.

I agree, and wonder why it has to be that way. Still, is it a uniquely American problem? Hamlet, after all, complained about "the law's delay."

[Martinned2]

Americans sure do love their paperwork. I'm sure there are many causes, but the point I made the other day springs to mind: low-trust society. (And factors that are connected to that, like high litigiousness.)

[Bwaaah]

Coincidentally, I heard a speech yesterday by Charlie Munger from 2007 in which he said the following, which made sense to me:

"The highest form that a civilization can reach is a seamless web of deserved trust. Not much procedure...just totally reliable people correctly trusting one another."

In the spirit of somebody here who says, "Be the change you want to see," I figure my emphasis should be to focus on being reliable in my representations.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Courts can issue preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining order pretty quickly. As I think we’ll quickly see if this absurd recess appointment gambit actually materializes.

[loki13]

Thoughts on the Matt Gaetz nomination-

Putting aside the character issues for now, I am hard-pressed to think of someone less-qualified for the job. Based on what I was able to verify, his work as an attorney (and it wasn’t a lot) was low-level civil state court work. He doesn’t seem to have any experience at the most basic level to make the crucial decisions that an AG would need to make- put aside familiarity with criminal practice (which is a lot of it), he doesn’t have basic familiarity with federal practice, let alone how the DOJ functions. Even if he was squeaky clean, he’d be the type of pick that would be met with rolled eyes.

Of course, it’s hard to put aside the other things. That this was timed specifically so the ethics report wouldn’t be public. That other members have talked about his penchant for sharing videos on the House floor. Given his lack of qualifications, and the obvious red flags, I say that Gaetz should be provided the opportunity to truly show that everyone is just lying, by giving him the opportunity to fully rebut what is in the ethics report (and testimony by others). After all, people already believe these things about him, so he should welcome the opportunity to clear the air before he ascends to the position of enforcing the law for everyone else.

[Commenter_XY]

What attributes and qualities would you want to see in an AG?

Who typifies a 'good' AG for you? Who is your model?

[loki13]

If you're going old timey, I'd have to say Amos Akerman.

Other than that, people can have preferences. A lot say RFK (not the brain worm one). Ramsey Clark was excellent, but a lot of people here might take an issue with some of his positions.

Part of the problem with identifying great AGs is that you have to identify what you're looking for- any AG that lasts a really long time (Reno) will necessarily have bad things happen during their tenure (Waco, et al.). And AGs that are effective within the law (whether it's Clark or Ashcroft) will be seen through partisan lens.

Finally, AGs that are memorable (Elliott Richardson) are memorable for a particular event, not for their overall tenure.

That's kind of the point- a good AG has to both follow the law and the administration. It's a delicate balancing act that requires a firm ethical core, and a knowledge of, um, the law.

[Commenter_XY]

Wow, going back 150 years. He dealt with a lot of shit.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Ramsey Clark was excellent, but a lot of people here might take an issue with some of his positions."

Are you one of the people who disagrees with some of his positions? Like Israel being guilty of genocide?

[SRG2]

Necessary but not sufficient - extensive practical experience as a lawyer.

[Commenter_XY]

Define extensive.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m glad(?) he picked Gaetz (and the others) in a way. Good stress test of the Senate’s capacity for pressing its own institutional interests. A test they’ll probably fail.

[loki13]

Well, Gaetz is the literal canary in the coal mine.

There are a lot of mixed nuts. But Gaetz is supremely unqualified, deeply ethically challenged, and also incredibly unpopular with a lot of the GOP in Congress.

In short, if Gaetz get through, the Senate doesn't give a fig about itself as an institution.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m way more worried about HHS to be honest. Putting an absolute crank (who is also ethically challenged) into a position where he can mess with research and public health initiatives is going to get people killed. Even just a change in messaging is going to be very bad. Serious COVID and flu rates are definitely going to go up by fall. Measles cases are certainly going to go up. Are we going to see polio make an appearance in the US for the first time in forever? Possibly!

[Sarcastr0]

I was going to write something like this, until I read loki's final line.

He's not talking about immediate impact, he's picking up your comment about the Senat's institutional interests.
Which is a good thing to track above and beyond the other damage.

[David Nieporent]

put aside familiarity with criminal practice (which is a lot of it),

Being a suspect/defendant is a kind of familiarity with criminal practice.

[ReaderY]

I don’t see this. Crime is an important industry in the United States. Why shouldn’t imdustry experience be a valuable qualification for a person seeking to head an agency regulating that industry?

And why should this industry and this regulatory agency be any less valuable a qualificatiin then, say. say, wxperience as a quack for running HHS, as labor exploiter for running DOL, or as a polluter for running EPA?

The Justice Department has arguably suffered from having people without industry experience lead it. This has led it, arguably, to take too punitive approach to the industry that has held it back, rather than a more progressive, cooperative approach that would enable it to florish and grow while ensuring government and government officials’ needs are taken care of.

Right now Russian organized crime beats the pants off American organized crime. We’re losing the international competitive battle.

[Kazinski]

Interesting conversation between Alex Soros and Elon Musk on X:

Soros:
"Too many Democrats are fighting each other over campaign tactics, because it is easier than accepting that Trump was underestimated as a candidate. He was a “super candidate” with increasing appeal to a broader electorate-likely beyond the reach of both Democrats and Republicans."

Musk replies:
"The public also believes in his platform and rejected the far left ideology of the current Democratic Party.

If the Democrats become more centrist and shift towards the values and beliefs of the people, they will do better in the future."

https://x.com/AlexanderSoros/status/1857409870091124890?t=KyYnNy_7igfJCHl8e83ffw&s=19

[Josh R]

I'm with Soros. Trump's charisma is close to unique. Who else could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not suffer politically? Ironically, perhaps Musk, but he is not eligible to be president.

