Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Wild New Years, besides the New Orleans terrorist attack, someone tried an attack on the Trump Tower in Las Vegas with one of Elon's Cyber Trucks.

It was so well built the explosion only went up, then out, and didn't even break any windows.

https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1874610639823335781?t=QGkTatf_iZ9EEzC5dYZnig&s=19

"Police credited the lack of damage to the Trump Hotel to the strength of the Cybertruck, as it remained mostly intact."

“The explosion went up and out.”

I'm still not buying an EV though, but not because I want to blow something up.

[NvEric]

So, the truck drives without anyone inside ?

[Frank Drackman]

I had a 78 Pinto that would do that

[Bwaaah]

...AND the Pinto was cheaper AND the explosive capability came standard.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The standard shift Japanese cars of the '80s & '90s would do that if it was cold -- they used 80W90 gear oil in the transmission and it was so thick when cold that it would actually engage the gears and the car would start creeping across the ground if the brake wasn't set.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Burning Li-ion batteries produces Hydrogen Fluoride gas also reacts with water -- it forms Hydrofluoric Acid which is highly corrosive and rather nasty -- see https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-lithium-battery-fire-concerns-1.7336652

I think it will come out that the IED in the New Orleans truck (also an electric battery truck) was intended to set that battery on fire too.

And that's what people aren't thinking about here -- IF the perp had managed to get the battery burning in the relatively confined area of Bourbon Street and the bars, in the dark, we'd have a lot more than just 15 dead, not that isn't bad enough.

This is a genuine terrorist attack, a coordinated attack with at least four terrorists still at large.

Senator Kennedy (R-LA) was on Fox News last night saying that he knows more than has come out on this, but he isn't saying anything yet because he wants to give the FBI a few days to do their job.

This was a real terrorist attack. And I'd love to see the perps DD-214.

[Absaroka]

"IF the perp had managed to get the battery burning in the relatively confined area of Bourbon Street and the bars, in the dark, we'd have a lot more than just 15 dead"

Interesting! I would have guessed that people would move away from a burning electric vehicle like they move away from a burning gasoline fueled car. I guess we'll have to wait until the first electric vehicle fire happens to see if that is the case.

Almost forgot: BLEVE!!

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose if the New Years Eve crowd was dense enough, they couldn't have moved away from the toxic smoke. Didn't appear that it was.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Also factor in intoxication and darkness -- people do stupid things in a crowd. Remember The Station nightclub fire 20 years ago when people stood there and watched the building catch fire around them until it was too late to get out?

Take the infamous Coconut Grove fire in Boston in the 1940s -- the fire didn't kill people, it was the pileup at the rotating doors that did. It's the panic that kills people.

Now in fairness, I did presume Boston on New Year's Eve for the fireworks (which I have attended -- never been to New Orleans) where you do have a crowd density enough to be a concern.

[Absaroka]

All good points! I guess we'll just have to wait until the first EV fire actually happens to get actual data about how close a bystander can be without being killed.

[Michael P]

EV fires have happened often enough that manufacturers have warned people not to park recalled EVs in a garage, but the concern there was burning down the house rather than toxic fumes. So I think the argument that a single-vehicle fire has low risk of toxic fumes is probably sound.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trucks have larger batteries.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

"So I think" -- not enough for me to risk my entire family's life.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sadly, there is data from Israel regarding morbidity and mortality from cars exploding in a crowded area.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" would have guessed that people would move away from a burning electric vehicle like they move away from a burning gasoline fueled car."

Fire ATTRACTS people at night -- particularly drunken college kids.
You actually have to assign personnel to keep them back from it.

[Absaroka]

Interesting! So in your experience, a burning car attracts people like moths who run into the flames? I've seen maybe four car fires over the years and haven't witnessed that - people just gawk until the fire truck gets there. Maybe it's a Maine thing?

Of course, that's gasoline fires. If an EV ever catches fire, then we'll have hard data about how many people run into the flames.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You know that combustion products (i.e. smoke) extends far beyond the flames, don't you?

[CountmontyC]

Do you know that in rape prevention classes that the tell women to yell fire instead of help or rape? This is partly because human beings to this day still see fire more as a campfire than a threat. People mostly like fire and when there are fires crowds gather around to watch. See any news report of a house fire while it is still burning and you will find a crowd watching it from what they believe is a safe distance. All a terrorist would need to add to a car fire to make it more dangerous are chemicals that are toxic when burned.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is true, also to pull the fire alarm if one is handy, i.e. in a dorm.

Firefighters aren't going to write you for that, not the first time.
And a lot of people around is the absolute last thing a rapist wants.

As to attracting a crowd -- I've seen people assemble directly underneath a burning dorm room on (memory is) 16th floor of a 22 story tower. Right where the glass would land if the window shattered from the heat. People tend to be stupid...

[Noscitur a sociis]

People tend to be stupid...

At last, Dr. Ed finds an area where he can speak with real authority.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did I say that *I* stood there?!?

[jimc5499]

I don't know about that. I remember seeing video of an aircraft fire and the passengers were using their phones to get video of the fire instead of evacuating.

[Kazinski]

One thing you aren't considering, he drove into a crowd first, a dense enough crowd that he killed 10 people immediately and another 5 expired from there injuries.

I'd guess there could be up to two dozen severely injured enough they can't move away from a toxic fire.

[Dr. Ed 2]

.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I guess we'll have to wait until the first electric vehicle fire happens

You won't have to wait at all...unless you're able to time travel into the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicle_fire

[Absaroka]

Indeed. I was trying to make the point to Ed that you don't have to deduce what EV fires are like from first principles of physics, because quite a few have happened. And while they do present challenges for firefighters, they aren't mass casualty events. There were examples all over youtube a couple of years ago when they were novel, and they played out about like gas car fires ... people watch without becoming casualties.

[Frank Drackman]

You just say Bingo, it's just DD214, save the "-" for a rainy day

[Frank Drackman]

Dr Ed, are you aware there is this Invention called "The Internets" and on The Internets there is this Invention we call "Google"??
“Shamsud-Din Bahar Jabbar was in the regular Army as a Human Resource Specialist (42A) and Information Technology (IT) Specialist (25B) from March 2007 until January 2015 and then in the Army Reserve as an IT Specialist (25B) from January 2015 until July 2020,” a defense official said. “He deployed to Afghanistan from February 2009 to January 2010. He held the rank of Staff Sergeant at the end of service.”

His awards include three Army Commendation Medals, four Army Achievement Medals, two Army Good Conduct Medal, the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal with campaign star, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, two Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbons, the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Army Reserve Component Overseas Training Ribbon, NATO Medal, two Meritorious Unit Commendations, the Parachutist Badge, and the Driver and Mechanic Badge.
The way the Army gives out awards, that's actually fewer than average, probably part of why he was shit canned with 13 years service.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank -- is a change of MOS common?
Is a parachutist qualification something you would expect to see with either MOS?
And with 13 years in, don't most folks try to do the remaining 7 for the pension? Even if you don't get it until age 65 if you are reserves?

Just wondering.

[Frank Drackman]

As we say in the Medical Field, a Change in MOS
"Isn't Uncommon" (which doesn't mean it's "Common", because then we'd just say that)
Changing MOS? One of my CO's was a shitty Navy Pilot, saw the writing on the wall in the Mid 70's, became a shitty Navy Doctor.
and from my VA Gig I've learned that in the 82d Airborne they want everyone to have their jump wings, Cooks, Bakers, Candlestick Makers, even Colin Powell went through Jump Screw-el, they're usually the guys who don't ever jump again (i.e. the Smart ones)
and after further review, the Terrorist only had 10 years Active, 3 years Reserves, so he had a ways to go to get his 20.

Frank

[Armchair]

Umm...

OK, let's start with the obvious. HF is pretty nasty stuff. Generally speaking, the gas is worse than the aqueous form. However, like all things, it's the quantity and concentration that's important.

The article you cite involved 15,000 lithium ion batteries in a shipping container. The HF potentially released from a single battery...even in a CyberTruck...in an open area...I can't imagine would be more dangerous than the extreme local area (10-20 feet around the vehicle) and would dissipate quickly.

[Bwaaah]

Did you forget to suspend disbelief?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't it heavier than air? I know it is going to be hot (initially) because of the fire but if it is, it will quickly sink and then act like Propane (before it finds an ignition source) -- Propane has been described as a "White, lethal fog that drifts across the ground and into lower areas."

Now if it isn't, I'm wrong -- but a street with solid rows of buildings on both sides is like a box canyon and anything heavier than air, in any volume, will accumulate there. And go downhill into the bars in the basements of buildings (OK, I am thinking Boston and Portland, ME).

And remember that it is volume of a gas relative to the volume of the larger space it is released into that matters.

[Zarniwoop]

Isn't it heavier than air?

HF is a gas at STP. Gaseous HF is not "heavier than air".

You are invited to find a periodic table and check yourself by summing up the mass of one (1) hydrogen atom plus one (1) fluorine atom, and compare that to a sufficiently-close mass estimate of "air" (using a 80% N2 / 20% O2 approximation for "air" is probably sufficiently accurate here).

Stay tuned for "Grampa Ed claims the periodic table is a left-wing conspiracy!!1!".

[Dr. Ed 2]

I am not a chemist, nor do I pretend to be one.

I saw a reference to "heavier than air" on a MDSS and probably misinterpreted it. And I'm not even asking how you get Florine from burning Lithium, or what happens to the Lithium -- I'm not a chemist.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not a janitor-chemist!"

[Brett Bellmore]

It would be nasty if a billow of the smoke reached you, but it wouldn't be a general area risk.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And I then panicked and this led to a crowd stampede?

And there were something like 9 injured in Los Vegas -- and I presume they got away from the exploding truck as quickly as they could. Now injuries could include twisted ankles and such, but still, we don't know what those injuries were.

The problem with something like this is that there isn't a clear line of where you are safe and where you are not.

[Martinned2]

Surprisingly, many Trumpist tweets I've seen sacrificed many of their precious 280 characters to avoid mentioning the brand of the car. I wonder if that's a coincidence...

[Kazinski]

You are making even less sense than usual.

[Michael P]

I disagree. He was on a steady downward trend, but has been consistently incoherent and irrelevant since November 5th.

[Joe_dallas]

I disagree - the downward progression started long before Nov 5th,unless you are referring to Nov 5th circa 1990.

[Mr. Bumble]

Vegas was a Tesla Cybertruck, New Orleans was a Ford Lightning.
Happy?

[Martinned2]

I guess this helps us see what Elon Musk is buying for all that money...

(And since you're not getting it, you have no reason to dissemble.)

[Krayt]

And the latest is the Vegas truck had fireworks, gas cans, and camping fuel attached to a trigger for the driver. I don't know if it triggered the batteries, too. But it wasn't an EV having a spontaneous problem.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Heat does that, and fires produce heat.

[Zarniwoop]

Really? Really??!?! OMG!

I must have missed that whole "fire is hot" thing at MIT, I should get my money back. PLEEEEAAAAASSSSEEE share more of your genius-level insights with us!!1!

[Frank Drackman]

I told Mrs. Drackman that the perp's name would be Abdul-Moe-Hammad-Kareem-Abdul-Jabaar or similar
OK, he's a Black Guy with an A-rab name, they're the most dangerous

Frank

[Joe_dallas]

Typical leftist trying to score points with non relevant details.

Not surprising the partisan leftist omitting mention in Islamic religion

[Martinned2]

Two Americans commit mass casualty events, and you want to talk about immigration? Must be a day that ends in y (on both counts).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Traditionally it has been the second generation that are the problems. The first generation loves America and are happy to be here. Their children, on the other hand, umm......

[Joe_dallas]

Typical leftist delusion
Continue to ignore the islamic religion which is a the heart of the two incidents

[Malika]

Islam was at the heart of the Vegas incident?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

More lies from the piece of shit sock-puppet known as Sonja_T!

[Don Nico]

Martin, your bad.
He was not talking about immigration but about the radical Islamist manifesto of the NOLA truck driver, who was a US citizen and served in the US Army.
But Happy New Year

[Brett Bellmore]

Typically what we've seen is that it isn't the first generation immigrants who do the terrorism, it's their children.

This guy was a recent convert. I'm guessing the dynamic is the same: Somebody decides to take Islam seriously, and decides that "Jihad" isn't metaphorical war, it's real war.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, he apparently had his Arabic name in 7th Grade.

[Brett Bellmore]

According to people around him, he'd recently converted to Islam. Just having a name doesn't mean you're a believer.

[Frank Drackman]

I was using Arabic Numerals in First Grade

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was using Roman Numerals in Second Grade...

[Bwaaah]

I was using French words in kindergarten.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Two Americans commit mass casualty events, and you want to talk about immigration?

I see that your reading comprehension and just general level of stupidity have not improved any for the new year.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-835883

Your family on that list of Dutch Nazi collaborators?

[Martinned2]

No. Unlike yours, my family has traditionally understood that racism is bad.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I believe both were "trucks."

Just sayin....

[Bob from Ohio]

" I wonder if that's a coincidence..."

Likely the perp choose the truck because of the Trump-Musk connection but why would a "Trumpist" care?

"“The fact that this was a Cybertruck really limited the damage that occurred inside of the valet,” Sheriff McMahill added.
He said that’s because most of the blast went up through the truck and out, rather than through the sides, keeping the glass doors of the Trump Hotel from shattering too.
“The front glass doors of the Trump Hotel were not even broke by the blast,” Sheriff McMahill continued."

The truck saved lives.

[Kazinski]

One thing I don't see as a coincidence is that both cars were rented from the same peer to peer car rental app.

A few thinks make it pretty certain they were part of the same conspiracy:

"The two New Year’s Day attackers were both Army veterans and, according to a report from Denver 7, allegedly served at the same military base, Fort Bragg, and even served in Afghanistan around the same period.

In addition, Livelsberger and Jabbar rented their vehicles via the carsharing company, Turo, officials have said. Officials have said that there is currently no formal connection between Jabbar and Livelsberger."

[Noscitur a sociis]

That seems like one of the things that’s most likely to be a coincidence. Turk is very popular, and if you want to get a specific kind of car, as presumably they did, it’s probably the best bet.

There’s certainly plenty that’s worth following up on, but nothing that’s been made public that warrant being “pretty certain” of anything.

[Kazinski]

Well just my opinion of course, right now.

But lets look at the similarities, with the proviso of course that half the shit that comes out the first 48 hours after an attack turns out to be bullshit:

1. Attack on the same day.
2. Same car rental app.
3. Both electric trucks.
4. Both had IED as part of the attack.
5. Both Army or former Army
6. Both were stationed at Ft. Bragg.

If I had 6 numbers lining up on my Mega Millions entry last Friday then I would have won 1.2 billion.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Oh to be sure, there’s a lot to be suspicious about and that the authorities had better be following up on, and I think a connection is more likely than not. I just don’t think using Turo specifically is particularly suggestive of anything.

[Kazinski]

Sure, nothing is nailed down, and I think its fine for the FBI to say they have not found any definitive links, but ridiculous/mendacious to say
"Raia also said the FBI does not believe anyone else was involved in the New Orleans attack on Bourbon Street, a change from statements made earlier on in the investigation that said they did not believe suspect Shamsud-Din Jabbar was “solely responsible.""
or
FBI Says New Orleans, Las Vegas Attacks Likely Not Related - Forbes

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2025/01/02/no-definitive-link-between-new-orleans-and-las-vegas-attacks-fbi-says/

I am sure they don't want them to be related because the FBI wants to think, and wants to have the surveillance capability so even a tree falling in an empty forest triggers an alarm in FBI headquarters.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Both served in Afghanistan.

[SRG2]

It was so well built the explosion only went up, then out, and didn't even break any windows.

Good to know that when your cybertruck is bricked, you can use it as a bomb shelter,

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Good thing it's well built, because it's probably the ugliest vehicle I've ever seen.

[SRG2]

I have said that it looks like a cross between a Hummer and a Countach and not in a good way.

[Brett Bellmore]

I kind of liked the low poly esthetic in the abstract, but once I actually saw one in person I changed my mind. That thing is butt ugly.

And, people, there are REASONS, sound mechanical engineering reasons, you don't see any flat surfaces on the exterior of a car. They don't need the complex curvatures you typically see, but actually being flat is a bad idea mechanically.

[John F. Carr]

Those flat panels cause the Cybertruck to violate European pedestrian safety regulations. In Europe edges must not be too sharp. I have seen minimum curvature radius 2.5, 3.5, and 5 mm in different sources. Importers have added padding to get around this rule. The front end must not be designed to kill pedestrians. This design flaw may not be solvable.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I do wonder if random, unconfined explosives ignited in any kind of pickup truck bed wouldn't have done much the same thing...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Same here.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

They found out why after $7.5B and 3 years spent on EV charging stations only a handful have been built...

>In order to qualify for a grant, applicants must "demonstrate how meaningful public involvement, inclusive of disadvantaged communities, will occur throughout a project’s life cycle." What "public involvement" means is unclear. But the Department of Transportation notes it should involve "intentional outreach to underserved communities."

Good work Sarcastr0!

[Krayt]

The City of Detroit proper, back when cable was becoming a thing, mandated entire city coverage by any company that wanted in, not just the better off areas only. This delayed cable TV there by 8 years vs. the suburbs.

Feel good has its costs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Kind of ironic, I guess: If the city government itself had been a company that wanted in, it would have been barred. Back when cable was becoming a thing, the city routinely shorted selected areas on city services like lighting, street maintenance, police patrols, in order to lower property values so that eminent domain would be cheap if they had some big project they wanted to do.

When and administration finally got in that didn't follow that policy, they found the city had a fortune in unspent maintenance funds, to go with the street lights being out through much of the city.

[Martinned2]

It's called a universal service obligation (USO). It also exists for mail, (broadband) internet, and pretty much all other utilities. I'd have thought that a serious redneck like you would be in favour of cross-subsidising rural utilities with money taken from city folk.