What values and beliefs did Trump put forward that contrast with far-left ideology?

[Krayt]

I still haven’t ruled out “punches the other side real real hard” as motivator. That’s the glib, we know what’s best for you, you need change, you are the problem, say your betters, side.

I can find a silver lining for either side. Kamala, for not abandoning Ukraine, said arguments for abandonment are not actual values, to say nothing of suspiciously motivated. And Trump, mainly for the secondary kick in the nuts to the party that facetiously tried to work around principles, and actual Constitutional design and words, to focus the investigtion and prosecutory power of government against an opponent.

Both sides so richly deserve a nut purpling. Sadly, only one gets it.

Based on history, neither side will learn, and will double down on ratcheting up their little tricky workarounds.

Still to see: my prognostications. Future attempts to get him in jail before he takes the oath. Attempts to convince electoral college to ignore him because, hey, I’ll give you your future line on his, I love rhetoric so dearly, you say, “The Electoral College should vote in Kamala anyway because their judgement is the exact reason it was created.”

Off you go, my good facetiousmeisters!

[Josh R]

I agree the effort to prosecute Trump went over the top. But, his attempt to steal the 2020 election, culminating in Jan 6, justified disqualifying him from holding office.

[bernard11]

As did the whole "documents at Mar-a-Largo" business.

Whatever you think of the other cases That one looks perfectly legitimate and pretty much a no-brainer, killed by a wildly partisan judge, who deserves to be impeached.

[Roger S]

If so, then why didn't the Biden DoJ use a legitimate prosecutor, and follow normal procedures?

[David Nieporent]

It did.

[Roger S]

No one underestimated Trump. Maybe in 2016. This time the Democrats went after him with everything they had.

[Sarcastr0]

We're not going to know this at any kind of Internet forum timescale.

I guess by 2032 we may know what level of political realignment we're talking.

But you're really talking historical perspective of future events, and while speculation is fun, the underlying causes are not going to become untangled from the hurley burley of current events for a generation.

[SRG2]

The Trump transition team is compiling a list of senior current and former U.S. military officers who were directly involved in the withdrawal from Afghanistan and exploring whether they could be court-martialed for their involvement, according to a U.S. official and a person familiar with the plan.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-transition-team-compiling-list-current-former-us-military-office-rcna180489

Yup. Blame everyone but the man who signed the deal and initially led those officers.

[Moderation4ever]

This is shocking but I suspect the story is more for the base than anyone else. Trump has shown a great reluctance to allow himself to be questioned under oath. Should any court martials happen, the accused would be well within their right to bring up President Trump involvement and put his decisions on trial.

[Kazinski]

In what universe do you think Trump would be questioned under oath in a court martial.

Sure improper command influence is grounds for dismissal, but no way will they be allowed to even try to compel his testimony.

But I do agree that the officers shouldn't be held to account for following Biden's orders.

I think almost everyone agreed with Trump's policy decision that it was time to leave Afghanistan. It was the execution that was botched.

But go ahead tell us why Trump's decision to get us out of Afghanistan was the wrong.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz...All a POTUS Trump has to say is that he has lost confidence in their command ability, and that they are dismissed. The POTUS is the CINC. They're out.

[SRG2]

Then why are courts martial being discussed, not merely dismissal?

[Commenter_XY]

It is a red herring = discussion of courts martial.

One caveat. If a POTUS Trump is looking for a reduction in rank because of incompetent performance, then CM is needed.

[SRG2]

Ah yes, the wonderful world of Trump where something is both a deflection and a requirement

[Commenter_XY]

Think about it. To dismiss an officer from their post and replace them is easy. No special process required. "I lost confidence in you. You are relieved" It is done.

Sanctions require a process, courts martial. Bad idea. In the end, I think they just relieve them of their post; their career is effectively over.

If we truly punished incompetence, DC would be a barren wasteland.

[SRG2]

Yup - and you wouldn't have Trump to vote for either.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree with this, it is the specter of a CM that adds the drama and I think will bring Trump decision to leave into question.

[Kazinski]

Well to get rid of them, and he should.

And I don't see any point in court martials, unless of course there was dereliction beyond just following Biden's orders.

But there definitely should be a purge to get rid of any officers that put DEI ahead of combat readiness.

[Moderation4ever]

I am happy with the decision to leave. I also think that the way it happened was good Trump made the decision and Biden followed through. I think it would have been difficult if not impossible for either to have accomplished it all by themselves.

As to the question of what Trump did wrong. Trump is transactional and as such often looks for the easiest path to a goal. To do this Trump's administration negotiated with the Taliban and left out the existing Afghanistan government. This simplified getting a withdrawl agreement. But, if you worked for the Afghan government or had worked for the Americans in any way you were sold out. So, expecting anything other than chaos upon the with drawl would be foolish.

[bernard11]

It was more than "a policy decision to leave Afghanistan." It involved unrealistic timelines and a generally badly negotiated deal.

Shocking, isn't it, considering the Great Negotiator agreed to it.

[not guilty]

Speaking of Donald Trump being questioned under oath, let's think about the Fulton County, Georgia prosecution of Trump's alleged co-conspirators. The State cannot call Trump as a prosecution witness because charges against him remain pending. But if a codefendant calls him, that should make for some interesting theatrics.

[Bob from Ohio]

Keep hope alive!

[Noscitur a sociis]

How would a codependent be able to call him?

[not guilty]

Codependent?

Freudian slip?

I surmise that Trump will be severed for a separate trial from the remaining defendants. Those defendants have the constitutional right to compulsory process. If called to testify by a codefendant, Trump would still have a Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify, but he would need to assert that privilege in order to quash a subpoena. The sitting President of the United States asserting his privilege against self-incrimination in a pretrial criminal proceeding would present some interesting optics.