[Reallynotbob]

...something something Rural Electrification Act....

Dad-gum federals getting in the way of the free market.

[SimonP]

It has been frustrating to read how these potentially historic investments in green infrastructure have been stymied by the kind of serve-every-stakeholder nitpicking that dooms so much of NYC policymaking.

In law school, I took environmental law with a notoriously conservative professor. He convinced me that a lot of Democratic priorities can be better served by focusing on broad, structural adjustments than they can by item-by-item, interest group-by-interest group bureaucratic mismanagement. Unfortunately, a lot of our environmental laws are crafted in a way that makes this impossible without congressional involvement. But by most accounts it seems like the roll-out of (at least some of) the green subsidies passed during the Biden administration has been an own-goal by incompetent bureaucrats.

[Reallynotbob]

There's actually a simple cure for "serve-every-stakeholder nitpicking." It's called bipartisanship. When either side has to rally 99% of its members to accomplish anything, the smallest interest groups enjoy magnified leverage.

The choice is between "get things done" or "ensure the other side acts alone and fails as often as possible."

Just think how much influence 10-20 republican (or democratic) Reps could have in the current Congress by forming a swing voting bloc. Then imagine whether the good they accomplish would help them avoid getting primaried.

[David Nieporent]

They found out why after $7.5B and 3 years spent on EV charging stations only a handful have been built...

Mostly because the claim is framed dishonestly. The $7.5B is the amount appropriated, not spent. The federal government is not building them; it is doling out the money to have them built.

[RedheadedPharoh]

That would be a great comment if it somehow excused the stupid cultish bureaucrat behavior. I guess they should've said it was a failed Democratic Presidential campaign, then they would've blown through the $7.5B in a matter of months.

[Brett Bellmore]

Great point, they've only wasted half of it so far.

A large part of the problem is that they came up with such over the top specifications for the chargers that nothing actually on the market met the requirements.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think wasted is in evidence. This is so far following what looks to my untrained eye a pretty normal acquisition timeline - takes time to ramp up bids and statements of work and the like.
We will know in about a year if execution accelerates.

I also don't think this was meant to be commercial-off-the-shelf or it wouldn't be a dedicated program shaped like this.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Is this also how government healthcare works?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Ukraine has now cut off Russian gas exports.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-russia-gas-pipeline-1.7421380

[Martinned2]

The contract expired. Did you expect them to keep doing business with the enemy?

[John F. Carr]

I didn't expect them to keep carrying gas the past three years. War is a good reason to break a contract with the enemy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, they didn't exactly break it, it expired.

[Zarniwoop]

I think that's JF Carr's point? I too would have expected Ukraine to break the contract, citing the war.

Instead they allowed it to naturally expire, as you note.

[Absaroka]

Just spitballing from outside: western Europe was really dependent on Russian gas, and Ukraine really depends on aid from western Europe. You don't want to bite the hand that feeds you. So let the gas flow while Europe switches suppliers. Once Europe is largely converted, turn off the tap.

I skipped my top secret classified briefings today, so just guessing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was surprised to learn they had.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can Trump privatize deportations?

[Martinned2]

I'm sure he'll try. If his buddies can't make money off something, is it really worth doing?

[RedheadedPharoh]

You are interfering in our democracy and our elections. Go to a German forum and piss and moan there.

[Martinned2]

WTF are you talking about?

[RedheadedPharoh]

If Musk tweeting 5 words is a threat to Germany's democracy and election interference, then you're constant drumbeat for Marxism, Globalism and America Last policies that harm her citizens is surely harming our sacred democracy and interfering in our elections.

Go agitate in your own country.

[Martinned2]

Are you somehow under the impression that I'm German?

Or, for that matter, that Elon Musk tweeting about German politics would be a problem if he wasn't spouting an endless stream of mendacious Putin propaganda?

[RedheadedPharoh]

I'm under the impression you are not a US citizen and therefor your interests are not aligned with the interests of US citizens and your advocacy in US elections and politics is propaganda no different than what you people are currently clutching your pearls over.

If you are free to agitate for foreign interests in US elections and US politics, why isn't every else equally free to do so in UK, Germany, or any other nation's politics and elections?

[Bob from Ohio]

"If his buddies can't make money off something, is it really worth doing?"

Quite funny that the poster here most butt hurt about Trump is not even an American.

Maybe you should comment on the Brit authorities {including the then director of public prosecutions] conduct abou the Muslim rape gangs?

Or this:

"New Year’s Eve celebrations across the Netherlands turned chaotic as riots, arson, and injuries were reported in several provinces. The unrest included the burning of a police car in Veen, fireworks explosions causing severe injuries in Wognum, hospitalizations for firework-related injuries and children with alcohol poisoning nationwide, and widespread incidents of violence and property damage in cities like Rotterdam, The Hague, and Culemborg." NL Times

[Martinned2]

O, look, you've picked up another fake news story on Twitter. Congratulations!

(The New Year's Eve thing is true though. Dutch police are an embarrassment this time of year.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Only at this time of the year?

[Martinned2]

Yes. When they're not faced with violent mobs, Dutch police are quite good. And violent mobs are a strictly new year's eve thing in the Netherlands.

[Bwaaah]

"And violent mobs are a strictly new year's eve thing in the Netherlands."

What about when Zionists come to play football?

History is so easily written in convenience. Little of the past is brought forward. (Remember November?)

[Mr. Bumble]

That was just "football" hooliganism.

[Frank Drackman]

I hear MS-13 has this whole "Termination Package"

[Michael P]

Do self-deportations count?

Making it (significantly) more risky to hire someone who isn't authorized to work in the country would go a long way in that direction.

[Brett Bellmore]

Easiest way to do that would be to set up a program where any illegal who reported their own employer would get a check and a deferral on their deportation. Certainly as legal to do as DACA.

That would almost instantly turn illegal immigrants from cheap employees to a terrible risk to employ. You'd have illegals staying in the US and drawing a decent salary just getting hired and making a phone call.

[Don Nico]

Cute idea. But who'd have the balls to set up such a program?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think Trump might, and it arguably isn't any more (Or less!) in need of legislation than DACA.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think Trump might

What has Trump done or even said in the last 80 years that would remotely incline you to this belief?

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, you ask this, when illegal immigration has been his lead issue from the start?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes. The fact that Trump has vocally campaigned against illegal immigration does not make it plausible that he’ll support any particular policy you come up with.

I realize his absence of any actual ideals makes it easier to delude yourself into thinking he might agree with you, but it’s better to try to be at least a little bit rational about it.

[Brett Bellmore]

He vocally campaigned, he fought for his policies in court, he declared an emergency to divert funds, he got policies like Remain in Mexico implemented.

I'd have to say this is probably the last issue any rational person would dispute Trump having made an effort on.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I didn’t ask why you think Trump might do something related to illegal immigration. I asked why you think it’s plausible that he might support the very specific policy you proposed.

[Commenter_XY]

Steven Miller has the balls to do it.

[Kazinski]

I've suggested before allowing private lawsuits against employers for hiring illegals, with a safe harbor for using E-verify.

With 20,000 recoverable per occurrence, and attorneys fees. You'd have almost every personal injury attorney in the country advertising "Is your boss hiring illegals? Call now to get paid".

Give a 30-90 day grace period after the law passes to get compliant by vetting the employee with E-verify, or terminating them.

[Zarniwoop]

I have no particular dog in this fight, but there's well-documented opposition from both the left and right to E-Verify.

From those well-known lib-y-ruls at the Cato Institute:

https://www.cato.org/blog/democrats-republicans-should-oppose-e-verify

[Bob from Ohio]

Cato Institute is libertarian, not on the "right", just weird.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, would the hypothetical plaintiffs there have to plead and prove standing?

[Riva]

Well, let’s put our thinking caps on. The same result could be obtained if the government would standardize monetary rewards for reporting illegal workers employment. ICE already has discretion to monetary awards for information. And this way we can cut out the sleaze ball lawyer, or least only involve the sleaze if the government reneges.

[Kazinski]

no.

Similar to environmental suits where standing is assumed by a love of the environment, not any personal injury.

Standing for anyone in the workforce or potentially in the workforce would be assumed.

Everyone would be the Sierra Club.

"Many of these environmental laws include “citizen suit” provisions which allow citizens to ‘step into the shoes’ of a government agency to enforce environmental laws directly by bringing lawsuits against polluters."

https://ejgreenbook.com/resources/citizen-suits/

[not guilty]

Kazinski, who do you think referring to the Sierra Club helps you?

Have you actually read Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972)? Over two vigorous dissents, five members of SCOTUS held that the Sierra Club there had failed to establish standing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That seems clearly unconstitutional federally on standing grounds, and pretty dubious for a state law under Arizona v. United States (though who knows how that holding would fare if a chance to reexamine it presents itself).

[Kazinski]

See above, its well established that Congress may confer standing by law

[Noscitur a sociis]

It is in fact well established that Congress cannot confer standing by law. See TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021).

(I think that decision is wrong, and that the creation of a statutory with a financial penalty creates a case or controversy. But until someone puts me on the Supreme Court, that doesn’t count for much!)

[not guilty]

"See above, its well established that Congress may confer standing by law"

Kazinski, are you referring to Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), as did Noscitur a sociis?

Have you read that decision? The plaintiff was the United States, and there was no question of standing. Indeed, the word "standing" does not appear in the decision at all (although "notwithstanding" appears twice, "understanding" twice, and "longstanding" once).

Ctrl-F is your friend.

[Malika]

I doubt Trump would take serious steps to do that.

https://time.com/4465744/donald-trump-undocumented-workers/

[Dr. Ed 2]

And then there is this: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/india-trafficking-colleges-universities-canada-1.7419419

Canadian colleges smuggling illegal aliens into the US.

Trump's starting to sound more reasonable with threats of Canadian tariffs.

[Martinned2]

Wait, didn't Trump say that immigration is great? You're behind on your talking points...

[Kazinski]

Legal immigration is great.

[Mr. Bumble]

Martinned2 is morphing into SarcastrO.

[Frank Drackman]

For Pediophiles

[Sarcastr0]

There seems to be some dispute about that among the MAGA ranks, Kaz.

[Michael P]

"seems" is doing a lot of work there, as usual for Gaslight0.

[SRG2]

Who's doing the gaslighting?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/elon-musk-h1b-visa-steve-bannon-b2672621.html

Donald Trump’s one-time White House strategist Steve Bannon warned Elon Musk Tuesday that he and other MAGA diehards are going to “rip your face off” unless Musk smartens up and stops pushing visas for skilled foreign workers to take good-paying tech industry jobs away from Americans.

[Michael P]

You are doing the gaslighting. Musk said that he has "been very clear" that we need to protect American workers from effects of H-1B abuses: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1873191959441084531

[Martinned2]

Yes, it's terrible when people on student visas illegally overstay their visas and work when they're not allowed to!

[Frank Drackman]

and fly airliners into buildings when they're not allowed to

[SRG2]

Take it up with Bannon.

[Brett Bellmore]

"One time White House strategist"; IOW, a guy who's been out of the loop for years now.

[Michael P]

This is where Gaslight0 comes in from the top rope with an accusation of nutpicking, right?

[Sarcastr0]

You think Steve Bannon is a nut?

I'll make a note of that.

[Michael P]

No, I think you would call him a nut, and that you have previously characterized analogous characters on the left side as "nuts" for the purpose of accusing people of nutpicking.

[Sarcastr0]

Who have I said is a nut who is as important to the left as Bannon is to MAGA movement?

[Don Nico]

He is nut and worse.

[Michael P]

I don't keep track of everyone you have dismissed under "nutpicking" charges, but if I recall correctly, that has included at least one member of Congress -- someone who, unlike Bannon, has stood for, and won, election to any office.

[Sarcastr0]

Perhaps rather than handwaiving accusations based on what you don't keep track of, we can discuss what I actually think and whether you agree with it regarding nutpicking and who counts as a nut.

I would argue that a single representative can be a nut - I wouldn't take MTG as speaking for the GOP, though she does illustraight for what the GOP is willing to allow. Same for Rep. Omar on the other side.

Meanwhile Bannon, piece of shit that he is, remains pretty central to the MAGA movement that put Trump into office.
Do you disagree with this?

[SRG2]

Right, because Steve Bannon, pardoned by Trump - a pardon you presumably agree with - is really a nobody.

[Don Nico]

Actually, he is not a nobody. He is more dangerous than that.

[SRG2]

Yup - but Brett has to pretend he is.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not sure there is going to be a policy upshot, but denial that there is consternation among Trump’s base regarding immigration beggars belief at this point.

It will be fun to watch the professionals try and thread this needle.

[Riva]

A "consternation" regarding immigration? You attack supporters of President Trump with no clue about their real views. They don't oppose immigration in general. They oppose the recruitment of low level cheap IT and financial service professionals to replace US workers and illegal border crossings.

[David Nieporent]

They don't oppose immigration in theory. Just immigration in every form that actually exists.

[Brett Bellmore]

All that's going on here is that an attempt was made to cause a split between Trump and Musk, and said split was quickly averted in a perfectly obvious manner.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know how you missed it, but this isn't some Musk and Trump specific issue.
The MAGA base are being quite vocal that they are very unhappy at the embrace of H-1B. With greater or lesser amounts of anti-Indian bigotry and nativism depending on who is complaining.

[Brett Bellmore]

I like to think I'm in pretty good touch with the MAGA base, but I'm sure you're in pretty good touch with the efforts to astroturf it.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you may love you some MAGA, but you're not in with those folks. You've got a whole set of delusions and rationalizations they don't bother with.

It's not like Don and I often agree!

This is not some thinly sourced hot take.
Here: https://www.bing.com/search?q=MAGA+H-1B

[Don Nico]

I have got to agree with S_0.
I see much of the MAGA complaining as being specifically anti-Indian as in "we don't want those brown people here."

[Brett Bellmore]

What I mean here is that this was an attempt to anger Trump's base, forcing him to jettison Musk. And Musk responded in a predictably effective fashion, by advocating that H1B visas be reformed in a manner that would make H1B employees much more expensive, and thus unsuitable for displacing Americans.

I believe that response will satisfy MAGA Republicans.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I have got to agree with S_0.

Nobody has to cave into the desire to engage in strawmanning. You're choosing to.

I see much of the MAGA complaining as being specifically anti-Indian as in "we don't want those brown people here."

Case in point. Has it ever occurred to you that objections to the importing of cheap tech labor...which tends to be sourced from a small number of countries (something like 70% of them are from India, and most of the rest from China)...has to do with economic concerns, and that the color of the workers' skin is irrelevant?

[Don Nico]

I guess that you haven't been reading the news for the past week, Mike.

[Kazinski]

Sure there is MAGA disagreement on a lot of issues. Its a big tent, any movement that has Ron DeSantis, Greg Abbott and RFK Jr. in it is going to have some internal differences.

I guess Democrats and progressives never disagree on anything.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say MAGA was bad because they had internal disagreements.

I noted that your 'Legal immigration is great' does not reflect the a broad position of Trump's base.

[Kazinski]

Well then what was your point?

The broad position of Trumps base is very broad?

I agree totally.

[Sarcastr0]

That MAGA includes a lot of racists is not really the kind of broad base worth boasting about.

[John F. Carr]

In November Brown University gave 255 acres of land to the Pokanoket tribe. Now other Indians are jealous. The Narragansett deserved the gift more, according to the tribe's leader.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/12/31/metro/narragansett-indian-tribe-chief-objects-to-land-transfers-in-ri/

[GreenLanternCorps]

Sounds about right. Land like that never just has one claimant. I lost a lot of respect for the Sioux not taking the money for losing the Black Hills, after I learned that the supposedly sacred land had been stolen from the Cheyenne about 200 years before the US government took it from the Sioux...

[Mr. Bumble]

Re Black Hills per Wiki:
Indigenous history

"The Arikara arrived by AD 1500, followed by the Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa, and Arapaho. The Lakota (also known as Sioux) arrived from Minnesota in the 18th century and displaced the other tribes that lived there, who eventually moved to what became known as the Western United States.[12][13] They claimed the land, which they called Ȟe Sápa (Black Mountains).[14] The mountains commonly became known as the Black Hills (Pahá Sápa in Lakota).[14]"

[Dr. Ed 2]

I wrote an article about this. See:
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/12/26/brown-university-betrayed-history-and-donors/

Pretty good for a janitor??? 🙂

[John F. Carr]

Reminds me of a taxi ride when the driver said to me, "While I was working on my master's..."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fair enough. I trust you know who that barb was directed toward.

And with all honesty, janitors are SEIU which means they get paid a whole lot more for doing a whole lot less work. But I digress....

[David Nieporent]

You can tell Dr. Ed wrote it, because the facts are wrong:

But “the land was stolen”—yes, it was stolen—from Elizabeth and Isaac Byfield.

Elizabeth Byfield married Isaac Royall in 1738, and — since this was the 18th century — he did not take her name, but rather the reverse.

And so's the law:

even though they have no legal right to even call themselves “Indians,”

They do, in fact, have the legal right to call themselves Indians.

[Dan Schiavetta]

On Monday Vice President Harris is supposed to open up the Electoral College ballots in the Senate Chamber and announce that Donald Trump has been elected President. The fourth anniversary of when they had to flee for their lives from a mob that broke into the Capitol, a mob that Trump encouraged, watched with glee on TV, and called off only when his family members begged him to. A mob which he has only said good things about and whom he will pardon. And of course, Trump escaped accountability and benefited politically.

Shame on those Senators who support him. History calls on Harris to engage in some political theater.

Perhaps:

-- while doing her Constitutional duty, play a loop of the mob breaking through the doors
-- bringing a loaded gun and shooting at the ceiling
-- just saying the truth: looking at Republican Senators and shouting: "Shame on you f**king traitors!!'

[Brett Bellmore]

A mob that attacked while Trump was a couple miles away in the middle of a speech that told people to protest peacefully.

If you lower the bar far enough to blame Trump for the attack on the Capitol, how many of the riots during his first term do you need to blame Democrats for? Basically all of them. Do you EVER stop to think about whether Democrats could survive being held to the same standard of guilt you want Trump held to?

[Mr. Bumble]

This should be an interesting open thread.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not responsive. You're talking about things that 1) did not involve the transfer of power and 2) which Democratic politicians did not endorse. Also as usual you are misstating what happened as to Trump's involvement. He told them to "get wild" and at every step has ratified what they did.

1/6/21 was the only time in our history that a violent seizure of power was attempted -- by breaking into the halls of Congress -- and you refuse to acknowledge it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course it's responsive. You just want to narrow the topic of violence inspired by politicians enough so that your own politicians don't get discussed.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that people broke into Congress. Are you willing to admit that Trump didn't direct them to do it?

[Commenter_XY]

Sounds like Dan remains in denial, but moving to anger. That denial phase will end 1/20/25 when Pres Trump takes the oath for the second time (assuming the USSS can protect him).

Pres Trump won the popular vote, and had sufficient coattails to move Congress to Team R control. That is not a mandate for change, of course (lol). Team R has 700 calendar days, or just 300 legislative days to get their agenda passed into law. I am a lot more interested in tax reform, border security, and mass deportation of illegal aliens. Confirming judges matters a lot, too. Maybe Sotomayor will step down. Who knows.

The Capitol Building rioters with no blood on their hands, and/or property damage will get their pardons fairly quickly. Washington pardoned Whiskey Rebellion participants. There is precedent, however tenuous. The POTUS has absolute pardon power, and that is a good thing (even when abuses occur). It would be good for the country to put that behind us, and move forward. We have very big problems to address.

[SRG2]

It would be good for the country to put that behind us, and move forward. We have very big problems to address.

What naturally you fail to acknowledge is that the Jan 6 rioters are part of the problem and hence putting it behind us is ignoring the problem, not addressing it.

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2, take it up with the electorate. The jury came back (election result). You don't like the result.

The problems we must address as a country, remain.

[Dan Schiavetta]

One big problem we have as a country is that about half the population does not respect election results unless they're declared the winner. That's a big problem.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wow, you've achieved self awareness.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, what have I been saying for approximately 4.5 years now?

It isn't enough that the elections actually be honest; People don't act on the basis of objective reality, they act on the basis of perceived reality.

It isn't enough that the winners perceive the election to be honest: They won, OF COURSE they're going to think it was honest!

What is needed is for the losers to perceive their defeat as honest, and reaching that requires depriving them of every even vaguely plausible excuse to think anything crooked was going on.

For that reason you can't limit yourself to election security measures that are actually adequate. This is one of those rare cases where security theater is actually valuable.

You need to dot every "i", cross every "t", turn transparency up to 11, and eliminate even avenues of fraud you think are too minor to matter.

Because the moment you refuse to cut the cards, the loser of that hand will be convinced the deck was stacked, on that basis alone, and your every excuse for refusing will be useless.

So, it doesn't freaking MATTER that you think there's too little election fraud to mean anything, or that illegal aliens aren't voting, or that ballot harvesters are as honest as the day is long. It. Does. Not. Matter.

Agree to election security measures, or be thought a cheat by the loser.

[SRG2]

It isn't enough that the elections actually be honest; People don't act on the basis of objective reality, they act on the basis of perceived reality.

This is true. It is however no defence to the spreading of lies that they reflect perceived reality.

[Nelson]

“ What is needed is for the losers to perceive their defeat as honest, and reaching that requires depriving them of every even vaguely plausible excuse to think anything crooked was going on.”

So as long as the loser refuses to accept reality it’s the fault of the system, not the delusional loser? The 2020 election was clearly and definitively free and fair. Trump clearly lost. All evidence since then has supported a Trump loss and a complete lack of unusual amounts of fraud.

The fact he won’t admit he lost isn’t an electoral system problem, it’s a delusional-trust-fund-baby problem.

[Bob from Ohio]

"does not respect election results unless they're declared the winner"

Like you about Bush in 2000.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Lame response, even by the standard of your usual responses. It is quite magical how our elections became clean and honest in only four years. It's almost as if nothing any of you say is ever in good faith.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Lame response"

Its a fact, he complains about Bush v. Gore all the time.

[SRG2]

I don't object to the result of the election though I don't like it. I do object to the idea that therefore the Jan 6 rioters were somehow legitimised by the result.

The jury split 6-6, btw.

What do you think the problems are that need to be addressed?

[Commenter_XY]

In no particular order....
Tax reform (make TCJA rates permanent, lower corp rate)
Mass deportation of illegal aliens; mandate eVerify; fine, imprison business owners employing illegal aliens
Border security
Facilitate efforts to end conflicts and make peace: UKR, ISR
Mass headcount reduction in DC-based federal bureaucracy
Elimination of Dept of Ed
National defense, and military readiness
National debt
SSA reform (means testing, raise 1st bend point, etc)

There are many big problems out there, SRG2. It doesn't matter who sits in the Oval Office....the problems still need to be addressed.

[SRG2]

Longer reply later, but I agree with you on most of those.

[Krayt]

Or...large numbers of prosecutions were needed by strategists to amplify the problem in attempts to match the hyperbole, to get Trump canceled or failboat in the next election.

This failed, and possibly backfired a bit. Like a president or governor claiming an "emergency situation", thus justifying excess and quick use of power because the legislature has no time to react, said justification evaporates once the legislature ponders it, even if they choose to do nothing, like, say, not fund The Wall. Game over.

Here, The People said we considered the hyperbole. Sorry, there may be concerns, but nevertheless game over.

[Michael Ejercito]

Exactly like the May 29 rioters.

[Malika]

What was May 29th?

[Brett Bellmore]

Night of destruction across D.C. after protesters clash with police outside White House

"Cars and buildings were set ablaze and businesses were vandalized in Washington, D.C., after protesters and police clashed near the White House on May 31."

[Malika]

So, riots are bad, but do you not get that people focused on the Jan. 6th one because it seemed to deliberately stop the peaceful transfer of executive power?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

people focused on the Jan. 6th one because it seemed to deliberately stop the peaceful transfer of executive power?

And by "seemed to" you mean "clearly did not"...right? The actual transfer occurred, quite peacefully.

[Malika]

Lol, "seemed to" referred to the intent, ya goof.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, riots are bad, but Democrats focus like a laser on the Jan. 6th one because it's the rare example of a riot that Democrats didn't start. That was, after all, the most shocking thing about January 6th: Finding out that Republicans could riot, too.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Lol, "seemed to" referred to the intent, ya goof.

Is English your 2nd language? I ask because you're clearly not fluent in it. Had you written something like...

"because the intent seemed to be to deliberately stop the peaceful transfer of executive power"

...you would have a point. But what you actually wrote, "it seemed to" refers to the effect of the subject of the sentence, which was the riot itself. The alleged intent behind it (as though those involved were members of some single-minded organized operation) is not implied at all.

[Michael Ejercito]

So, riots are bad, but do you not get that people focused on the Jan. 6th one because it seemed to deliberately stop the peaceful transfer of executive power?

Here is more about the May 29th riot.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/31/politics/trump-underground-bunker-white-house-protests/index.html

The decision to physically move the President came as protesters confronted Secret Service officers outside the White House for hours on Friday – shouting, throwing water bottles and other objects at the line of officers, and attempting to break through the metal barriers.
No one accused of rioting claimed they were acting in self-defense.

There is no logical rationale for their actions except that they were attacking Secret Service agents in an attempt to murder the President of the United States.

And when these murderous rioters were repelled with tear gas, you people forgot what they were trying to do, and accused Trump of using tear gas against peaceful protesters!

You people simped for those who were trying to commit murder!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Maybe Sotomayor will step down. Who knows.

Sotomayor isn’t stepping anywhere: the only way she will be moving down in the next 383 days is if she’s being carried in a pinewood box. And anyone who doesn’t know that is someone you definitely shouldn’t be listening to.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What might happen on Day 384?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, give up, it's hopeless. Time will give historians access to nearly everything the corruptly partisan Supreme Court helped Trump sweep under the rug, to get Trump over the electoral finish line. That information will include other infractions, stuff only his co-conspirators are aware of now.

Trump's place in history is already set in the concrete those inevitable revelations will harden into. Trump's permanent reputation will be as the commanding force behind an attempted violent coup against the United States. Whether Trump gets judged a clown or a monster will depend on whether U.S. Constitutionalism recovers post-Trump.

Historians will record as a footnote that even without that, Trump committed multiple felonies, including heinous ones.

Against that backdrop, two general categories of questions will get continuing historical study, featuring rival arguments:

1. What accounted for the MAGA movement?

2. Why wasn't Trump prosecuted more vigorously and more effectively?

Controversies about answers to those questions will continue for a long time. There will not be any long-lasting controversy about Trump's basically treasonous character and actions.

[Absaroka]

"That information will include other infractions, stuff only his co-conspirators are aware of now. "

Wait ... you are 100% sure of information that only the conspirators know? That can only be true if you are one of the conspirators.

(language hint: 'I think' and 'I know' aren't synonymous)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Perhaps you suppose this will be the first time in history all elements of a gigantic political controversy were fully disclosed in what amounts to real time. What never seems to have happened previously strikes me as sound basis to assert that it will not happen this time.

Experience teaches us to expect many decades of delay—if not more than a lifetime—typically precede even the rounding out of the record pertaining to big historical issues. While they live, historical actors usually keep at least some records to themselves. Many keep private almost everything.

Among Trump's retinue, and among his opponents, that suggests even a first-generation horizon for initial disclosures probably extends at least until 50 years hence. Plenty of folks 30-years-old or younger were positioned to record parts of the Trump story. Some will have recorded things others did not.

Then, still more disclosures will happen. Even descendants may remain unaware of records which they possess, but never searched or studied, or they may remain unwilling to disclose. Sometimes, it takes multiple-generational happenstance to put a record in the hands of someone differently minded, or maybe even simply aware that anyone would be interested. Two-hundred-year delays in discovery of useful historical records happen that way, and are not uncommon.

The more participants who featured in a historical event, the more diverse, scattered, and numerous will be the records left for delayed discovery. Among candidates to apply that principle, the J6 Capitol attack (and associated MAGA involvements) must rank near the top.

I can assure you with only slightly less assurance that notable records to correct the history of the founding era will still be turning up at least decades hence. After all, even most of Ben Franklin's records were unknown to scholarship until the mid-20th century. The effort to give that massive collection full scholarly access, with the beginnings of an index, is only now completing its final stages.

That discovery, and subsequent study, have already greatly enlarged Franklin's previous reputation in history. Prior to that, Franklin enjoyed reputation enough to get his image on U.S. currency. Since then, Franklin has become recognized as a world historical figure, comparable to or exceeding the greatest in this nation, or in Europe, during the 18th century.

You can count on it. History will send Trump's reputation on a trajectory opposite that of Franklin's.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Perhaps you suppose this will be the first time in history all elements of a gigantic political controversy were fully disclosed in what amounts to real time."

Won't be the first time a supposed gigantic political conspiracy turns out to be a fantasy, either.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Won't be the first time a supposed gigantic political conspiracy turns out to be a fantasy, either.

Bellmore, I tried to think of even one comparable event in history, anywhere—any case of notorious false charges which turned out to be "a fantasy." Have you got an example in mind?

I am not looking for some previous endless controversy, which stuck around until time enough went by that the case passed out of mind. I am looking for an example like you described, a giant controversy which ended in unequivocal reversal, widely acknowledged, to the shock of those who had believed the charges.

The best approximation I came up with was the Dreyfus Affair.

Alas, for your empty comment, there is no comparability at all. Dreyfus himself was a minor figure, not the nation's leader. The charges alleged against Dreyfus were trivial by comparison; the alleged evidence was minuscule and unconvincing. There was no violence against the French government. The number of provable participants was a tiny fraction of those in the Trump cases.

Yet the Dreyfus case with its false charges shook French society to its core. It inflicted an aftermath of political division which lasted decades.

On reflection, in the case of the indictments against Trump, this nation has also been shaken to its core. But this time the liars wielding false charges have not been Trump's detractors, they have been Trump's defenders. And they have not even been erstwhile associates who know Trump well; those have, with remarkable consistency, joined to charge Trump. But other defenders—less directly involved, or not involved at all—have acted overtly to suppress evidence against Trump, right up to the top of this nation's judiciary.

This is not Dreyfus. It is Dreyfus multiplied and reversed—swollen by orders of magnitude, and plunging in the wrong direction—with reckless defense of an actually guilty perpetrator inflicting damage this nation will never redress, except by some presently almost-unimaginable reverse.

There is but one legitimate similarity. Both cases disclosed hidden rot, shot through an over-complacent society. That is the only valid point of comparison. But you advocate for the rot.

[Riva]

It wasn’t an attack you clod. And history will note the disgraceful way the Democrats exploited a protest that included a few bad actors. And there are many, many unanswered questions, like what exactly were gov’t affiliated parties doing that day and the mysterious non-bomber at the DNC.

[Malika]

The party of personal responsibility doing everything it can to minimize this terrible event by blaming others because it's associated with them.

[Riva]

Uh huh, among the vast majority of peaceful protesters, actually invited in by someone ordering the opening of the doors (who did that again?), I remember seeing crowds walking calmly between roped barriers (who put those out again?). Now, of course, simply because crowds were walking peacefully between roped barriers doesn't mean they weren't attacking. History is replete with attackers respecting the roped barrier. The Paris mob that stormed the Bastille walked peacefully between roped barriers, as well as the various barbarians that sacked Rome. And, of course, attackers almost never bring weapons so the J6 protestors not being armed, well that's just par the course for such terrifying insurrections. Still, unlike the FBI, I'm still curious about that unidentified DNC "bomber." Won't that be fun to learn more about when Kash takes charge?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll grant that historians ARE likely to paint Trump as guilty of everything down to the Kennedy assassination, given that History is the most partisan major in colleges these days.

But you don't seem to account for the fact that Republicans are actually going to be in control of the government starting in just a few weeks, and barring the Democrats pulling off an Erogan style trolley departure, off and on about half the time thereafter.

My point to Dan is that Democrats really, desperately, need to get out of the habit of demanding that Republicans be held to standards that Democrats can't meet. The GOP is getting over its long case of Stockholm syndrome, and if you really can legitimize holding politicians responsible for crimes inspired by nothing more than political rhetoric, an awful lot of Democrats are going to be taking the fall whenever Republicans are calling the shots, as they WILL be doing about half the time.

"2. Why wasn't Trump prosecuted more vigorously and more effectively?"

Because you need evidence to prosecute effectively, and that evidence of guilt was simply lacking.

[Krayt]

These people twisted a misdemeanor into a felony so it could provide rocket support for claims he should be ejected as a candidate by their suddenly-discovered, suddenly important self-enforcing bits of the Constitution.

Nah, these are sweet souls who'll be judged as justified by historians a couple of generations downstream, fully disconnected from the contemporary heat and its associated virtue signalling sexual drives.

[not guilty]

"Because you need evidence to prosecute effectively, and that evidence of guilt was simply lacking."

Then why was Team Trump scared shitless of standing trial and offering any defense to the merits of the claims against him? Granted that a criminal defendant is not required to prove anything, if the government's evidence were as weak as Brett claims, it could not stand the crucible of cross-examination, and Donald Trump would have been exonerated by multiple juries. Why did Trump and his supporters not want that to happen?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I believe the canonical answer is that Trump, in his wisdom, also foresaw that, his incredible popularity notwithstanding, every possible jury was so so deeply in on the corruption that they would convict him despite knowing he was the most innocent man ever.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing shows Brett's intellectual double standards more starkly than January 06.

He continues to ignore the damming inferences laid out in the NY indictment's recitation of the facts.

But he will perform intellectual summersaults to infer January 06 was an FBI op.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Damning inferences. LOL!

You're left with inferring things because you can't prove them.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course you can prove things by inference.

Lots and lots of legal cases are made that way.

[Krayt]

Inferences are acceptable. Yes!

Thank you!

THANK YOU!

My list of evidence the past 8 years of using the government's power of investigation against a political opponent, qua opponent, is heavily reliant on inferences, such as the sheer number of initiatives and the sending of investigative material down to the states "just in case he pardons himself".

And the best evidence is lack of need of inference, where the impeachments, especially the first, when I suggested maybe they should follow the 4th amendment, I was patted on the head and some around here said, "Dear child, for impeachment, we have the honor of going against a political opponent because he's an opponent, ha ha ha." Then they turned their eyes back to Trump, like these fine folk.

[Malika]

Do you really think a coordinated national strategy would have chosen Fanni Willis to play a big part?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

,i.Do you really think a coordinated national strategy would have chosen Fanni Willis to play a big part?

Given the general inept cluelessness that has been demonstrated by those involved...yes.

[Malika]

",i.Do you really think"

You have to love how Wuzzie invoked inept cluelessness in writing this! ,i.Do lol!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

When you're reduced to criticizing typing errors....

Or perhaps you weren't reduced at all, having never been above that level.

[Malika]

"When you're reduced to criticizing typing errors...."

Me? You're the making them!

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, you're the making them!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Me? You're the making them!

No additional comment required here.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You're left with inferring things because you can't prove them.

With regard to history which no one alive can remember first-hand, inference is the entire method. Whether inferential process ever amounts to proof is a methodological question historians can disagree about.

Courtroom inferences are not that different. In both cases—the historical and the legal—you have bits of evidence to begin with. The method most persuasive, and least vulnerable to rebuttal, is to make those bits critique each other.

[Brett Bellmore]

"With regard to history which no one alive can remember first-hand, inference is the entire method."

An event less than 4 years ago scarcely falls into that category.