[John F. Carr]

Sri Lanka's National People's Power party won a two-thirds majority in parliamant. This is the leftist outsider party, only a fringe group until one of its members was elected president in September. The first of its official position statements is on social justice: "Our goal is equitable distribution of opportunities, resources, and privileges, forging a society of true inclusivity and justice." Voters may have been thinking about the sixth: "corruption-free governance". The country was not well served by its leadership in the 2010s.

The government is limited in its policy choices by the need for international loans. If India, the IMF, or whoever says "austerity" then the government needs to listen.

[M L]

What's election denialism and stealing when Republicans do it, is just a difference of opinion when Democrats do it.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/11/18/the-new-york-times-loves-election-deniers-if-theyre-democrat/

[apedad]

HA! That's all you got?

One case in PA?!?

After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed 62 lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in 9 states (including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia.

Nearly all the suits were dismissed or dropped for lack of evidence or lack of standing, including 30 lawsuits that were dismissed by the judge after a hearing on the merits. (wiki)

So 90 cases to your 1 case.

You guys are going to suck so bad at running the country because you can't even look forward to the issues.

Nitpicking lefties is not a strong policy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? There's a few cases. Dems are actually lying about the official vote count. Any examples of Republicans doing that?

[EscherEnigma]

I mean, I can think of one prominent Republican who spent years claiming he got millions more votes then he did in 2016 and 2020 both. Including an election he actually won, still felt the need to lie and say he got millions more votes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Still not lying about the official vote count.

[EscherEnigma]

Just how the hell are you defining "official vote count" that lying about how many votes you got doesn't count?

[Lennyk78]

That's because voter fraud, by definition, will not leave evidence.

[apedad]

While I worry about Trump’s policies and decisions (well not personally since I’m a white, American, male with financial stability), I am heartened that “(d)uring Trump’s first term, the Biological Center for Diversity sued his administration 266 times and won about 90% of those actions . . . and Earthjustice filed about 200 lawsuits against the Trump administration and won about 85% of them . . . . ”

I’m sure one or both houses of Congress will flip at the mid-term so we just have to hold our breaths (and noses) for 24 months and rely on the courts during this period.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, there is no such thing as a 'sure thing'' in politics.

[apedad]

I'm sure there'll be hundreds of suits against Trump.

[Josh R]

The Senate is not flipping in 2026. The best the Democrats can hope for is to win Maine and North Carolina while holding on to Georgia and Michigan.

[hobie]

Depends if Trump goes through with his scorched earth promises between now and then

[Frank Drackman]

Does that ease your pain?

[Commenter_XY]

Suppose a POTUS Trump appoints a Dept of Ed Sec who decides that right-sizing is the way to go. The SecEd then proceeds to RIF 10K bureaucrats (just a number for the example) from the Dept of Ed.

What happens to the money that Congress appropriated for the 10K bodies that got RIF'ed? It was appropriated, but the purpose it was appropriated for is gone. Then what?

Can the SecEd spend that money on something else?

[hobie]

Private Muslim schools maybe?

[Brett Bellmore]

It appears that the Trump administration plans a legal challenge to the Impoundment Control Act So, maybe they just don't spend it.

[PaulS]

If congress does not approve his Ed Sec can he decide that without approved management in place the best administrative decision is to lay everyone off until management is in place? In some ways it is similar to what happens when a budget is not approved by congress. The president makes the shutdown decisions to apply as much pressure as possible

[bernard11]

"Right-sizing" is an obnoxious euphemism for firing a lot of people. Stop pretending that some appointee is going to know how many and which employees are optimal for the Dept. of Ed.

It may well be overstaffed, but maybe the new Secretary could investigate that before bringing out the axe.

[Sarcastr0]

-Pell grants and loan servicing (lion's share; aimied at working and middle-class college students)
-Title I grants for elementary and high schools in low-income areas
-Special ed
-Other (deaf and blind students, historically Black colleges, kids with disabilities, Indian schools, vocational rehabilitation, etc.)
(cite: https://jabberwocking.com/45641-2/)

Not a lot of wokeness programs to be found.

[Bob from Ohio]

Treasury can manage the college loans. Or just sub it out and give them a percentage of the vig.

Convert all the other programs to direct grants to states, Treasury/IRS can audit those.

Its the elimination of the secretary and deputy and several assistant secretaries and deputy assistant secretaries etc. that saves.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah nothing makes for simple efficiency like block grants. That will not be a popular transition.

And if for savings your are citing 3 individual salaries you are losing e argument.

[EscherEnigma]

You want to shrink the Department of Education by growing the IRS?

Or is the IRS expected to handle all those audits without any increase in staff/resources? If so, then you should just admit that you don't care if they're audited, and it's free graft money.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Trump has promised to eliminate the Department of Ed, so the rightsize is 0.

[Sarcastr0]

So what did our educational system do to you?

Your general hostility seems to orbit around loathing our schools.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You get that the Department of Ed isn't a school, right?

[Sarcastr0]

You get I have a memory and can spot patterns, right?

[TwelveInchPianist]

What pattern are you talking about? I hate that our schools teach that math or perfectionism is white supremacy, for example, if that's what you're referring to.

As for general hostility, you're the one that's constantly calling other commenters names.

[Sarcastr0]

Our school system seems special to you, in your hate for it.

You comment in some posts but not others.
But in a post about school, there’s a great chance you are there.
Cheering all right wing regs and raging about all funding and policies otherwise.

Something about this area more than any other really seems to motivate you to comment and be very extra.

If you don’t want to share, fine. But it’s a thing you do.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You are entitled to whatever bizarre perceptions you wish.