[Stephen Lathrop]

An event less than 4 years ago scarcely falls into that category.

Bellmore — In time, it will.

But even in the shorter term, historical judgement against Trump is already assured. The longer record will simply confirm what we already know: the federal indictments alone were enough.

Contrary to spluttering charges from Trump's heedless supporters, those indictments were procured not on the basis of testimony from Trump's political foes, but instead almost entirely on the basis of testimony by Trump's erstwhile political allies, supporters, and operatives. That testimony met the legal standard of probable cause for grand juries—a standard generally rigorous enough to influence historians—who might prefer preponderance of the evidence for their own standard, but would be forced out of business if proof beyond a reasonable doubt were required of them.

The indictments as written were not bare-bones. They cited evidence—evidence Trump's vociferous supporters ignore, while they pretend to agitate for a test of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Alas for Trump's historical standing, that very pretense will undo his reputation.

It could not be more evident that neither Trump himself, nor anyone among his closest supporters, nor the U.S. Supreme Court itself, thought Trump's innocence likely enough to risk having him seek an exoneration in court. With apparent unanimity, Trump's supporters judged insufficiently protective the fact that the test in court would have been the most favorable possible for finding Trump innocent. Or, perhaps, some supporters supposed sworn testimony against Trump presented in court by former close associates would have undone his political campaign, regardless of an acquittal.

An acquittal, if he got one, would have advantaged Trump politically, likely ending all question whether he would win the election. But nobody familiar with his cases, not even among his fiercest political advocates, said he should take that chance.

All agitated in every way possible to keep those cases out of court. Even the corruptly pro-Trump Supreme Court majority, in its faux-august style, agitated to keep Trump's cases out of Court, and then assured that result with a pure legal power play.

To do it, those justices were willing to shock the nation, and overturn centuries of received wisdom about the nature of republican government—and all but crown Trump a king by divine right. They did it because those justices knew that was what it would take to suppress the evidence promised by the indictments.

History will know what to make of that record, just as you yourself have already shown you know what to make of it. Nobody reading what you write believes for a moment you think Trump is innocent of the charges against him. They understand instead that you all along hoped to get Trump off on a technicality, or by legal obstructions if those were forthcoming.

The judgements of history will find less to praise in that record than you apparently suppose.

[not guilty]

"Damning inferences. LOL!

You're left with inferring things because you can't prove them.

Any fact can be proven by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence of any combination of the two. Circumstantial evidence necessarily depends on drawing inferences. To quote § 1.06 of the Sixth Circuit pattern jury instructions:

(1) Now, some of you may have heard the terms "direct evidence" and "circumstantial evidence."

(2) Direct evidence is simply evidence like the testimony of an eyewitness which, if you believe it, directly proves a fact. If a witness testified that he saw it raining outside, and you believed him, that would be direct evidence that it was raining.

(3) Circumstantial evidence is simply a chain of circumstances that indirectly proves a fact. If someone walked into the courtroom wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water and carrying a wet umbrella, that would be circumstantial evidence from which you could conclude that it was raining.

(4) It is your job to decide how much weight to give the direct and circumstantial evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight that you should give to either one, or say that one is any better evidence than the other. You should consider all the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, and give it whatever weight you believe it deserves.

[Michael P]

New York's legal system has made itself a laughingstock. The response of appeals courts will determine whether the state has earned an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

[Sarcastr0]

What do you mean by an exception to that Constitutional Clause?

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume he means that, when NY tries to collect the penalty, nobody outside NY cooperates with them.

[Riva]

Are you praising the piece of lawfare shit that didn’t clearly specify the charge filed by the fat slob’s office with the help of the former high ranking Biden DOJ clown Colangelo (who strangely decided a transition to the Manhattan DAs office was a move up the ladder)? Good thing the corrupt, conflicted judge allowed a multiple choice non-unanimous jury verdict on the underlying federal violation that the fat slob had no jurisdiction over anyway. Can’t have due process interfere with such important banana republic lawfare.

[Sarcastr0]

Gonna start the new year of right by muting you for a while.

I already know all the weeks old right-wing talking points I need to.

[Riva]

I hope you feel better in your little safe muted space but I'm afraid that won't erase the lawfare abuses and constitutional errors you pretend don't exist in your BS TDS fantasy world. Of course, I don't want to sell your abysmal ignorance short. Your sources of news are apparently limited to the NY Times, Wash Post, Politico, and come episodes of The View. You may not be intentionally misrepresenting facts. You really may not know shit about anything. But I think that's giving you too much credit in the intellectual integrity department.

[Malika]

"fat slob"..."clown"..."corrupt, conflicted"

Bot is angry.

[Riva]

You should try to start the new year by thinking. But please mute me out too, your stupidity gives me a headache.

[CountmontyC]

On 1--20-2017 there were riots in Washington DC that tried to stop Trump's inauguration.
And in May of 2020 IIRC rioters attempted an assault on the White House in an attempt to get President Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

According to Sarcastr0, neither were riots, because some unofficial threshold for the number of cars set on fire, windows shattered, and stores looted, wasn't crossed.

[Sarcastr0]

I make a distinction between January 06's scope and the property damage in 2017, yes.

The right insists on equating things that aren't equal so they can defend Trump as not extraordinary. Even as they hope he does extraordinary and antidemocratic things.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0 — Bellmore does not advocate as a member of America's political right. Bellmore advocates as a member of the MAGA movement.

Whether the MAGA movement subsumes the American political right is a question yet to be decided. It is unwise to encourage that baleful prospect by conceding the point before upcoming events sort out their consequences.

[Bwaaah]

55 words. Your writing is improving. Cut out another 70%, and then start working on meaning.

[Sarcastr0]

To review, here is your overdetermined take on Janary 06:

1. It didn't succeed, and they don't give Nobel prizes for attempted chemistry.
2. And even so Trump didn't say the magic words so he couldn't have been involved.
3. The FBI was responsible anyhow.
4. Besides, if you ignore the where when and why and just look myopically at the property damage, it wasn't a big thing.
5. And the election was illegally done anyhow.

These layered arguments are not from someone who cares about the facts, they're from someone with an outcome driving towards it any way they can.

[Brett Bellmore]

1. Not only didn't succeed, obviously never could have. It anti-succeeded, from Trump's perspective, and predictably so.
2. We, rightfully, have a higher standard of guilt than "Some nutcase was inspired by your rhetoric." I'm pointing out the obvious drawbacks for Democrats of changing that standard.
3. Yeah, the FBI bears more direct responsibility for J6 than Trump, half the Proud Boys' leadership were working for them. The best you can say is that they screwed up.
4. The usual, "Ignore the actual crimes, why people did it is what matters, which is why my guys aren't guilty when they do the same things!"
5. Yeah, not that Trump was an angel, but the 2020 election was a hot mess.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"3. Yeah, the FBI bears more direct responsibility for J6 than Trump, half the Proud Boys' leadership were working for them."

Tick-tock, Brett.

[SRG2]

Did the 2017 rioters invade the Capitol and try to disrupt the counting and certification?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, and they weren't egged on by somebody whose initials were "DJT", either.

I know you're never going to stop trying to narrow the topic enough that only what you want is relevant. Surely you in return know we're never going to go along with that?

[Josh R]

No? What then was the purpose of the riot?

Trump provoked the rioters by convincing them the election was stolen from him.

[Brett Bellmore]

And Democrats provoked the earlier riots that cost billions in property damage and dozens dead, by the same standard. So what out what level of provocation you argue should matter, it may come back to bite.

[Josh R]

The Democrats told lies that provoked riots? No.

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL! Still trying to narrow it to the supposed facts of the only case you want to matter, and even so failing at it.

"Hands up, don't shoot!"

[Sarcastr0]

Seems to me Brett is the one narrowing the view of what J6 as so you can only talk about the damage that happened, and ignore the intent, location, and targets.

[Michael Ejercito]

Your side us pro-riot.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's an amusing way of inverting what's going on: "You're narrowing it by only considering it as a riot, not as a riot that was ALSO provoked by somebody whose initials were "DJT".

Let me be achingly clear: Democrats have provoked a lot of riots, and if you expand the basis for making somebody legally responsible for provoking a riot far enough to sweep up Trump, a lot of Democrats will be in legal trouble, not the least because it will be a Republican DOJ applying that new basis for the next few years.

[Josh R]

What elected Democrats provoked the Ferguson, MO riots due to "Hands up, Don't Shoot!" And please specify all the riots and all the elected Democrats that provoked them.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

<i.What elected Democrats provoked the Ferguson, MO riots due to "Hands up, Don't Shoot!" And please specify all the riots and all the elected Democrats that provoked them..

Well, for starters, there was Barack "I don't know all the facts because there hasn't been an investigation yet, but let me score political points by publicly declaring that it was a clear case of police brutality" Obama. (And that wasn't even the first incident of him taking to the podium to stoke racial tensions.) It might have helped too with regard to the cumulative effects on those tensions if he'd put at least as much time into talking about the fact that the "Hands up, don't shoot" narrative had been thoroughly debunked by his own DoJ after the investigation actually took place as he did.

Also, Harris...you know, the VP that your side wanted for the position of CiC this time around...continued to claim that Brown's death was the result of "murder" by police, even well after that had been disproven by the DoJ's investigation, at least as recently as August of 2019:

https://x.com/KamalaHarris/status/1159893277954514944

Elizabeth Warren did the same thing. There are many other examples as well. Then add in things like, "Giving them room to destroy", bailing out rioters, etc.

[Josh R]

I can't find the Obama quote. Citation? There was this statement, which seems fine to me.

Harris' statement is bad, but it did not provoke riots.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I can't find the Obama quote. Citation?

When you're too dumb to recognize the difference between a quotation and the assignment of a nickname (the quoted bit that appears between first and last names).....

There was this statement, which seems fine to me.

A lot of "understanding" for Brown's a parents and "protestors", but nary a word about what the DoJ's findings were. Just, "Well, this is what the jury decided, so we have to respect it."

Harris' statement is bad, but it did not provoke riots.

Yes, I'm certain that her (and Warren's, and many others') continuing to stoke a lie years after it was exposed did nothing to encourage racial tensions, which lead to riots.

[Malika]

"Brown's a parents"

Lol, "Brown's apparent"?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Lol, "Brown's apparent"?

Another dipshit with the mentality of a bored 4th grader volunteers for the mute button.

[Michael Ejercito]

The idea that lies can provoke riots is so silly that to merely say it is to refute it.

[Malika]

It's not really narrowing if the chief problem is trying to obstruct the peaceful transfer of executive power.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I would think the chief problem of riots is the general wanton destruction and, in the cases of the ones you don't want to talk about, murders.

[Malika]

I can see how people who don't value democracy could think subverting it isn't a big deal.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I doubt you can see anything with your head lodged so far up your own ass.

[Malika]

The only ass I am lodged in is, of course, your mother's. I can see clearly from there. Your artwork is very, very crude.

[Michael Ejercito]

Robert Mueller and Adam Achiff sibcerted democracy.

[Malika]

Were the riots to try to stop his inauguration?

[Brett Bellmore]

If so they were laughingly inadequate to that end, which makes it much more like January 6th.

[Josh R]

You still can't let go of the Sideshow Bob defense.

[Malika]

I mean, if you want to claim there's not enough to prosecute Trump for causing the Jan. 6 riot, go ahead. But it sure seems like a lot of the rioters really wanted to stop the transfer of power. Is that what the May 29th rioters were aiming for?

[Brett Bellmore]

It doesn't have to be to "stop the transfer of power" to be a riot, you do understand that, right? A riot doesn't stop being bad just because the rioters have some other aim in mind. Though I'd say the rioters in DC on January 20th, 2017, did have that in mind, and they're the rioters whose efforts I thought "were laughingly inadequate to that end," not the March 29th ones.

So, Trump by his inflammatory rhetoric inspires some nutcases to riot, Democrats, by their inflammatory rhetoric, inspire other nutcases to riot, these are fundamentally alike, and the goal of the rioters is irrelevant when what you're discussing is the requirements before somebody is held responsible for somebody else's riot.

No, I don't think there's enough evidence to justify prosecuting Trump for the January 6th riot, which is why, contra Sarcastr0, he was NOT being prosecuted for it.

My point all along is that it is extremely risky for Democrats to try to change that, because if you did somehow lower the threshold for holding a politician responsible for a riot their rhetoric in some way inspired, well, Democrats have inspired a hell of a lot of rioting, and probably will continue to do so going forward.

Which does not have to have had one narrow, specific purpose, to put you in legal jeopardy, once that bar has been lowered. So, for your own sake, especially considering who's going to be in charge of the DOJ for the next four years, maybe you should just give up on trying to hold Trump responsible for the Proud Boys' crimes?

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has not been charged merely with vicarious liability for the conduct of the January 6 rioters. The D.C. indictment alleged Trump's commission of four inchoate offenses: (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; (2) conspiracy to corruptly obstruct an official proceeding of Congress in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k); (3) attempt to corruptly obstruct an official proceeding of Congress in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2); and (4) conspiracy against voting rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_10.pdf Trump's complicity in the January 6 riot is relevant, but it is incidental to these charges, and it is not an element of any charged offense which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the indictment is revived after Trump leaves office, he can be tried and convicted without reference to the culpability (or lack thereof) of any individual January 6 rioter.

[Bob from Ohio]

"1/6/21 was the only time in our history that a violent seizure of power was attempted"

Well, except for that little thing in 1861-1865.

[Sarcastr0]

He continued that sentence with "by breaking into the halls of Congress." I think that excludes the Civil War.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ok, that makes it even more pathetic.

Ignore the elephant to focus on the gnat.

[Michael Ejercito]

That does not mean that he caused the riot.

[Sallust]

"1/6/21 was the only time in our history that a violent seizure of power was attempted -- by breaking into the halls of Congress -- and you refuse to acknowledge it."

You might want to consider the Newburgh conspiracy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newburgh_Conspiracy

[Stephen Lathrop]

By Bellmore's distance standard, the only action Lee commanded at Gettysburg was probably Pickett's charge. What a shame for the South that Lee could not keep his troops under better control with live tweets during combat.

[Brett Bellmore]

Don't be stupid: Lee was actually in a chain of command that led all the way down to individual soldiers. Trump was at the top of a chain of command, too, but unless you want to follow a path through the FBI and their informant/provocateurs, that chain didn't lead down to the people who broke in.

I've pointed out before that the attack was not only not directed by Trump, it ran contrary to his strategy of political intimidation, and predictably terminated his efforts to contest the election.

By the time you accept indirect causation as enough to implicate Trump in January 6th, you've got hundreds of Democratic politicians implicated in the riots that preceded it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Since ratification of the Constitution, nothing even remotely comparable to the J6 Capitol attack ever happened in this nation's history.

Arguably, Bacon's Rebellion provides a somewhat comparable colonial era example in Virginia. Trump was more responsible for organizing the J6 attack on the Capitol than Bacon was for organizing Bacon's Rebellion.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's somewhat similar to the unqualified immunity nonsense, where judges rule that, while it was established that a cop wasn't entitled to break a suspect's knees with a maple baseball bat, the cop in question had used an aluminum bat, and so had to be let off.

Sure, if you get specific enough, "Never before has somebody with the initials DJT done something like this!" you can make things unprecedented, but people breaking into Congress and disrupting proceedings is hardly unheard of.

"Trump was more responsible for organizing the J6 attack on the Capitol than Bacon was for organizing Bacon's Rebellion."

Prove it. Legally. The Proud Boys were convicted of planning and executing that attack, and were under extensive surveillance for months prior. If Trump ordered them to do it, we'd have proof.

[Sarcastr0]

Prove it. Legally.
That was in the works. Trump has prevented that from happening.

Your choice of burden has been made impossible. Just as planned.

[Michael P]

"Trump has prevented that from happening."

No, reality and sanity prevented that from happening. You want to prove something false.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it was not in the works. The charges that just got dropped did NOT include organizing or directing the break in.

You're conflating the charges that actually did get filed, relating to the substitute electors effort, with the criminal attack on the Capitol that the Proud Boys were charged and convicted of.

The actual charges.

The closest you get is this:

"e. After it became public on the afternoon of January 6 that the Vice President would not fraudulently alter the election results, a large and angry crowd—including many individuals whom the Defendant had deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results—violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding. As violence ensued, the Defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims."

Note that they didn't claim he was legally responsible for the violence, just that he'd exploited it. (In reality, of course, the violence actually ended his plans.)

[Sarcastr0]

I know you don’t believe in conspiracy charges, but you can’t pretend they don’t exist.

[Michael P]

That's the kind of unsubstantiated, equivocating conspiracy theory that you would excoriate if it was leveled against anyone one the left, so of course you hand-wave proving it as something that was clearly "in the works".

[Brett Bellmore]

Conspiracy charges exist. He was not charged with being part of a conspiracy to violently invade the Capitol.

[Sarcastr0]

Magic words.

Trump "did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to corruptly obstruct and impede an official proceeding, that is, the certification of the electoral vote".

Trump "did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States—that is, the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted."

One of the means within this conspiracy was by furthering the assault on the Capitol.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're using ambiguity here in a long list of alternative basis for the charge, to give you a lifeline to think that he was prosecuting Trump for attacking the Capitol.

But the charges all revolve around the alternate elector scheme, and it is not alleged that Trump was legally responsible for the attack on the Capitol. Only that he supposedly took advantage of it.

[Sarcastr0]

You're using ambiguity here

I am not being ambiguous, and neither is the indictment I am talking about.
It in its recitation of the facts explicitly includes the events of January 06 to pressure Pence. It was not just about the electors.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even you understand the difference between being accused of exploiting something, and being accused of conspiring to make it happen.

[Sarcastr0]

The indictment accuses him of the conspiracy bit.

The exploiting bit never happened because Pence did not respond as planned.

[Brett Bellmore]

The indictment accuses him of conspiracy, yes, but the thing it doesn't accuse him of is conspiring to cause the attack. It accuses him of a conspiracy that exploited the attack after it happened.

Seriously, read it, and engage your reading comprehension this time.

[Sarcastr0]

It accuses him of a conspiracy that exploited the attack after it happened.

This is incorrect.

The conspiracy starts in November, and includes Pence's actions January 06 as a planned focal point.
The indictment walks through the tweets Trump made that invited January 06 to be violent, and directing his riled up supporters them towards Pence at the Capitol on January 06, even as he pressured Pence privately about what he should do on that day.

[Brett Bellmore]

And stops short of accusing him of the attack, because none of that "riling up" met the legal standards of incitement.

[Sarcastr0]

And thus we return to where we started.

I know you don’t believe in conspiracy charges, but you can’t pretend they don’t exist.

[Michael P]

How about you either concede the point that you're hypocritical about accusations of nutpicking, just like you're hypocritical about most arguments, or you deny it?

You've already conceded that the accusation you make was based on equivocation and was never substantiated.

[Sarcastr0]

Wrong thread, I think, Michael. This isn't about nutpicking.

It is about the legal case in the indictment accusing Trump of conspiracies that includes the January 06 violence.

Said legal case that Trump spiked. And thus demanding a legal case be made is not a useful thing.

[not guilty]

"Conspiracy charges exist. He was not charged with being part of a conspiracy to violently invade the Capitol."

For once Brett gets something right. The crimes that Donald Trump was charged with in D.C. occurred in advance of the Capitol riot. Trump's conduct in ginning up the crowd and refusing to call off the dogs after the riot began is evidence of Trump's culpability for the charged offenses, but it is not elemental, nor does it negate or rebut any essential element of any charged offense.

[Michael Ejercito]

How exactly does one gin up a crowd?

[Michael Ejercito]

Never forget.

You sinped for rioters attacking the Mark O. Hatfield Courthouse in Portland, Oregon.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, give it up. Trump gets his chapter in the nation's annals. You want to suppress the stink that chapter emits. For the half of that chapter already recorded, your efforts come too late. Because they already happened, all those records—including many you know nothing about yet—are destined to be included. Whatever stench they emit is destined to continue for all time.

But there is another half-chapter upcoming. Better use of your stink-suppression energy would direct it to help keep Stinky himself less odoriferous during his upcoming term. Too bad you and the MAGA movement have so little interest in doing that.

[Commenter_XY]

Jack Smith had years to do it, with government resources in the tens of millions of dollars, and never even tried to bring a case for insurrection against Pres Trump to any Court. He could not prove it.

[not guilty]

Jack Smith was wise not to charge insurrection -- not because he could not prove it, but because the offenses he did charge carry penalties of equal or greater gravity to insurrection, and were more easily proven.

Smith did not have years to prove his case. He was appointed on November 18, 2022. Trump was elected as president less than two years later, and Smith has always been bound by DOJ policy that a president is immune from criminal prosecution while in office.

Smith proceeded as expeditiously as possible, and the D.C. case was set for jury trial to begin in March of 2024. Team Trump threw sand in the gears with his claim of immunity.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, he never even tried to bring an insurrection case. There was no case to prove.

[not guilty]

There were facts which would have supported a prosecution in D.C. for insurrection. Following a five day full blown bench trial at which counsel for Donald Trump participated and wherein Trump was afforded every measure of due process applicable, both courts in Colorado adjudicated Trump to have participated in insurrection, albeit by a lower standard of proof (clear and convincing evidence) than would be applicable in a criminal prosecution. Anderson v. Griswold, No. 23CV32577, ¶¶ 241, 298
(Dist. Ct., City & Cnty. of Denver, Nov. 17, 2023), affirmed https://cases.justia.com/colorado/supreme-court/2023-23sa300.pdf?ts=1703028677

The Colorado Supreme Court specifically held at ¶4 (slip op., p. 8) that:

The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”

The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.

SCOTUS reversed on other grounds. Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. ___ (2024). The Court, however, very conspicuously left undisturbed the state court's concurrent findings of fact regarding the insurrection and Trump's culpable conduct.

Kvetch all you want, XY. But it doesn't spook the ink off the page nor the pixels off the monitor. As John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

[Commenter_XY]

The fact remains, NG. Jack Smith did not bring a case for insurrection. There was none.

A judge in a rinky-dink state district court doesn't make the insurrection determination for the country, NG.

[not guilty]

XY, have you read Judge Sarah Wallace's order? https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf Yes or no? Of so, what part(s) thereof do you dispute?

IOKIYAR is not a rule of law.

If there were any basis for questioning Judge Wallace's detailed and comprehensive factual findings, don't you think SCOTUS -- six members of whom are deeply in the tank for Donald Trump -- would have found it?

[Commenter_XY]

It fails the motivation prong of the Barry test, NG. That is largely a subjective determination. Rather, this decision was the motivated reasoning of a judicial 'crank' in Denver with a political axe to grind.

Jack Smith never even tried to bring an insurrection case. That is reality, NG. There was no case, no matter how you want to gussy this up (hope I used that right).

I maintain that a) there was no insurrection on 1/6/21, b) there was a riot at the Capitol Building on 1/6/21 that was a national disgrace and dishonored this country in the eyes of the entire world, and c) POTUS Biden was sworn in as the duly elected President on 1/20/21.

[not guilty]

You dodged the question. Have you read Judge Sarah Wallace's order? Yes or no?

[Michael Ejercito]

The Supreme court ruled that the Colorado judiciary did not even have subject matter jurisdiction. Any findings of fact are null and void.

[Life of Brian]

If there were any basis for questioning Judge Wallace's detailed and comprehensive factual findings, don't you think SCOTUS -- six members of whom are deeply in the tank for Donald Trump -- would have found it?

This a completely false premise, and I credit you with more than enough legal experience to understand that well.

As we extensively discussed at the time, Judge Wallace's 90-whatever page supposed factual findings were gratuitous and irrelevant to her original order. They were similarly unnecessary to the legal grounds upon which SCOTUS reversed -- so of course they didn't take the bait and do a bunch of needless work beyond what was necessary to dispose of the case. And as Michael alluded to below, SCOTUS's reversal deprived the entire underlying judgment of any preclusive effect -- again a well-understood legal principle that I fully credit you with understanding.

Maybe it's time to move on to a different hobby horse get 'im theory? Last I took stock, your stable is looking rather bare.

[Life of Brian]

Jack Smith was wise not to charge insurrection -- NOT because he could not prove it, BUT . . .

Oh, there's not a doubt in my mind he could lick 30 tigers today!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stephen, the SHOOTING OF CONGRESSMEN on the floor of the House, 5 hit, one nearly killed, doesn't count? Or two different bombs that went bang inside the building?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Don't be stupid

You might as well tell the wind to not blow.

[Malika]

This isn't a forum to share about your deficiencies.

[SimonP]

Gish gallop, gish gallop! Gooby-gooby-doooo!

[Mr. Bumble]

It will also be four years since someone planted "bombs" at Democrat and Republican offices; still waiting for the FBI to announce that they've caught the culprit.

[jimc5499]

How about the 1983 Senate Building Bombing? The group that did it was a off shoot from the Students for a Democratic Society. In the 60's a prominent member of the SDS was Hilary Rodham. Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of the last two people in prison for it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What about the Bonus Marchers!

[Dr. Ed 2]

You mean the Bonus Riots...

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe show up sober for a change

[Dan Schiavetta]

I thought I had muted you. Anyway, muted.

[Frank Drackman]

Go ahead ya mute! Oh Mute, where is thy sting?

[Bwaaah]

NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If she's doing political stunts, maybe she can perform an abortion in the Senate chamber. That was a key issue in the election, after all, according to her.

Or she could use her platform in the Vice President's chair to start a bail fund for mostly peaceful, pro-social justice rioters.

Back to private life she goes! Maybe she can find a soft landing in a lobbying firm or university, where she can prove her feminist bone fides by having affairs with other women's husbands.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or other women.

[Zarniwoop]

So your response to all the very legit, contested, debatable, etc. considerations of the complex realities of VP Harris's political career so far is ...

"or she might be gay"?

Sheesh, get a life that's newer than 1950.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If the rioters had succeeded in maiming or killing some Senators, or Pence, would you be so flip?

[Brett Bellmore]

If they were guilty, would he be so intent on treating them as innocent, you mean?

[Sarcastr0]

Attempted crimes are still crimes.

[Brett Bellmore]

You seem very fond of assuming that people you don't like "attempted" things they didn't actually do, without producing any evidence of a failed attempt, either.

Look, if I shoot at you, and miss, I've attempted to kill you. But if I leave my gun at home, and don't lift a finger against you, you can't declare that just a particularly pathetic attempt at murder. You probably think somebody was actually going to be hung on that silly prop gallows, too, and the brave Capitol police foiled them.

For that matter, Nicholas Roske, the guy who traveled to Kavanaugh's home with the intention of killing him, and then had second thoughts about it, and turned himself into the police? He got charged with attempted murder, I think that's absolutely absurd to do when somebody changes their mind before they actually do anything violent.

[Sarcastr0]

Very fond?
I can only recall talking about the law of attempt where January 06 is concerned.
You seem to be arguing the general law of attempt via a bunch of things that aren't January 06, and appealing to incredulity rather than examining the actual elements of the law.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"If the rioters had succeeded in maiming or killing some Senators, or Pence, would you be so flip?"

You want to know whether, if something happened which didn't happen, would I have reacted the same as I reacted to what *did* happen?

Harris *did* promote abortion. Would you be so flip about this if you actually thought unborn human beings were actual persons with rights?

She *did* sponsor bail for accused rioters. If this was merely to promote the presumption of innocence, she'd have raised bail for nonpolitical defendants, or defendants whose alleged crimes she wasn't sympathetic with. Would you be so flip if you you were a friend of David Dorn, or of the owner of a small business torched in the name of social justice?

And she *did* become a married man's mistress. Would you be so flip if you actually knew a woman whose husband was cheating on her?

[Noscitur a sociis]

If a married couple has been separated for over a decade, I don’t think it’s is typically called “cheating” for them to date other people.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sure it is. Anyway, with divorce as easy as it is...

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's my understanding that California law provides a method to change adultery into "dating" - get divorced, and any hanky-panky you indulge in afterward is magically defined as non-adulterious.

If Willie Brown didn't take the exit door provided by California's no-fault divorce laws, that represents a *choice* to stay married. Add to that his *choice* to keep "dating" while still married, and any woman who became his mistress could be classified as an adulteress.

(Insert snark about how Reagan signed liberalized divorce laws)

[Commenter_XY]

Dan, my prediction is VP Harris will behave similarly to VP Gore. That is what I would expect.

[Frank Drackman]

Get fat, screw the Hotel maid, and grow a Beard? can't wait!

[Michael P]

Comments like this one are what convince me that Frank is smarter than most of the tedious scolds here. He can quickly throw off a zinger about a washed-up politician who became irrelevant and largely forgotten 20 years ago.

[Bwaaah]

It's not just that he recalls the dregs of humanity, but that he does so with second and third order levels of detail. It took me a while to forgive myself for finding those lost details of human detritus still quite alive deep inside my brain while the more positive details have slipped away.

I've learned to love Frank Drackman as an alternative to hating myself. (OK. I don't love Frank and I never hated myself. But there's an implication here about people who hate Frank Drackman.)

Anyway, I'd gladly be the head of the Frank Drackman Fan Club as long as nobody else is interested in joining.

[Michael P]

Groucho Marx’s apocryphal letter of resignation to the Friars’ Club comes to mind here.

[Sarcastr0]

Man some folks sure get impressed by evidence of overeducation when someone is part of their tribe!

[No, I have no idea what Frank said; I haven't read one of his weird racist performance art comments in years.]

[Michael P]

Comments like that are what convince a lot of us that Sarcastr0 is less useful than the average tree stump.

[Sarcastr0]

Tell us more how some deep cut reference Frank dropped convinced you he was the kewlist.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wow. Nothing like bragging about muting a guy, then asking about what he said.

[Bwaaah]

Il Douche has to drop by and lift his leg to pee on The Others (whatever the hell that is to him).

Dignified, like a small, small man.

[Joe_dallas]

Not that beard thing

[Commenter_XY]

More like this, Frank (LA Times article from 1/7/2001).
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-jan-07-mn-9426-story.html

I personally do (did) not care much for VP Gore, but he gets props from me on how he comported himself that day.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Acting like the adult in the room has not paid off politically and I expect Democrats will tire of that role.

[Bwaaah]

They, like you, will never tire of that self-image as "the adult in the room." One reason I voted for the asshole is to watch the adults in the room role their eyes like the scorned stuck-up bitches they always were. As Michelle Obama said: "When they go low, we feel higher."

[Dan Schiavetta]

A juvenile response.

[Bwaaah]

LOL. Was that intended as an insult or a gift?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Muted.

[Malika]

Fuck that goat!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Rent free.

[Commenter_XY]

Dan, I don't see either DC Team D or DC Team R acting like adults in the room. Quite the opposite.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You’re *this* close to finally getting it!

[Commenter_XY]

There is hope for me, Nas.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Acting like the adult in the room has not paid off politically and I expect Democrats will tire of that role."

They've been tired of that role since the Presidency of Grover Cleveland.

In Harris' case, she's the adulteress in the room.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The adults in the room are the ones pulling the fire alarms?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Perhaps Congress can rule Trump disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3. But that would never do, since it would simply make J. D. Vance the President.

[Brett Bellmore]

Congress does not have a lot of time to write and enact new enabling legislation for Section 3, and under the current enabling legislation, a criminal conviction for Insurrection is required.

Congress can't vote somebody guilty of insurrection, that would be a bill of attainder.

And, anyway, I don't think the Democrats and remaining NeverTrumpers in Congress are ready to kick off a civil war, so they're just going to admit he's elected. Aside from a few nutcases Sarcastr0 will dismiss as "performative".

[Josh R]

It's not settled law whether Congress has the plenary power to reject EC votes because it concludes there is a 14.3 disqualification. Of course under the Electoral Reform Act of 2022, there won't even be enough objectors (1/5 from each house of Congress) to advance the case.

[Brett Bellmore]

Lots of stuff fails to be settled law only because nobody previously had the gall to try it and get shot down.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

My understanding of our constitutional system is that Congress only has the powers granted to it by the constitution. Nothing in the constitution grants Congress the power to disallow votes of the electoral college.

[Josh R]

It's not settled law whether "the votes shall be counted" by Congress (12th Amendment) permits Congress to reject votes.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I suppose. It's a little hard to see how "shall be counted" can be interpreted as allowing "not going to count these ones."

[Brett Bellmore]

"Lots of stuff fails to be settled law only because nobody previously had the gall to try it and get shot down."

The 12th amendment says "count". Counting is perhaps the Platonic ideal example of a ministerial act.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It not being settled law is not surprising since this is the first time it truly arose in this specific context where the person won.

A good bet is that the Supreme Court would decide it is a political question. The legislation prevents a token discussion/vote on the matter. Such things didn't matter much before the events of 2020-1.

I'm somewhat curious if anyone will challenge to be put on the record. No one, for instance, challenged the seating of any members of Congress, even though some questioned the legitimacy of people like Taylor-Greene.

[Brett Bellmore]

Doing THAT struck a little too close to home, I expect.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R, seems like a low bar (20%); 81 Reps and 20 Senators.

[Brett Bellmore]

Assuming none, or at least negligibly few, Republicans cooperate, it's actually 40% of the Democrats. Which is implausibly high given that the Democratic party establishment seems to have decided not to contest the matter.

But there will be some, I expect, and Sarcastr0 will dismiss it as performative.

[Commenter_XY]

Don't assume anything, Brett. Not after 2024.

[Josh R]

Care to bet. I will put up $1000 and give you 10-1 odds that there isn't a valid objection (in writing by 20% of the members of both houses) as defined by the Electoral Reform Act.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not taking that bet. I said there will be some, not that they'd meet that high threshold for number.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R...I bet on sure things. 😉

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It would "do" if the argument is that Trump is constitutionally disqualified. If Trump was disqualified from running, someone else might have won the presidency on the Republican ticket. You can imagine various scenarios. And, it would have been much better partially for constitutional reasons if that happened.

[Josh R]

At this point, at most Congress has the power to reject EC votes because someone is disqualified under 14.3. They don't have the power to redo the election.

But, you might not end up with Vance as President. Instead, you have no one commanding a majority for President and Vance being the VP. The House would then choose the new President. It would be some Republican for sure, but not necessarily Vance.

[Brett Bellmore]

At this point, as Tillman explained, they can only disqualify electors themselves, without changing the number already appointed, so that Harris can't get a majority of the EC even if every single Trump elector were rejected. However, then:

"and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President."

It's kind of iffy, in the sense that if it goes to the House, the House is obligated to pick among the top three EC vote getters for President, but only two candidates got EC votes for President, (Vance got his for vice-President.) and if you eliminated Trump's EC votes, Harris would appear to technically be the only person they could, constitutionally, vote for.

But the voting goes by House delegation, with each state having one vote, and that's 29-21 Republican, so the Republicans would control the outcome, with no plurality winners allowed, gotta get a majority of the states.

I'd guess that the House would try to pick either Vance or Trump anyway, and you'd have a bit of a constitutional crisis on your hands.

Thankfully it's not happening, because I'd prefer the next civil war to happen AFTER I've died.

[Josh R]

We have yet another argument for a consitutional amendment that would make the EC math automatic (no electors, no Congressional certification).

[Brett Bellmore]

I certainly wouldn't mind such an amendment, though I believe their counting is purely ministerial as it is.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Agreed!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

From the 20th Amendment:

"Sec. 3...If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified...."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Don't be such a drama queen. The Democrats/non-MAGA Republicans STOLE the 2020 election and ILLEGITIMATELY seized power, which they maintained for FOUR YEARS--and nobody did nuthin'.