[ducksalad]

Our schools teach that math or perfectionism is white supremacy

“Our schools teach….” implies a widespread practice. What percentage of schools do you think teach this, and what is your evidence?

The following are not evidence at all: Someone not in a classroom in front of kids, giving their opinion at an education conference. Some unsourced documents appearing in the Washington Examiner or The Federalist that someone claims to have secretly photographed. Somebody’s personal opinion expressed at a teacher’s meeting.

The following would be evidence: You were taught it in school. Your kids were taught it in school. It’s part of the official curriculum in a school. Testimony from teachers – not that their principal said it, but that he ordered them to teach it. Independently confirmed videos of teachers in front of K-12 classrooms teaching it, and getting away with it.

There are over 100,000 K-12 schools in the US. It would not surprise me if you could find evidence of this happening at some single digit number of schools. I’d be very surprised if you could get to 0.1% of schools teaching “math is white supremacy”. Unless you move the goalposts.

[Michael P]

Assertion not in evidence, chief.

[Sarcastr0]

Most would find it pretty clear I’m not making a four corners proof on this one Mikey.

[Michael P]

Evidence is not required to conclusively prove an assertion made on its basis, chief. Further evidence that you are rationality-impaired.

[Commenter_XY]

Rationality impaired? LOL. Just that? 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't debate club. I asked a question, and explained my motives for asking it. Nothing more, nothing less.

[ducksalad]

Maybe he’ll actually eliminate it. That would be good.

Or maybe he’ll pick a Sec of Ed that federalizes curriculum to crack down on the woke, creates a federal definition of anti-semitism for Title VI that protects Israel (but no other country) from criticism at universities, ties federal funding to campus police and faculty cooperating in immigration sweeps on campus, and forgives student loans for people who join the border patrol.

And then we’ll see lifelong advocates of abolition reversing themselves and saying the Department of Education is great, claiming they thought all along there should be more federal involvement in education, and coming up with arguments about how the Civil War ended local primacy with respect to education.

[Commenter_XY]

Right-sizing...You really don't quite get all of the meaning here, do you? What is obnoxious about the term? The bureaucracy is bloated, it needs to be right-sized. Preferably eliminated.

[Commenter_XY]

Can any VC Conspirator speak to using eVerify?
Can you describe step-by-step what happens?
How long to get back a response?
- What do you actually get back from eVerify?
What are you supposed to do when eVerify says...I can't verify this person?

I can envision a DOL statutory requirement that US employers must use eVerify for US based positions. I am wondering how the system actually works, from an end user standpoint.

[ducksalad]

IANAVCC, but there’s a lot of info on the e-Verify website (www.e-verify.gov). They claim response times measured in seconds if no flags are raised. AFAICT it’s just entering the I-9 information electronically instead of on a form, with the added requirements to provide an SSN and show an ID.

I don’t see how it does much of anything in cases where the employer is cooperative, even passively, with a potential new hire willing to do a bit of identity fraud.

And as always, it’s worth remembering that none of this does a thing about people who are self-employed, “contractors” with verbal contracts and cash payments, or simply unemployed.

Plus, it doesn't do anything about the supposed millions who already have employment, unless you add a requirement to retroactively check people already employed.

And then the unintended consequences:
1. Once someone manages to fraudulently get themselves into e-Verify, then they've got it made in the shade. They can use it in other ways, for example, "I left my ID at home but you can see me in e-Verify" if they get stopped for some minor crime. If on some kind of visa that doesn't permit working, they can use it as evidence they sincerely believed they were authorized to work.
2. The following categories of US citizens are going to experience a lot of hassle: (a) people who change their names after getting married, (b) people who were indifferent about using nicknames versus legal names when filling out paperwork, (c) if the retroactive requirement is put in place, people old enough that they started work when recordkeeping was less rigorous, (d) ornery libertarians resistant to showing papers and jumping through hoops and begging permission.

[Ridgeway]

I oversaw its use a bit in the past. It is not a tool for verifying citizenship per se. Rather, it is a tool to verify whether the SSN provided by a prospective employee is valid and matches the identity provided by that employee. If there is a mismatch, then there are various ways to proceed, but I never got into that level of the nitty-gritty.

[loki13]

I know that there are states that have required it.

IIRC, Florida has required public agencies and most private employers (some number, like 15 or 25 employees) to use it for over a year.

AFAIK, there haven't been horror stories.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How are Biden's cabinet appointee's more qualified than Trumps?

Any guesses?

[LawTalkingGuy]

The state department guy is a career diplomat (Rubio is actually a fairly solid choice FWIW)
The treasury secretary is an economist and former fed chair (weirdly Trump has had good instincts with both Treasury and the Fed, likely unintentionally)
The AG is a former prosecutor who prosecuted high profile cases and a former DC circuit Judge
The HHS Secretary has managed a large bureaucracy and believes in medical science and vaccines
The Defense Secretary is a former general

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Chair of Council of Economic Advisors, a music major.
DHS – a lawyer with no security background
Transportation – a mayor of a shithole tiny town in Indiana.
Energy – a governor who secretly coordinated with China on releasing from our SPR
Commerce – a governor
Interior – a congressman

---
"The HHS Secretary has managed a large bureaucracy and believes in medical science and vaccines" , he was a lawyer and a congressman.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He was California AG. Which is a large bureaucracy. But even if he was just a regular congressman that’s STILL better than a guy who doesn’t believe in medical science.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Woah, I didn't realize that being an AG of a State made you qualified to be Security of Health and Human Services.

Especially super qualified if you tRuST thE SciEncE. Like transing kids!

So that's really what it boils down to. They're qualified because they share your beliefs.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Qualified is sort of meaningless in these debates because that’s how everyone views them. But yes, someone who has run a large bureaucracy is probably better at it than someone who never has.

And yeah you kind of have to trust the scientists and doctors if your only training is a three year degree in reading casebooks. I mean what basis does he have to question vaccine efficacy? Which studies did he conduct? Which papers have survived peer review? How often is he in the lab? Can he even explain these concepts enough to pass a high school biology class? If you aren’t trained in science and don’t do science for a living you would have to be a complete fucking moron to think you know better than people who do it day to day simply because you your own “research” (i.e. googling shit).

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Which scientists do you trust, how did you decide to trust the ones you trust?

[David Nieporent]

Chair of Council of Economic Advisors, a music major.

That was his second one. His first one had a BA and PhD from Harvard in Economics. His second one did not major in economics in college, to be sure, but had twenty years of experience in the economics field before being appointed.

DHS – a lawyer with no security background

Unless you count the seven years he had worked at DHS before being nominated for Secretary.

Commerce – a governor

A governor who worked in venture capital before entering politics, and with a degree in economics from Harvard.

[Roger S]

Plus, the Defense Secretary was on the board of a major defense contractor. And the AG knew how to prosecute political enemies.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Kamala spent $1.5 BILLION in 15 weeks and got nothing to show for it but a bunch of graft and payoffs to rich elites like Oprah.

Ain’t that just federal government in a nutshell? I guess she'd be a better picture of government-in-action if she was 3 years too late on her campaign...

[Krayt]

“Nothing to show for it but graft and payoffs.”

I got news for you, that is the reason for seeking power.

Fundamental Theorem of Government: Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it from day one.

Evidence? The entire world and all human history.

I used to quote a story from India 25 years ago, where college students protested by the millions a decision to set aside half of all new government jobs for, well, not for them anymore. But it happened again earlier this year in Bangladesh or somewhere.

[loki13]

It's sad that graft and corruption are now so normalized that instead of being outraged by it, we shrug, say it's normal, and compare what's happening here to, you know, India and Bangladesh.

Weirdly, there are countries where graft isn't normalized. The US used to be one of them.

[Krayt]

[Bwaaah]

Accusations of graft and corruption in the U.S. have always been normal, and pervasive, throughout my lifetime (and presumably before). At the same time, the incidence of graft and corruption have gone down steadily.

It's important to not conflate cynical rhetoric with the actual aspirations of people. Just because moderating voices have gone out of vogue doesn't mean they're not waiting to come back, nor that they won't.

[Sarcastr0]

Your fundamental theorem of government remains utterly unsupported, even if you put it in caps and cite 'The entire world and all human history' or a couple of anecdotes from other countries.

Might as well cite your own butt for the level of lift required to support your broad-brush telepathic assertion.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Might as well cite your own butt for the level of lift required to support your broad-brush telepathic assertion."

If he's Brazilian, that just might work!

[Bob from Ohio]

"couple of anecdotes"

LOL from you, you are the king of anecdotes.

He might be using some hyperbole but corrupt officials is a pretty common thing in human history.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, he doesn't say 'corruption is common.'
He says: 'Corruption the purpose of welding power.'

That's stupid.

I do a counterexamples; I don't generalize broad rules based on anecdotes.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Empiricism, Sacastr0. Look it up.

[Roger S]

She did expose the Democrats for what they are.

There are still some people on X/Twitter blaming the loss on Citizens United. Ha ha.

[Krayt]

Filibusters are cool again. Term limits for everything except Senators, because our right to vote for people we like over and over shall not be infringed.

[Krayt]

Here's a Radiolab on the weird state of American Samoa as a US territory, which touches on statehood.

Good for the facetious of both sides, quoting principles you don't actually give a rat's ass about, in your pursuit of two more senators, or denying the other side same.

[tylertusta]

I find it very humorous that Democrats have come out in favor of virtual representation.

Ya know, the thing we declared our independence from Great Britain over.

[loki13]

Next observation-

It is my understanding that our new President would like to do the following:

1. Put in tariffs.
2. Cut taxes.
3. Raise spending for the military.
4. Spend a large amount to implement deportations. Those deported would, obviously, no longer be working here as well.

Now, it doesn't take a PhD in macroeconomics to see what the confluence of those policies will be. So, what am I missing?

1. Trump isn't actually going to do 1-4.
2. I'm not missing anything, but no one cares about causes and effects.
3. Magic economics?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If a country puts tariffs on our goods, should we have tariffs on theirs?

[David Nieporent]

No. As the economist Joan Robinson noted, that's like throwing rocks into your own harbors because your trading partners have rocky coasts.

[bernard11]

Beat me to it.

Tariffs may occasionally be useful for non-economic strategic reasons.

But tariffs on ordinary goods are harmful to a nation's economy. And, contra Trump, they are mostly paid by the importers, us, and not the exporting country.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why do you think all these other countries do it to our goods then?

Don't they know the same things you do?

Isn't that weird? the US is the only one that's not supposed to put tariffs on their imported goods?

[Sarcastr0]

It's 2.

They will expect that the Dems shall be blamed for the debt, and having no one seeking America's wellbeing among them, they'll go ahead.

They may even be right about who will get the blame.

[loki13]

Well, let's just assume that no one in power cares about the deficit (A SAFE ASSUMPTION!).

I'm just thinking about the actual economic effects of those policies. Together, they are a recipe for inflationary pressure and reduced growth. Textbook. And that's without any knock-on effects (no one that we raise tariffs on raises tariffs) that could make it much worse.

[Sarcastr0]

It is one of my bigger concerns about the Trump admin, yeah - Trump doesn't believe in much but this is one thing he seems to legit believe in.

Lots of other stuff too, of course, but as for direct and high risks to me and my family, that's up there.