There was no "Civil War II". In fact, there wasn't a hint of a popular uprising, civil disobedience or even a performative "general strike". MAGA shrugged.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

My comment cited a possibility that Trump could not run in the first place. Not a "do over election." To be clear.

If Vance was VP, he would be acting president under the terms of the 20th Amendment until a president was qualified.

The House is not given carte blanche on who to pick. They pick pursuant to the 12A from the top three who received electoral votes. If one of those options die, Congress can determine what to do (Sec. 4) Not the House by itself.

If neither the vp-elect or president-elect is qualified, Congress can also by law determine who is acting president until a president is qualified (Sec. 3). If Vance was VP, that wouldn't happen.

[Swede425]

LOL!
I see the Drama Channel runs 24/7 in your brain.
Thanks for sharing!

[Dan Schiavetta]

You seem to have forgotten the events of that day.

[Swede425]

Um, let me see if I can recall...
Some unarmed protestors got to walk through some government buildings after the Capitol Police let them in.
No fires started.
No buildings destroyed.
One unarmed woman shot and killed by a cop.
It was like witnessing Pearl Harbor for the theater kids in the Democrat Party.
You drama queen.

[SRG2]

Selective memory - it's a thing.

[Estragon]

“Unarmed”

That is a lie

[Bob from Ohio]

"That is a lie"

No its not. A half a dozen [+/-] out of 1500+ had any sort of weapon on them, the only weapon used was a trigger happy cop who murdered an unarmed woman.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's really obsessed about Babbitt having a pocket knife. That she never took out of her pocket, and that the cop who shot her wasn't aware of.

[Estragon]

Speaking of obsession, why is it that this particular lie gets repeated over and over? In this space it gets repeated about once a month. In our last exchange on this I encouraged you to reflect on why that might be.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because you stupidly keep claiming she was armed, so why wouldn't I yet again explain that she wasn't?

[Estragon]

The original claim was by Swede, and as I pointed out— it is false.

If carrying a knife with a three inch blade is not “armed” then the word has no meaning.

Ask yourself this: if secret service had been allowed to pass everyone attending the speech on the ellipse through magnometers— as they had originally intended— would this item have been confiscated?

[Brett Bellmore]

"If carrying a knife with a three inch blade is not “armed” then the word has no meaning."

Again, it was a pocket knife, not a combat knife. You're being absurd here.

"Ask yourself this: if secret service had been allowed to pass everyone attending the speech on the ellipse through magnometers— as they had originally intended— would this item have been confiscated?"

Sure, a lot of stupid things would have been confiscated.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If carrying a knife with a three inch blade is not “armed” then the word has no meaning."

Uh, I'd say that if carrying a knife with a three-inch blade is armed, then the word has no meaning. If everyone is armed, then no one is.

[Estragon]

“Combat knife”

Here we go again slicing the salami ever so thinly. Is that a technical term or just some distinction you’ve come up with in your head to justify your priors here?

For the last time. Why is it essential to the huckleberry narrative of J6 to insist this woman was unarmed? What sort of ideological conceptual groundwork is being laid here in insisting that this poor innocent unarmed woman was martyred? We are about to see another round of this Jimmy-The-Dane-derived revisionism and myth-making when Stewie Rhodes and his pudgy band of cosplaying weirdos get pardoned. To what end? I’ve pointed you towards what I believe is part of the answer already— I can’t force you to engage with it.

What I can do is point out this little canard when it pops up (and it continues to!) and try and get you and those reading to reflect on why you feel the aggressively reflexive need to justify and defend it.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Why is it essential to the huckleberry narrative of J6 to insist this woman was unarmed?"

The only reason I'm insisting that she wasn't armed, is that she wasn't, by any rational standard, "armed". No sane person insists that everybody who has a pocketknife in their pocket is "armed"! I spent most of my life 'armed' by that standard!

"What I can do is point out this little canard when it pops up (and it continues to!) and try and get you and those reading to reflect on why you feel the aggressively reflexive need to justify and defend it."

Right back at you.

Why are you insisting on her having BEEN armed? Is it necessary to feel better about her having been shot? It shouldn't be, her actions that day, climbing through a broken door despite a cop on the other side telling her to stop, should be sufficient.

Her pocket knife played no role in the events of that day; Nobody saw it, she never deployed it. Why is it so critical to you to pretend that she was armed, rather than just routinely carrying an ordinary pocket knife?

[Estragon]

“I spent most of my life 'armed' by that standard!”

So? Maybe you have.

“Is it necessary to feel better about her having been shot?”

It’s so funny to me how you always come back to this.

I understand the suggestion that I would feel better or worse about this poor deluded woman—who was killed by Trump’s lies as much as any police officer— is intended to be risible and insulting, but I cannot spell it out more clearly: I have repeatedly conceded to you that the knife played no part in the events of that day. That you keep circling back to this same line over and over is really classic Brett on full display.

What I’m interested in is the mythmaking. Closing in on 5 years after this woman died— what purpose does this myth serve?

What other stories are we going to be asked to accept when the pardons come rolling in? Will the pardoned be treated like the GREAT PATRIOTS Trump says they are? And, of course, if these criminals are actually innocent great patriots— what does that imply about those who pursued, prosecuted and convicted them?

There are historical parallels here, as I’ve obliquely observed. Again, I’ve pointed you towards someone I think has some persuasive things to say about all of this. I can’t force you to engage with it.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're so interested in the myth making you're engaged in it.

[Estragon]

Another priest of St. Ashlii, martyred, innocent, pure. Patron of lost causes and knives that are definitely just tools. Godspeed!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why is it so critical to you to pretend that she was armed, rather than just routinely carrying an ordinary pocket knife?"

Because then he can pretend she wasn't murdered.

[Estragon]

See, Brett?

St. Ashlii of Columbia— innocent martyr, murdered by a “thug”

[Bob from Ohio]

"St. Ashlii"

No one is claiming she's a saint, just that being killed is a high penalty for rioting. Her killer was the only cop who shot that day. He got a $37,000 bonus though!

[Estragon]

"Her memory will live on in our hearts for all time."

Well, at least in yours!

[Estragon]

“High penalty”

Assertions about proportional punishment are always so enlightening coming from Pinochet apologists

[Harvey Mosley]

According to the FBI more people are killed with hands and feet than rifles so everyone who has at least one foot or hand is armed.

[Estragon]

There’s an interesting conversation to be had about this. In fact, a state near to my home just reclassified certain driving offenses as potentially carrying charges involving assault with a deadly weapon.

[not guilty]

I represented some strip clubs in my day. I joked that I was defending the right to bare arms (and other body parts).

[Estragon]

“unarmed”

No.

[John F. Carr]

"Trump was right about the Vice President's power. I hereby reject these Trump-Vance votes and ..." (pulls paper out of pocket) "...substitute these Harris-Walz votes instead."

Maybe not. Women's clothes aren't known for having good pockets.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, she'll have them stuffed in her bra.
Remember Dianne Wilkerson?

[Dan Schiavetta]

John,

You treat it like a joke. But that is what Trump -- and most of the Republican Party -- thinks Pence should have done.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but he didn't.
(for those of you who haven't muted me like Capt. Dan.)

[John F. Carr]

I am not so distressed by Trump's behavior that I can't make jokes.

I can also joke about nuclear war, the Holocaust, and misgendering.

[Jmaie]

"I can also joke about nuclear war"

I highly recommend board game, "Nuclear War."

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/713/nuclear-war

[John F. Carr]

"Do you have change for 20 million people?"

I played that game in college.

[Don Nico]

Dan,
You missed the "Giggling and cackling uncontrollably.

[Sarcastr0]

Still on the Harris hate-train, eh?

This is getting ridiculous.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in other news:
After 3 days former President Jimmy Carter has failed to rise from the dead and therefore plans for his state funeral are moving forward.

[Frank Drackman]

Ironically the last Guinea Worm died at the same time, exclaiming "Jimmuh Cartuh Still Survives!"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't laugh. I once had a group of Elementary Ed majors convinced that Reconstruction was the period of Lincoln's second term after he rose from the dead -- and they believed me....

[Noscitur a sociis]

“Agreeing so as to end the conversation with the psycho janitor as quickly as possible” ≠ “convinced”

[Armchair]

Consider the below statement

"The worst thing a politician can do for their electoral prospects is to fully solve the issue they campaigned upon"

Is that a true statement?

[Sarcastr0]

1. Politicians may emphasize a single issue, but they rarely campaign on just that.
2. The long hanging fruit was long ago solved. The issues in our society are rarely fully solvable, only improveable.

[Armchair]

You can't ever just answer a simple question. You always have to avoid it. It's not even a partisan question, not directed at you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thus, Il Douche.

[Sarcastr0]

I answered your question. Both of my points support a reply in the negative.

[Bwaaah]

Perhaps you could write a reply in the negative instead of one that supports one and leaving it to the reader to infer your murky antagonism. If this isn't clear, then it should serve as an illustrative example.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I read his response as objecting to the premise the question was based on. They do not campaign on one issue, and no societal issues are ever completely solvable. Didn't seem that murky to me.

[Sarcastr0]

My responses cannot be read any other way than as a negative response to the question.

Thus, I did not bother to say no. I thought it needless.
I still do, and think you're just trying to pick a pedantic fight for its own sake.

My response was neither murky nor antagonistic.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, but a couple generations of Republican politicians who really didn't want to fulfill their campaign promises pretended it was.

As Sarcastr0 says, politicians rarely campaign on just one thing, and delivering on one promise gives you credibility when it comes to your other campaign promises.

There actually is a fair amount of low hanging fruit out there, but it's fruit people in power didn't want to pick, which is why it's still there.

[Sarcastr0]

What issues do you think are low hanging fruit?

[Brett Bellmore]

An example of low hanging fruit for the Republicans would be getting suppressors taken off the NFA. Even countries much more hostile to gun ownership than the US do not regulate suppressors this way, rationally treating them as a desirable product if people are going to be firing guns.

They'd score a lot of good will from gun owners by that one reform.

Another would be having the Executive branch join Congress in repudiating the Vienna Convention on Treaties. From a Republican perspective, it's an easy win.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn’t ask just for Republicans.

That’s a much more boring wish list type question. Politics not policy.

[Brett Bellmore]

So what if you didn't ask just for Republicans. Why would I want to provide (Out of power) Democrats with easy wins?

[Sarcastr0]

You said this: "There actually is a fair amount of low hanging fruit out there, but it's fruit people in power didn't want to pick, which is why it's still there."

It's really really telling that you think the only alternative to 'low hanging fruit for Republicans' is 'low hanging fruit for Democrats.'

Your partisanizing everything like that is a great example of why there's no low hanging fruit in American policy left.

[Brett Bellmore]

There are basically three possiblities.

1. Low hanging fruit for Republicans.
2. Low hanging fruit for Democrats
3. The intersection of these sets, low hanging fruit for both.

But #3 is, trivially, a subset of #1. You do understand that, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Neither of the items you mentioned are within subset 3.

I do not believe a purely partisan policy measure counts a low hanging fruit.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's stupid. You're insisting that nothing Democrats oppose can be "low hanging fruit", which is an explicitly partisan definition of the concept.

[Sarcastr0]

That's right.

Nothing either party opposes counts as low hanging fruit.

[Brett Bellmore]

If anybody dislikes apples, apples can't be low hanging fruit no matter what height the branch is!

It's that stupid. "Low hanging" refers to the ease of accomplishing something, not whether somebody else doesn't want it accomplished.

[Sarcastr0]

So you don't think there is any low hanging fruit, just stuff you think the GOP should all agree on but they don't.

I agree - there is no low hanging fruit. People like you and your insistence on never compromising with Democrats ever ever is a big reason why.

[John F. Carr]

There have been attempts to deregulate suppressors. I believe there is not unanimous support among Republicans.

[DixieTune]

Isn't that exactly Brett Bellmore's point? There would be unanimous support among Republicans if they actually cared about the gun rights they claim to care about.

There are a lot of changes that would have happened if that was the case. For one, we'd have concealed carry reciprocity. For two, we'd have the ban on interstate handgun sales lifted. For three, we'd have the idiotic laws prohibiting guns from federal buildings like post offices and national park visitor centers lifted. For four, we'd have PLCAA amended to stop the recent "novel" uses of consumer protection laws in blue states, although to be fair, that's more the blame of the Roberts court for letting it happen. For five, we'd have the background check system available for free from an iPhone.

But most Republicans are full of crap on gun rights, so we don't have any of the above.

[Brett Bellmore]

I SAID, "but it's fruit people in power didn't want to pick, which is why it's still there."

[Brett Bellmore]

"There would be unanimous support among Republicans if they actually cared about the gun rights they claim to care about."

It's actually somewhat stronger than that, because countries where there ARE no legally recognized gun right make it easier to get suppressors than in the US. Because, after all, they're not weapons, they're accessories that reduce hearing damage and public nuisance noise.

So even Republicans who didn't give a damn about gun rights would support such a change; The Republicans who oppose it have to be worse than indifferent to gun rights.

[DixieTune]

Or they're just ignorant. I can see the Susan Collinses of the world believing that suppressors just make a tiny pop like they hear from Hollywood

[Nelson]

“ would have happened if that was the case. For one, we'd have concealed carry reciprocity. For two, we'd have the ban on interstate handgun sales lifted”

So you don’t agree with federalism? Interesting.

[DixieTune]

No, not when it's used in a way to make it impossible to exercise a fundamental right.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett thinks those are fake conservatives.

I find the 'my party would be more legitimate and successful if it did X' is more personal than analytical.

It is fun, though. I may want to come up with something like that myself.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I think that, when somebody goes into politics in a conservative area, they will publicly present as a conservative, or else not get elected. That doesn't mean they ARE a conservative. Some of them will be, some of them wont.

We saw that after the '94 election, when the Republican dog caught the car, and the new majority promptly took a dive on multiple issues they'd run on. Only to discover to their horror that it's easier to take a plausible dive when you're in the minority.

The same dynamic doubtless operates in liberal areas, too.

[Sarcastr0]

It's boring gatekeeping, based on your personal take on what's conservative and what's not.

Yeah, when leftists talk about how there are all these capitalist false leftists in Congress voting yes on military budgts and whatnot, they're being as silly as you are.

[Commenter_XY]

Answer: It is not a true statement. It is false.

[Michael P]

No. For one thing, term-limited politicians totally lack that motivation. For another, only an unimaginative person would think that a single politician could solve all the problems amenable to political solutions in one lifetime.

[Malika]

"I alone can fix it”
" You won't have to do it anymore! Four more years, you know what? It'll be fixed"

[Michael P]

"Malika makes up all its quotes"
"Everything Malika puts in quotes is made up"

[Commenter_XY]

Who is Shamsud Din Jabbar, and how did this US Army vet, previously employed by Deloitte, become radicalized to the point of murdering fellow Americans?

Can't rely on the FBI, who seems to be blundering about and accomplishing very little. A muslim terrorist carrying an ISIS flag did not act alone. Thanks for letting us know that, FBI, we never would have figured that out on our own. And the CIA, NSA? Quiet as church mice. Maybe they missed something, too.

Hypothetically, suppose family members of Shamsud Din Jabbar knew he had become radicalized, planned to take some non-specific action, but chose to say nothing. What's the liability in that circumstance?

[apedad]

Oh FFS, they're just starting the investigation and of course CIA and NSA wouldn't make any announcements.

[Commenter_XY]

FBI (and the IC) missed here, just like they missed with the Tsarnaev brothers.

[apedad]

It's a good thing then that your side wants to slash the FBI and IC since (if you're allegations are correct), they don't have a 100% record.

Dumbass

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, accountability is a tough thing when you're the one being held to account for the failure. The bottom line is that the FBI (and IC more generally) have failed numerous times, and Americans are dead as a result.

No one ever seems to be held to account for that. Hopefully, that changes. It is time for people to be held to account for their failures, and I note without a trace of irony that there are a number of senior level people in the FBI and IC who are now getting expensive legal representation. They'll need it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How exactly was the FBI supposed to catch this guy ahead of time without doing precisely the sorts of things that you’re mad at them for?

[SRG2]

How so? The only way in which you can stop all such attacks is to have a degree of surveillance you and the rest of us would not approve of. Or possibly you would approve of it.

It's not as though there were ample warnings as with 9/11,

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, I'm betting this guy will probably have gotten involved in some radical Islamic faction, rather than just being a loner. The 1st amendment doesn't actually require that the government avert its gaze from religious institutions preaching mass murder, though they sometimes act like it does.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Apedad, Sen Kennedy (R-LA) was on Fox News saying that he is aware of a lot of stuff that isn't public yet, but he is keeping quiet for a few days to let the FBI do its job. But if it doesn't, he will go public.

[DixieTune]

No liability. Outside of some very narrow rules like a duty of a parent to take care of a child or the duty of a teacher or doctor to report child abuse, the law very rarely imposes an affirmative obligation on anyone to do anything.

[SimonP]

A muslim terrorist carrying an ISIS flag did not act alone.

How is this self-evident? If you're a lone wolf terrorist, adopting the iconography of a well-known, international terrorist organization would be an obvious way of amplifying your message, wouldn't it?

I'm not taking a position either way; I think the evidence should be examined and followed to where it leads. I just want to avoid a situation where Republicans take advantage of the attack to crack down on pro-Palestinian speech.

Hypothetically, suppose family members of Shamsud Din Jabbar knew he had become radicalized, planned to take some non-specific action, but chose to say nothing. What's the liability in that circumstance?

Civil or criminal? Is it a crime to "become radicalized"?

If a friend of yours starts saying pretty gross things about a local political official, and then starts intimating that "someone ought to take of" that political official - at what point would you step in? At what do you think you'd properly be liable, if you didn't get involved?

[Commenter_XY]

That is a fair question, SimonP = If a friend of yours starts saying pretty gross things about a local political official, and then starts intimating that "someone ought to take of" that political official - at what point would you step in?