Though vaccines for future kids is also in the mix for sure.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Weren’t you defending Biden’s 2T deficits on the basis that we’re printing our own money and debt or deficits don’t really matter?

[Sarcastr0]

All of those except for military spending is quite inflationary.

[Absaroka]

"Though vaccines for future kids is also in the mix for sure."

My guess (with the usual caveats) is that

a)people's pediatricians are going to still be pretty persuasive about the usual childhood vaccinations and
b)if by some chance they aren't the first small outbreak of polio or diphtheria or whatever will abruptly re-educate the then-current generation of parents about why vaccines matter.

Both my parents lost infant siblings to the usual childhood diseases, as did almost everyone in their generation. They considered it a great miracle of their times that they didn't have to watch any of their kids die of whooping cough or whatever.

[Sarcastr0]

I will admit I don't know the role of HHS in the manufacture and distribution of vaccines across our country, but I also don't want to suddenly find out because it stops.

And we've had outbreaks due to anti-vaxx nonsense. It hasn't woken many people up.

The future remains unwritten, so who knows what'll get pushed and how dumb it'll be, but I'm not as optimistic as I once was that blame for the badness that follows zealots making pushing their crazy/dumb stuff will be well placed, and this that the reaction will right the ship. At least in the short term.

[Absaroka]

"And we’ve had outbreaks due to anti-vaxx nonsense. It hasn’t woken many people up."

That's because they have been tiny, relative to the pre-vaccine days.

This was way before your time, but fear of disease used to be a big deal: "A 1952 survey found that Americans feared only nuclear annihilation more than polio.", for one example.

Here is an estimate of deaths prevented: "Childhood vaccination has dramatically reduced morbidity, mortality, and disability caused by vaccine-preventable diseases, with ∼21 million hospitalizations, 732 000 deaths, and 322 million cases of disease averted in the United States between 1994 and 2013.".

That's over 30K deaths a year. I'm out of links, but some place called usafacts dot com says "From the 2000–01 to 2021–22 school years, there were 1,375 school shootings at public and private elementary and secondary schools, resulting in 515 deaths '. That's 25ish deaths per year.

25 is a lot smaller number than thirty thousand, and yet parents get pretty excited about it. I just don't see parents tolerating vaccines going away. Vaccines have been so extraordinarily effective that it opened a window for skeptics. If those skeptics succeed in rolling back vaccination, reality will quickly slap them right across the face.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair point on the scale. Though helluva price to pay.

[EscherEnigma]

I mean, over 70 thousand Americans died from COVID-19 last year, and there are anti-vaxxers are stronger then ever, so I'm not sure mere tens of thousands of dead Americans is enough at this point.

Hell, look at Polio. From Wikipedia describing the 1952 epidemic: "Of the 57,628 cases reported that year, 3,145 died and 21,269 were left with mild to disabling paralysis".

We got more dead people last year from COVID-19 then people went to the hospital with Polio at all in 1952, and that was enough to scare people then, and now it's just a conspiracy.

So yeah. I don't think even Polio coming back will curb the anti-vaxxers.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Where those 70,000 COVID deaths all unvaccinated?

[Commenter_XY]

loki13, how do you explain the actual performance of those policies during '45' tenure? The TCJA was passed in 2017, tariffs applied in early 2018. The economy did fabulously until the entire world got gobsmacked with Covid-19. We bounced back quicker because our economy was stronger, 'despite' the 'drag' of these 'wrong' policies.

Your textbook might need a partial rewrite if you cannot explain the reality of actual performance.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Oh I know, it's the Democrats that seek America's well being. Their hearts are so golden and pure. We can see how much awesomeness their golden and pure intentions are manifesting for us! We're all so healthy, and happy, and educated, and wealthy! Thank you good intentions! It doesn't matter your actions, Dear Democrat, only that your intentions as you publicly state them are True and Good!

PRAISE THEM! PRAISE THE STATE! THEIR HEARTS ARE SO GOLDEN AND PURE!

[SRG2]

They're going to pray the deficit away.

As noted last time, Trump ran his businesses on borrowed money, why think that he'll run the US differently? One general principle of real estate - as long as you can borrow money at a reasonable rate, you should always do so.

[Bob from Ohio]

"run the US differently"

The deficit right now is 1.9 trillion. Biden must have been a real estate tycoon as well!

[bernard11]

And Trump is going to make it bigger.

[Frank Drackman]

So what? We’re just “borrowing from ourselves”

[SRG2]

What happened to the deficit after Trump took over the first time?

[Lennyk78]

The idea that having a large number of unskilled people here is not inflationary is a leftist lie. These people consume tons of public services, which is inflationary.

[loki13]

Economics isn’t particularly “left-wing.”

But sure, I am sure your assertions (that the people who will be deported were using large numbers of public services, and also that the unskilled people were not producing anything at low cost … you know, like food) has never been examined before!

It’s all lies. It must be comforting to know that anything that disagrees with the things you want to be true is a lie, right?

Just like the lies about the deficit. Or the lies about tariffs. Or the lies about basic supply and demand. So many lies!

[Lennyk78]

Most economics surely are left wing.

It has been examined before, just not in good faith. Most economists either work for academia or Wall Street and have a pre-determined "conclusion."

[Bwaaah]

I see #1 as being likely to be mostly correct.

I'd expect him to do some kind of a tax cut on something because that's center-of-the-plate Republican policy. He'll probably do some payroll tax reduction, because that's the kind of benefit that a wide range of working people can enjoy.

I think the first effect of seeking the military to go after "illegal immigrants" is that it would discourage would-be migrants from coming here at this time. With a tightening of asylum sign-up programs, Trump's threats alone could drive down illegal immigration substantially faster than it would take for the government to implement an actual security plan. I also expect there to be widespread defensive litigation against deportation to protect people who are already employed in the U.S. or who have legal family here. (We tend to defend and keep families and people who work.)