Right then and there, by asking this friend what does 'ought to take care of' actually mean for them? Because property destruction and violence is a 'no go'.

As for liability, what does make someone liable in this instance? How specific does 'ought to take care of' actually have to be in order to become liable?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not self-evident, I agree, but the latest revelation is that the perps in the two attacks were stationed together back in 2009-2010, so it's not entirely impossible they knew each other and were coordinating.

Neither is it established, either.

[Sarcastr0]

How about we wait until the facts are in.

In other words, what Simon said:
"I'm not taking a position either way; I think the evidence should be examined and followed to where it leads.
I just want to avoid a situation where Republicans take advantage of the attack to crack down on pro-Palestinian speech."

I'd extend that to avoiding anti-Muslim prejudice I see being stoked. I hope that effort dies on the vine.

[Bob from Ohio]

Always more concerned about the hypothetical effect on Muslims than the actual victims.

[Sarcastr0]

What would you want me to do? Law enforcement (and the media) are figuring out who did what, and I'm sure they will get theirs.

In the meantime, lets not use this as some bloody shirt towards innocents people, eh?

[Brett Bellmore]

As Norm MacDonald joked, "What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?"

[Nelson]

Norm MacDonald never told jokes. He was the unfunniest person who ever billed themselves as a comedian in the history of comedy.

[SimonP]

You don't give a shit about the actual victims, Bobby. It's all just posturing in the culture war for you.

As Sacrastro said - there's not much we internet keyboard warriors can do about the victims of these crimes. We're not going to figure out whether the Tesla explosion was intentional from looking at freeze-frames, we're not going to suss out whether the two perpetrators coordinated from here, we're not going to be able to provide any meaningful comfort to the victims or their families, and the two individuals directly involved are dead, so we can't even call for their being brought to justice. All we can do is discuss it.

Personally - I'm not yet sure what to make of these high-profile, apparently symbolic attacks (including the UHC assassination for present purposes, as perhaps we could also with the two Trump attempts, or even school shootings). I don't know why "ISIS" thinks now is the time to strike, or what the poseurs pretending to be ISIS think they're accomplishing. I don't know what any of these people are trying to achieve.

If I had to guess, I'd say that people are just kind of losing their minds. We're isolated in our social media silos, driving ourselves mad with extremist rhetoric on algorithmically-generated feeds, increasingly unmoored from meaning in our lives, struggling with the empty post-capitalist economies we're all in, watching the world burn and get worse without any sense of how to stop it. It seems to me that maybe these people are staging attacks just to feel like they're doing something with their empty lives.

But setting that aside - yes, I think we should all be somewhat concerned with how the state will respond to these attacks. It's not just Muslims at risk. It's come out, for instance, that the NYPD thinks that anyone expressing sympathy or support for Luigi should be tracked as an "extremist."

[Brett Bellmore]

"We're not going to figure out whether the Tesla explosion was intentional from looking at freeze-frames,"

I'm pretty darned sure the still picture showing the explosives in the back settled that.

" It's come out, for instance, that the NYPD thinks that anyone expressing sympathy or support for Luigi should be tracked as an "extremist.""

Welcome to the party, pal.

[SimonP]

The only thing you can be counted on, Goobs, is sniffing out the potential conspiracy behind any news story.

I'll wait for actual evidence, personally.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Where's the fun in that?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I just want to avoid a situation where Republicans take advantage of the attack to crack down on pro-Palestinian speech.

He’s doing the Norm Macdonald bit!

[Roger S]

The man's name is Shamsud Din Jabbar. Not your typical Texan.

[Frank Drackman]

Like Kinky Friedman

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can't rely on the FBI, who seems to be blundering about and accomplishing very little. A muslim terrorist carrying an ISIS flag did not act alone. Thanks for letting us know that, FBI, we never would have figured that out on our own.

The last ISIS-supporting terrorist who murdered Americans with a truck acted alone.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe having him see Dr. Nidal Hasan wasn't such a great idea.

[not guilty]

"Hypothetically, suppose family members of Shamsud Din Jabbar knew he had become radicalized, planned to take some non-specific action, but chose to say nothing. What's the liability in that circumstance?"

Liability on the part of the family members? I can't think of any theory which would support liability.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in good news for the environment:
"An offshore wind project off the coast of New Jersey is stalled as the developers are facing a second delay in four months.

The project, called Leading Light Wind, was first delayed in September as developers Invenergy and energyRe struggled to secure a manufacturer for the dozens of turbine blades needed for the massive wind farm.

Months later, the developers have reportedly continued to scramble to find a manufacturer and have requested a second delay, according to the Associated Press.

The first delay ended on Dec. 20 and one day prior, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities was asked to approve an additional pause through May 20, 2025.

While the project did not explicitly say it has been unable to secure a manufacturer, the developers reportedly told the board, “The offshore wind equipment market continues to experience significant price volatility and the company has not yet identified a solution to that volatility.”

[Commenter_XY]

It is more blue state stupidity. And the People's Republic is about as blue as it gets.

NJ to taxpayers...Let's go get green energy by killing birds and whales with offshore wind turbines. And shut down nuclear plants too! And increase energy cost for all NJ residents, to boot.

There is nothing that surprises me about the People's Republic of NJ.

[Don Nico]

C_XY, Happy New Year.
Move to CA and you'd be even less surprised AND pay higher income taxes for the privilege.

[Commenter_XY]

Happy New Year, Don Nico.

I'm in the process of locating and acquiring some acreage in TN. CA did not make the cut. 😉

[Don Nico]

Well, you can find good BBQ in them thar hills

[Commenter_XY]

Indeed....I'll have to invite hobie to come and sample brisket. 😉

[apedad]

Court Authorizes Service of John Doe Summons for IRS to Seek Identities of U.S. Taxpayers Who Participated in the “Gig Economy” Via a Digital Platform

A federal court in California entered an order on Monday authorizing the IRS to serve a John Doe summons on JustAnswer LLC, seeking information about U.S. taxpayers who were paid for answering questions as “experts” during the years 2017-2020. The IRS is seeking the records of individuals who were paid by JustAnswer, which operates a digital platform through which members of the public can pay to have questions answered by professionals such as doctors, lawyers, veterinarians, engineers and tax professionals

In the court’s order, U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee for the Central District of California found that there is a reasonable basis for believing that U.S. taxpayers who were paid by JustAnswer to answer questions as experts may have failed to comply with federal tax laws.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/court-authorizes-service-john-doe-summons-irs-seek-identities-us-taxpayers-who-participated

I wonder what the "reasonable basis" for issuing this summons is.

There's a link to the order but it says, "Based upon a review
of the Petition and supporting documents . . . . "

[Ska]

I would be able to see some kind of argument for reasonable basis if the entity's reported income tax deductions for subcontractors/independent contractors and wages didn't come close to their filed 1096 for 1099-NECs and W-3 wages reported.

[John F. Carr]

The service claims to be only a platform and most of the money is in theory paid from one user of the platform to another.

There's a reason the federal government is requiring more 1099 forms for digital payments. Let's say you get $10 per question for answering 50 questions each from 100 people. Each person paid you $500 which is less than the reporting threshold. But your income is $50,000, which is above the threshold for self-employment taxes.

[Michael P]

That seems like something that Republicans could, and probably should, try to fix in the upcoming Congress: require intermediary platforms like that to report aggregate payments forwarded to each individual when that total exceeds $600 or $6000 or some reasonable value.

Democrats would not push that because they want to define the recipients of those payments as employees, and this would suggest that they are independent contractors, but I hope they would not oppose such a reporting requirement.

[Brett Bellmore]

But that would run contrary to the policy change we really need to stop these data breaches, which is that platforms should stop retaining any information about their users AT ALL, that isn't absolutely unavoidably necessary to provide the service.

[John F. Carr]

I assumed the company started to file form 1099 due to a change in regulations.

The Affordable Care Act required 1099s for payments over $600 per year. This was a very unpopular change. More recent rule changes required electronic payment processors to file 1099s for $600 payments. This was a moderately unpopular change and the IRS had to push back the effective date. I remember somebody was collecting funds to help out others during COVID and got a form 1099 from the fundraising platform. This was reported by the press as a tax bill from the IRS. It wasn't. It also wasn't a situation the existing tax system handles efficiently. Tax forms don't have a way to say "I admit this 1099 and deny it describes taxable income."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Could you sue for libel?

[John F. Carr]

If the law says file a 1099 showing all payments to John Doe, filing a 1099 showing all payments to John Doe is not libel. The form does not go into detail about what services were rendered and whether the payment is taxable.

[Mr. Bumble]

How many decades has the threshold been set at $600?

[Kazinski]

It is worth noting that while Venmo and most payment apps are now required to give 1099s for payments, Zelle is not.

That's because Venmo actually has the funds on deposit when they disburse them, but Zelle is just the payment network used by banks for account direct to account transfers by its customers.

[Ska]

Yeah, that's why my hunch was that there was a 1099 reporting discrepancy that was flagged. If the LLC wasn't the one paying the professionals who respond, the LLC typically wouldn't have the reporting requirement. And if I was just some dude asking questions for my 1040 and paying people, and I wasn't asking about my sole proprietorship - I was asking about my personal income taxes - I also wouldn't have an obligation to file a 1099. John Doe doesn't need to file 1099s every time they pay a plumber or attorney for personal expenses. Only business entities have a reporting requirement - though if John Doe files a Schedule C then John Doe would have a reporting requirement if it was a business expense.

OP's third paragraph made it sound like the LLC does pay people to answer questions. If the LLC took $1,000 of revenue and paid $999 for the response the LLC would still have to file a 1099.

[John F. Carr]

The document has a docket number from which you can get to https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69476295/united-states-v-john-does/

[apedad]

Thanks!

[John F. Carr]

From a quick look at the supporting documentation:

JustAnswer did not file any 1099 forms for its experts until tax year 2021. From 2021 there were over 1,200 forms filed. The IRS estimates that more than half of self-employment income goes unreported when no 1099 is filed, compared to 1% when a 1099 is filed. Five specific taxpayers were identified who made large amounts and did not report income. One of them took advantage of a voluntary disclosure program. The others used their real names on the site so the IRS could check their tax returns. They had tens of thousands of dollars worth of unreported income, estimating actual income from public information on the site.

It's not just a fishing expedition. The IRS has reason to suspect tens of thousands of dollars in tax underpayments from known users.

[DixieTune]

Yeah, are they going after Zuckerberg, Soros, Brin, and other billionaires who use their money to spread leftist poison? Of course not. Just random people trying to make a few extra dollars to make up for Bidenflation.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If they're using after-tax dollars to spread leftist poison, what business is that of the IRS?

[Bob from Ohio]

"tens of thousands of dollars in tax underpayments"

Less than the cost of the investigation?

IRS got billions from the Democrat congress to go after "billionaire tax cheats" but seems to spend most going after non-billionaires.

[DixieTune]

A hobbyist selling random crap from his garage on eBay is surely a threat. That's why they had to put into place the $600 reporting rule.

[DixieTune]

Roberts' warning to not disregard the courts seems very self-serving, given that he's in charge of the judiciary. It's like when gun control advocates tout that police support a specific rule, a rule that the police are exempt from following themselves.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Today is the last full day of Democratic control of the Senate.

Sen. Casey, who lost re-election, presided over a pro forma session a few days ago. You can watch the minute or so on C-SPAN.

Sen. Vance will be replaced soon. Ohio will have to new two senators. See Ohio? If you voted for the sound choice, you would have more seniority! Plus, a lot better senator.

Three new senators (two Democrats, one Republican) were already sworn in by Vice President Harris last month (year). They filled vacancies so were able to be ahead of the curve.

[Bob from Ohio]

"a lot better senator"

Sherrod Brown? LOL

Dude never held a real job, got elected to his first post right out of Yale. No accomplishments in 50 years sucking off taxpayers.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Bob from Ohio dislikes a Democratic politician. There's a shocker.

[Bob from Ohio]

JoeFromtheBronx likes Democratic senators. No comment about that.

Browns long political tenure is a fact. His lack of accomplishment is an opinion, feel free to point out some.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

People can debate the value of his tenure vis-a-vis other people in government but our political system is based on the people choosing their representatives.

It is not going to help much in improving such representation to degrade the very nature of the job as not "real."

The same applies to his role as secretary of state. A real job of some importance to our governance.

BTW, I don't find all senators from each party as fungible. I think Brown specifically was a good senator. His long tenure in Ohio, which gone red for a while now, shows many people agree.

[John F. Carr]

A 2017 lawsuit against Nestlé over the words "spring water" on the label of Poland Spring water has just passed summary judgment. Spring water has a legal definition unrelated to health or taste. If the lawsuit sounds familiar it may not be only from the last seven years of litigation. A similar lawsuit was settled in 2003. As a result of that settlement everybody who purchased or consumed Poland Spring water from 1996 to 2003 is forever forbidden from challenging the legitimacy of the "spring water" designation for the water sources then used. The earlier case sounds like the sort of class action targeted by the Class Action Fairness Act. Millions and millions of consumers were joined in that case and are not eligible to participate in the next class action.

I once lived in a house that drew its water from a spring that complied with federal regulations for springs. I saw a beaver skull lying next to the intake and thought of giardiasis, also known as beaver fever. Spring water is happy water, not necessarily healthy water. Consumers pay for that happy feeling.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6138796/patane-v-nestle-waters-north-america-inc/?page=5
https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-will-not-dismiss-lawsuit-claiming-poland-spring-water-is-not-spring-2024-12-31/

[Bwaaah]

Keep it up, Carr. I give you the 2024 award for Biggest Contributor of What People Say They Want More of In Volokh Discussion. Keep biting your tongue and bringing more of that gentlemanly lawyer perspective. (NG could should take notice of the merits of tongue biting; he could easily elevate himself thusly.) It lacks venom, so don't expect too much traction. But very sincerely from my perspective, it's good stuff. Glad to see you continue in 2025.

[Commenter_XY]

Bwaaah...I thought of doing a 2024 awards for VC.

Best quote...David Nieporent: Trump treats the Seven Deadly Sins as a 'to do' list

What categories would you recommend for awards?

[Bwaaah]

Here are some tries:

Most Angry Commenter Award
Biggest Contributor of Salient Remarks Award
Biggest Contributor of Crap Remarks Award
Most Balanced Voice Award
Most Scorned Bitch Award
Greatest Source of Humor Award
Most Informative Commenter, Legally
Most Informative Commenter, Historically
Most Shamelessly Right-Biased Award
Most Shamelessly Left-Biased Award
The From What Universe (???) Award
Highest Quality Insults Award
Most Interesting Contributor: Food
Commenter Most Welcome to Be On Vacation
Most Hateful Award
Most Intelligent But Civil Award
Most Beside The Point Award

I'd be inclined to throw in a Biggest Douche Award, but there's already enough nastiness to set that one aside for the moment.

[Sarcastr0]

This already seems pretty nasty.

I don't think it's a good idea.

[Kazinski]

Well I hate to agree with Sarcastro, but I do think its a bad idea, but for different reasons.

I just don't think its fair that I win all these:

Biggest Contributor of Salient Remarks Award
Most Balanced Voice Award
Most Informative Commenter, Historically
Most Intelligent But Civil Award

Hard to do a best looking award, with this comments format so I suppose I'll be spared the embarrassment of winning that too.

And you missed one:
Most Likely to Try to Change the Subject to the Link Source

[Bwaaah]

I didn't want to belabor the point, but I think Gaslight0 would be in the running for a bunch of awards. (Even losers can be winners.)

It's not surprising that he calls the idea "nasty" because he knows very well the awards in which he would be most competitive. It's not that the awards are nasty, but that he's well-suited to winning the awards that target the very attributes he dislikes.

Fortunately for him, he can learn nothing from this.

In conclusion, one need only read your comments to infer that you are the best looking. That's self-evident.

[Harvey Mosley]

I don't have a specific one in mind but I'd be willing to bet one of DN's many responses to SL would be the best quote.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, David has uncommon talent. So does not guilty. Those two have made me laugh a lot.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's why they taught us in the Scouts to always boil your water. Doesn't matter HOW clean the water looks, for all you know there's a rotting carcass upstream.

[Commenter_XY]

Didn't it come out during trial that Poland Spring is just municipal tap water?

[SRG2]

I'm reminded of the observation that Nestle isn't selling water, it's selling bottles.

[Brett Bellmore]

And they're not even very good bottles. Balloons with screw caps.

[Bwaaah]

I engage in vigorous physical outdoor activity daily. In the warmer months, I get water as needed from public drinking fountains. Some fountains trickle, some fountains shoot. In any case, I carry a crushed Poland Spring 8 oz. bottle in my pocket (with a cap) that I pull out and inflate to collect water, and then crush back down to fit trimly in my pocket. I replace the bottle annually as a nod to concern for sanitation. (I also rinse at each day's first use.)

Not a single one has sprung a leak. It's quite impressive. Hat-tip to PET.

[Brett Bellmore]

PET is an impressive plastic, to be sure, its relative PETG is one of my favorite 3D printing materials.

My complaint is that, by the time you're holding the bottle tightly enough to break the cap loose the first time, you can get a gusher when the cap finally comes off. Very little of the bottle is actually thick enough to sustain the pressure necessary to transfer that torque.

This, of course, is why you get the behavior you like: The material being so thin allows it to crumple without sustaining damage.

[Malika]

"I engage in vigorous physical outdoor activity daily."

From behind the bushes at the park during the yoga classes, no doubt.

[Bwaaah]

I do that *after* the vigorous activity.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, it essentially is municipal well water -- they have drilled wells that they pump from all throughout Western Maine.