He'll probably do some high profile tariff, against China, to keep his promise. But that'll be a case of less is more. (Because, no, there ain't no magic economics.)

[loki13]

That's reasonable. Reason would be nice.

But looking at that list, and the current news ... I mean, deploying the US Military domestically for law enforcement purposes?

That's not an economics issue per se, but not exactly what I would like to see ever.

[Bwaaah]

I hope to not see the military doing domestic law enforcement work like that. I don't know that it can be justified satisfactorily to overcome how big, and potentially threatening, that idea is. It's exactly the kind of work our military abhors, genuinely (I think) in the spirit of propagating American civil liberties.

That said, numerous municipalities around the U.S., in the form of so-called "sanctuary cities," have officially positioned themselves as opposed to enforcement of immigration laws. They routinely aid and abet illegal activities while frustrating enforcement of the law. I think there's a need for some healthy "consciousness raising" to be done regarding law enforcement that would help mitigate the current political climate that makes military action sound appealing. Outright constructive nullification of federal law, as sanctuary cities do, strikes me as warranting a serious step up in law enforcement.

I hope to see cool, compassionate but practical heads prevail here.

[EscherEnigma]

"I hope to see cool, compassionate but practical heads prevail here."
Be the change you want to see in the world.

Hint: someone who defends using the military for domestic police actions is not a cool, compassionate, or practical head. And yes, that second paragraph was absolutely defending the use of the military for domestic police actions.

[Bwaaah]

The second paragraph was definitely not intended to defend the use of the military. It was intended to describe a major feature of our body politic that's driving current political sentiments/passions.

[Bwaaah]

Los Angeles passed a new “sanctuary city” ordinance today, emphasizing the continued intent of Democratic politicians to nullify U.S. immigration law. Not only does this contradict voter sentiments, but also drives their voting choices.

[David Nieporent]

Sanctuary city (or state, for that matter) laws do not "nullify" U.S. immigration law. They are faithful applications of the anti-commandeering principle of New York v. United States and Printz v. United States.

[Bwaaah]

Thank you for using different words to clarify a non-difference for which you insist disagreement.

[Josh R]

Tariffs are tax increases. I’m not sure if they balance tax cuts. He is proposing to divert defense spending to implement deportations through his emergency powers. I assume DOGE will cut spending to offset increases in military spending.

On the whole, I think it is likely to result in bad economics in light of the loss of labor from the deportations. But, who knows? Perhaps he will stop after removing those convicted of non-immgration crimes, and perhaps we will all have to wait and see.

The only thing I am confident in is Trump will get the blame and the GOP will suffer in 2026 if things go south.

[Commenter_XY]

loki13, the correct answer for 2025-2026 is 1,2, and 4 for sure. There will be deportations, that was a core plank issue. The 2017 tax brackets will remain, with minor adjustments (for now). There will be tariffs applied. Those three things will happen in fairly short order.

Your #3 is 'iffy' pending geopolitical developments. I don't think the military needs an increase in budget. The military needs a massive increase in lethality, mainly, so it will never have to be used. That doesn't require more money. It does require reallocation of existing resources.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>By authorizing long range missiles to strike inside Russia, Biden is committing an unconstitutional Act of War that endangers the lives of all U.S. citizens. This is an impeachable offense, but the reality is he’s an emasculated puppet of a deep state.

https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1858517552646750436

Hard to refute that. Very powerful. When did the Democrats become pro-WW3?

[apedad]

You know Rep Massie has been in Congress for 12 years, right?

You know....a member of the deep state.

[Bob from Ohio]

No elected official is part of the "deep state".

Its unknown career security, intelligence and military that comprise the deep state.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He never had any clue what people were referring to when they said the deep state.

He still doesn't. The deep state tells him they don't exist, and so he doesn't believe they exist.

[apedad]

HA!

I’m a retired Air Force Office of Special Investigations Special Agent and I specialized in Counterintelligence.

So I was Security, Intelligence, and Military.

You two are clueless, whiney, wannabes.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Air Force? Ah, so you're a homosexual as well as a moron.

[Frank Drackman]

All of the branches have Homos, but the Air Farce gets the smart ones, at one point I think every USAF doctor at Aviano Air Base was a Turd Burglar

[Frank Drackman]

Military Intelligence is about as bad as military music

[apedad]

Expert in NYC subway case: Chokehold killed Jordan Neely

A forensic pathologist who conducted the autopsy of Jordan Neely told a Manhattan jury on Friday that she was confident Daniel Penny’s chokehold was the sole cause of Neely’s death.

Penny faces charges of second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.

https://www.courthousenews.com/expert-in-nyc-subway-case-chokehold-killed-jordan-neely/

I'm sure Penny will be found guilty but neither side will be satisfied with the sentencing.

In NY, manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony, if you are convicted you could be sentenced to up to 15 years in state prison and be ordered to pay a substantial fine.

But I'm betting he'll get less than five years.

[Lennyk78]

The same way these pieces of crap will be “confident” that George Floyd died of asphyxiation or that Eric Garner died of asphyxiation.

These fat, drugged out fucks died because they’re fat, drugged out fucks, and the world is a better place with those savages in the ground.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Isn't it weird how educated people keep disagreeing with your racist stupidity, verochax?

[Frank Drackman]

I don’t disagree except that recognizing obvious narcotics overdoses isn’t racist stupidity

[Roger S]

Isn't it true that Neely died hours later? If so, it is hard to see how a chokehold could be the sole cause.

[Frank Drackman]

You and your damn facts

[JoeFromtheBronx]

If that's the case, one side at least should be satisfied with the sentencing.

[hobie]

Laken Riley's accused killer Jose Antonio Ibarra was bussed from El Paso to NYC by Greg Abbot in September 2023. Had he been left in the remote corner of Texas where he was under federal supervision, and not NYC where he disappeared into the crowds, she would be alive today. So is Laken Riley Gov Abbot's Ashtray Babbitt? I was hoping Ibarra was part of DeSantis's little distribution scheme but, alas, Abbott owns this one

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Biden bought him a free flight to Atlanta.

I bet he didn't even need to pass through security like us lower-class actual citizens.

[Bob from Ohio]

"remote corner of Texas"

El Paso has 678,958 residents. Easy to disappear there too!

I thought you claimed to have lived in Texas?

"under federal supervision" A joke, right?

[hobie]

This is just a taste of things to come, Bob. All these brown people poisoning the blood of our nation - when they leave - will make restaurant and agricultural products go through the roof. In two years you can continue to blame Biden for that, but I doubt it will stick

[Frank Drackman]

You gotta cut Hobie-stank a break, he’s got his head so far up his ass it’s a wonder he even knows there’s towns outside of Austin

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The PA Supreme Court just ordered 5 insurrectionist Democrat counties to STOP illegally counting illegal ballots.

I'm going to guess they'll thumb their nose at our Sacred Democracy and continue to steal another election for the Democrats.

And no Democrat will speak out against them. Especially none of the Sacred Democracy Guardians from 2020.

In fact, Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer is enabling the insurrection by refusing to seat the lawful winner, McCormack.

I can't wait for AG Gaetz to start delivering justice to these treasonous Democrats.

[Frank Drackman]

Jeez-Us JHBHE,
Just return allready

Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I like one half of you , Frank. Can you guess which one?

[Bwaaah]

Is it the not-Jewy half?

Anyway, Frank Drackman is many dimensional.

[not guilty]

"In fact, Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer is enabling the insurrection by refusing to seat the lawful winner, McCormack."

Uh, Senator Casey's term has not yet expired. When the new Congress convenes of January 3, Senator Schumer will no longer have anything to say about seating McCormack unless and until his putative election is challenged, at which time Schumer will be one vote among 99.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He’s refusing to allow him into orientation unlike all the other Senator-elects.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schumer-wont-allow-dave-mccormick-senate-orientation-citing-outstanding-pa-ballots

Clear insurrection and election-stealing enablement.

[David Nieporent]

I know you're just trolling, but "not invited" and "refusing to allow" are different phrases meaning different things. Also, an orientation is not a legal ceremony. Also, none of that is insurrection nor does it enable anything at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps more to the point, Schumer relented.

[not guilty]

Again, you demonstrate that you are without a clue as to what "insurrection" means, JHBHBE.

Why am I unsurprised?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Every idiot in this thread that's saying "tRuST thE sCiENCe" "M'uH ExPerTS"

This is also what they believe in:

Men's breastfeeding fetish drives La Leche League founder to resign

“This shift from following the norms of Nature, which is the core of mothering through breastfeeding, to indulging the fantasies of adults, is destroying our organization” wrote the breastfeeding support group’s founder, Marian Tompson.

https://www.rebelnews.com/mens_breastfeeding_fetish_drives_la_leche_league_founder_to_resign

They believe that a man can transform himself into a real authentic woman and then breastfeed a baby.

Idiots. All of them.

P.S. They also believed COVID couldn't spread at mass rallies IF AND ONLY IF the rallies were for a "good reason".

P.P.S. They also, also believed that flying around unvaccinated illegals in the middle of the night and dumping them out during a pandemic is A-OK, but you going to beach by yourself was a crime against the pandemic.

[Krayt]

Men don’t just have nipples, they have fully functioning breasts. You just need the right hormone treatment and you too can work your udders.

However, for the love of god, consider that your own psychological health isn’t the only person's.

[Michael P]

Good news: Taylor Lorenz has boldly called out a multi-year source of "extreme right wing Covid denialism", and recognized that source as "not a reputable outlet".

https://x.com/BlueskyLibs/status/1857525712363647289

[Michael P]

UNRWA insists Israel, as the only legitimate government in the Gaza Strip, has an obligation under international law to stop Hamas's terrorist attacks on civilian targets.

https://x.com/UNRWA/status/1858521152483705001

[Commenter_XY]

Israel can do exactly that by hunting down, and killing off hamas in gaza.

Then again, remember that UNRWA and hamas were like peanut butter and jelly in gaza.

[David Nieporent]

UNRWA did not say anything about "legitimate government," of course. An occupying power (and there's no dispute that Israel occupies Gaza now, even if it didn't do so between 2005 and 2023) has humanitarian obligations regardless of the legitimacy of its occupation.

[ThePublius]

Don't you see the irony in this, though, since UNRWA is a Hamas sympathizer, and has employees who are Hamas members, and participated in the Oct. 7 atrocities?

[Michael P]

Martinned's favored form of (allegedly) legitimate response to soccer hooliganism and mostly peaceful protest against supposedly right-wing Israeli politicians has spread quite a bit.

https://archive.is/Y7iKj

[Sarcastr0]

Some might say something happening in Berlin has little to do with something happening in Amsterdam.

But that's smart people; Michael P is of a different sort.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It would only be relevant if European countries had similar policies regarding immigration, or were in some way subject to pan-European rules on the subject.

[Michael P]

The mostly peaceful protest targeting Jews was in Paris, not Amsterdam. Those of who are smarter than Sarcastr0 remember this from last Thursday.

[wreckinball]

"Those of smarter than Sarcastr0"

That really opens it up doesn't it?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Alex Soros and the rest of the Democrat/Globalist warmongers are celebrating the start of WWIII.

What an about face for the Democrats.