[John F. Carr]

This is the FDA definition of spring water:

The name of water derived from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the surface of the earth may be "spring water." Spring water shall be collected only at the spring or through a bore hole tapping the underground formation feeding the spring. There shall be a natural force causing the water to flow to the surface through a natural orifice. The location of the spring shall be identified. Spring water collected with the use of an external force shall be from the same underground stratum as the spring, as shown by a measurable hydraulic connection using a hydrogeologically valid method between the bore hole and the natural spring, and shall have all the physical properties, before treatment, and be of the same composition and quality, as the water that flows naturally to the surface of the earth. If spring water is collected with the use of an external force, water must continue to flow naturally to the surface of the earth through the spring's natural orifice. Plants shall demonstrate, on request, to appropriate regulatory officials, using a hydrogeologically valid method, that an appropriate hydraulic connection exists between the natural orifice of the spring and the bore hole.

21 CFR 165.110(a)(2)(vi). The definition preempts state law labeling requirements. It does not preempt state law remedies.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, basically so long as an aquifer emerges naturally from the ground anywhere, any water you pump from it is 'spring water'? By federal standards, anyway?

Cool, I was drinking spring water in my house in Michigan, without even knowing it. So were all my neighbors.

[John F. Carr]

You may have been drinking spring water. The hydraulic connection must be "measurable." One of Nestle's rejected defenses was regulatory approval. Regulators had approved the water as fit to sell as drinking water. Regulators had not verified the claim that the water was FDA-compliant spring water.

[Absaroka]

Mr. Carr, I'd like to second Bwaaah's sentiment: keep up the good work!

[Kazinski]

I'll take this opportunity to brag about my water, well at least the water at my summer home.

My well is in in the middle of my 15 wooded acres at 5000', which is next to national forest, on the flank of a 7400' mountain that is a state park.

The well itself is drilled to 415' and the pump is at 275' and can yield 12 gallons a minute. And no I wasn't happy when I got the bill from the driller, which more than 20 years ago was 30$ a foot and another few thousand for the tank and pump. So I definitely had to pay for that happy feeling.

Needless to say its fresh and clean and comes out of the well at 50 degrees, in fact its great for cooling beer in a cooler when there is no ice.

Best water I've ever tasted and the mineral content is negligible so the coffee pot never needs to descaled.

[Bwaaah]

That's a good water story.

I'll grant you the Best Water Story of 2025 Award, on top of your other winnings.

[Kazinski]

I should say to i know at least a little about water professionally, although i am/was an IT professional by trade. I worked for Seattle's water system utility for years including making their realtime water quality data available to Executives, professionals and engineers, with critical factor alerts and reports.

When you are in IT, if you are good at it, you learn quite a bit technically about the data of the system you are writing, so you learn about turbidity, arsenic levels, lead, and then the other side of the equation the requirements for discharghing processed waste water back into lakes and the ocean.

Fun fact, Seattle does get fined millions a year when heavy rain overwhelms their sewage treatment system and raw sewage is overflows from their treatment facilities into Puget Sound and Lake Washington.

But a hundred miles to the North, Vancouver BC at least 2x the size of Seattle, dumps ALL their raw sewage into the adjacent bay.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Best water I've ever tasted and the mineral content is negligible so the coffee pot never needs to descaled."

That's certainly better than my parents' well, which honestly tasted like crap, (Unless you like your water tasting of iron and sulfur, I suppose.) and we had to pull the jet every couple of years to chip off the mineral buildup. Mine a hundred feet west of it was similar, the only good thing you could say about it was that it was in a 6' vein of coarse gravel, I could have used it to irrigate a field. It tasted OK after a pass through the water softener, though.

Across the street they had no luck at all: Every well they sunk landed in fine silt, and plugged up within hours.

My uncle, a half hour South of us, had a different problem. The water was fine, aside from the fact that it had enough methane in it you could light it on fire. A pity he didn't own the mineral rights.

Drilling a well in South-East Michigan is a real gamble. You never know what you'll hit, and if you go too deep you hit salt water every time.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Across the street they had no luck at all:..."
Funny how that works.

[Bwaaah]

Must've been a thick street.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Biden to honor Liz Cheney with Presidential Citizens Medal

"Alongside Cheney, Biden will award Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Mississippi), who served as the chairman of the Jan. 6 House select committee, with the Presidential Citizens Medal.

Other honorees include attorney Mary Bonauto, who fought to legalize same-sex marriage and argued before the Supreme Court in the landmark marriage-equality case Obergefell v. Hodges, and lawyer and activist Evan Wolfson, a leader of the marriage-equality movement."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/02/biden-cheney-presidential-citizens-medal/

Standing up for principles that go to the heart of citizenship in a constitutional republic, even in the face of political and personal attack, deserves such recognition.

[SRG2]

Liz Cheney

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL. As stupid shit Biden does on his way out goes, it's relatively harmless.

[Bob from Ohio]

Not even a Medal of Freedom. Sad!

[Swede425]

That's going to impress the hell out of her fellow prisoners.

[Roger S]

And the principle is to use a House committee for a one-sided partisan attack that buries the inconvenient evidence.

[Commenter_XY]

A more meaningful gesture on the part of Biden would have been to start a Gofundme site for Cheney and Thompson to pay for the DC lawyers they'll be hiring.

[Kazinski]

That's very kind and considerate of Biden to Honor Liz before she goes to jail(or Biden pardons her) for (ironically) "alter[ing], destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair
the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.'
18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(1). "

[not guilty]

That's very kind and considerate of Biden to Honor Liz before she goes to jail(or Biden pardons her) for (ironically) "alter[ing], destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair
the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.'
18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(1). "

Why would Rep. Cheney need a pardon for conduct as to which the Speech or Debate Clause confers immunity? It applies to activities of Congressional committees and the members thereof, Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975), and legislators acting "in the sphere of legitimate legislative activities . . . should be protected not only from the consequences of litigation's results but also from the burden of defending themselves." Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 85 (1967). The clause confers immunity from criminal prosecution which involves inquiry into acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process and into the motivation for those acts. United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 525 (1972).

Suppose, Kazinski, that you were a United States Attorney prosecuting Rep. Cheney for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1). Pray tell, how would you propose to present such a prosecution without questioning any witness, at trial or before a grand jury: (1) concerning the accused's conduct, or the conduct of her aides, at any meeting of the House January 6 investigating committee; (2) concerning the motives and purposes behind the accused's conduct, or that of committee aides, at any such meeting; (3) concerning communications between the accused and committee aides during the term of their employment and related to any meeting of the committee or any other legislative act of Rep. Cheney; and (4) except as it proves relevant to investigating possible third-party crime, concerning any act, in itself not criminal, performed by Rep. Cheney or by committee aides in the course of their employment, in preparation for any committee hearing? Compare, Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 628-629 (1972).

And if you could surmount the Speech or Debate Clause hurdle, how would you show beyond all reasonable doubt that Rep. Cheney acted corruptly? That mens rea is an essential element of § 1512(c)(1) which you ever so conveniently omit from your truncated quotation of the statutory language.

If law were easily understood by internet randos, then top flight lawyers wouldn't get paid the big bucks.

[Kazinski]

Here is how I would do it, this of course assumes that the investigation substantiates the allegation that she induced Cassidy Hutchinson to falsly change her testimony.

I would get the original FBI interview and identify the diffences with her testimony to Congress, then I would charge Cassidy Hutchinson with either lying to Congress or lying to the FBI, then I would flip her and have her testify against any aides or Congress members that induced her to change her testimony.

Thats how I would do it. There is no immunity for suborning perjury in a committee room, any more than there is immunity for taking a bribe in a committee room.

[Sarcastr0]

"this of course assumes that the investigation substantiates" is quite an assumption considering how many charges you've breathlessly posted here that never amounted to anything.

But which you still believe in!

[not guilty]

Any course of action which necessarily begins by begging the question is highly likely to be bullshit.

[not guilty]

Uh, you specifically referenced 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1), which states:

(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

You then said:

I would get the original FBI interview and identify the diffences [sic] with her testimony to Congress, then I would charge Cassidy Hutchinson with either lying to Congress or lying to the FBI, then I would flip her and have her testify against any aides or Congress members that induced her to change her testimony.

Now please explain how that would prove alteration, destruction, mutilation, or concealment of any record, document, or other object, or any attempt to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding by Rep. Cheney.

VERBS MATTER, doofus.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Under Net Zero, is quality of life higher or lower than now? Does humanity flourish? And by humanity, I mean everyone, not just the bureaucrats and elites.

[Brett Bellmore]

In principle, it's theoretically possible for humanity to survive under Net Zero, and even possibly with a comfortable standard of living. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say "flourish".

The problem is, that doesn't seem to be what the advocates of Net Zero actually WANT.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Their policies are explicitly degrowth for the masses.

And we all know they will exclude themselves from the policies they inflict upon us. They are just too important they'll say then like they do know.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Current internet claims:
- The Las Vegas Terrorist Truck Bomber was a vet who served at Ft. Bragg
- The New Orleans Truck Terrorist was a vet who served at Ft. Bragg. Both got vehicles from Turo.
- Attempted Trump assassin, Ryan Routh also visited Ft. Bragg over 100 times.

The Deep State is making it's move?

[John F. Carr]

Good thing they renamed the base.

[Brett Bellmore]

A LOT of military have served at Ft. Bragg. These two did have overlapping time there. About 15 years ago!

It's possible they kept in contact afterwards; If they did we'll probably find out in coming weeks.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

There is that old saying, there are no coincidences.

[Brett Bellmore]

There are lots of stupid old sayings.

[Don Nico]

As the year begins, I was remembering the "good old days,"
when instead of masked anti-semites wearing kaffiyehs and carrying "gays for Palestine" signs,
we had mellow fellows in saffron robes with finger cymbals signing "Hare Krishna."

[Commenter_XY]

Ah, the good old days in LAX back in the late 70's and early 80's....LOL. I remember.

[Brett Bellmore]

It could get brutal at times.

[Malika]

They signed Hare Krishna? That's quiet interesting.

[Don Nico]

Thanks for the spelling tip.

[Ridgeway]

It was a big tent back then

[Kazinski]

I don't tweet much but the day after the election I X'd:

"First thing Trump should do is call up Starmer, and ask when @TRobinsonNewEra is getting out of jail."

I don't have much of a footprint on X so it didn't get any engagement. but I'm happy to to see Sen. Mike Lee and Elon are starting to make Tommy Robinson an issue, and I hope all of the Britons imprissed for nothing more than peacefully expressing their opinions an issue.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1874676265439072766?t=UbvsHYCTuSdMO_6-wrYSeg&s=19

https://x.com/BasedMikeLee/status/1874704934421365194?t=0juffTNN9sR5sbpAQhf5HQ&s=19

Starmer and Labour need to pay a price.

[Sarcastr0]

Robinson is lying to stoke Muslim resentment.

The labor government has nothing to do with this. It's judicial action. Unless there's something I'm not tracking.

And the UK is a sovereign country.
We allow plenty of other countries do plenty of worse things to freedom.

You want us to intervene in another country's internal affairs in service of this violent, lying, racist piece of shit?
That's what he's in prison for - contempt of court because he put out a fully fictional movie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson#Silenced

Musk fucking sucks, Kaz. He's fucking around in white nationalist circles in Germany and the UK. I won't speculate if the US is far behind for him.
Don't follow his white nationalist-supporting lead like some kind of simpleton tool.

[Kazinski]

So causing Muslim resentment is a crime?

Should causing Christian resentment be a crime too?

18 months for contempt of court is absurd anyway and it is also speech, what does it take to get 18 months for contempt here?

And its not just Tommy Robinson.

Here's a guy who got 2 years for posting on Facebook:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/southport-attacks-daffron-williams-facebook-civil-war-b1194680.html

Cardiff Crown Court heard the posts, made before and after three girls were fatally stabbed at a dance class on July 29, included Williams describing Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, as a “f***ing hero”.

In one post, the day after the incident in Southport, Williams wrote: “Civil war is here. The only thing that’s missing is bullets. That’s the next step."

[Malika]

Of all the political prisoners in the world Musk and Kaz are focused on Robinson?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Maybe the government should publish a list of approved political prisoners, then anyone who veers outside that list can be arrested for illegally interfering with sacred democracy and being an illegal White supremacist nationalist.

[Malika]

That's a lot for just admitting you've no sense of moral proportionality.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Or admitting my morals and your morals don't overlap very much.

Just like mine and your priorities.

[Kazinski]

Well I will tell you why, complaining about political prisoner's in Russia or China does little good, but obviously we should do what we can including sanctions and tarrifs.

But the UK is gradually, and now more suddenly, slipping into an authoritarian government. And the time to focus on that to reverse it is now.

We do have a special bond with the British people, and their fight 3 centuries ago for democracy and freedom of speech and conscience laid the ground for our democracy.

And there is some indications that Starmer maybe politically vulnerable right now just months after they won a landslide election:

61% of Britons say they’re dissatisfied with Keir Starmer, his worst performance as Labour leader
Overall dissatisfaction with the Government remains high at 70%
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/dissatisfaction-starmer-reaches-61-his-highest-labour-leader

We should be grateful to Starmer and Labour for their intervention in the US election, and setting the ground rules:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/17/labour-sends-staff-help-democrats-us-election-kamala-harris/

[ThePublius]

I haven't been following this, but is Robinson in jail for speech alone? Or did he actually physically harm or threaten anyone?

Also, would you have a problem with black nationalists, black racists "fucking around" in black nationalistic circles in the U.S., U.K., or elsewhere? Or is it just white nationalists with whom you have trouble?

[Sarcastr0]

If Farrakhan owned twitter and was throwing round millions of dollars like what Musk is doing, but for black populations, I would indeed have a problem.

Heck, Farrakhan doesn't do any of that and I still think he's a piece of shit.

As for Robinson, he made a movie lies about a refugee kid who was being bullied. It lies about the kid. Like, totally just bullshitting.
The refugee's family to relocate because "the level of abuse the children have received has become too much"

On 22 July 2021, Robinson was found to have libeled the boy and was ordered to pay £100,000 plus legal costs, which were understood to amount to a further £500,000. An injunction was also granted to stop Robinson from repeating the libel.

In the US, you couldn't do an injunction. But that is the level of imposition on liberty we are talking here.
Robinson then made a movie, repeating the defamatory lies. Once again training a ton of white nationalist hate upon a child.

Yeah, in the US he could get away with this, provided you had a way to dodge constant defamation torts.

This is not a poster story for freedom of speech. If anything, it's the opposite. There is no benefit to the public debate for making films that spew hateful bigotry personally targeted at a private child.

It is a cost the US choose to pay to avoid government overreach, but that's the only argument I can come up with for why he shouldn't be in jail for this.

[ThePublius]

Thanks. Yea, it's a difficult situation. In a similar vein Alex Jones was bankrupted for his "No One Died at Sandy Hook." I mean, speech is speech, and I'm an absolutist on that Amendment, as well as the other 9 of the Bill of Rights.

[Sarcastr0]

You think there should be no sanction for defamation?

That's a level of absolutism I've not seen before.

[Bob from Ohio]

He is being put into prison for speech.

Meanwhile, it turns out it the UK there were thousands of rapes of girls and women that the police did nothing about because of the identity of the perps. Seems to me that is a million times worse than one dude slandering somebody.

[Sarcastr0]

Read my comment above. I know it's long, but it might help you engage with the facts other than blind opposition to ze libs.

[Bob from Ohio]

I read them. Long way of saying he's being put into prison for speech.

Care to engage with the total failure of the UK to protect all those girls and women? I imagine you think its ok since you agree that the most important thing is not to hurt Muslim feelings [as per your New Orleans comments].

[Nelson]

“ Care to engage with the total failure of the UK to protect all those girls and women?”

Sure. That’s about the purest strain of whataboutism that exists in nature.

If you’d like to start a thread about this unrelated issue, have at it. But don’t pretend that it has any relevance to the topic at hand.

[Kazinski]

As for Elon Musk supporting "white nationalist" parties in Germany, are they literally Hitler too?

Lot of that going around.

Here is the leader of the "White nationalist" AfD:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Weidel

A lesbian with a Sri Lankan partner with two children?

It gets even worse, pictures at the link:

"Dr Weidel lives with the mother of her two children, Sarah Bossard, in Biel, Switzerland.

She has faced damaging allegations - which she denies - that she employed a Syrian women to work in her house without reporting it to authorities.

The weekly magazine Did evZeit claimed that Weidel employed a student and then a Syrian refugee to work in her house in Biel, Switzerland in 2015."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4917706/Lesbian-mother-two-set-Angela-Merkel.html

Worst Hitler ever.

[Malika]

From the link supplied: "Alice Elisabeth Weidel (born 6 February 1979) is a German politician who has been serving as co-chairwoman of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party alongside Tino Chrupalla since June 2022,[1] though she is considered to be part of the more moderate conservative Alternative Mitte faction within the AfD.[2][3]"

[Kazinski]

Glad you pointed that out that one of the co-chairs (the Lesbian with the Sri Lankan partner) of the AfD is from the moderate wing.

What about the other Co-Chair?

"The German newspaper Die Zeit has characterised Chrupalla as one of the relatively more moderate members of the AfD's faction in the Bundestag."

So both of the leaders are from the moderate wing.

If the AfD keeps selecting "moderates" as the leaders of the party, people might start thinking they aren't actually Nazis, and just anti immigration, and not happy that suddenly in the span of just a decade Germany's foreign born population has jumped to 15%. And the total percentage on non-germans in Germany is 26%.

We just had an anti-illegal immigrant party win an election here too.

[Sarcastr0]

If the AfD keeps selecting "moderates" as the leaders of the party, people might start thinking they aren't actually Nazis, and just anti immigration

Jesus Christ, Kaz.

Soon you'll be goosestepping to show it's just a silly walk.

[Kazinski]

Well I'm not a German, all I know is what the German Electorate thinks about them (they are likely to be the largest party in the next election), and what the German magazines said about them being moderates.

Go ahead quote me some Nazi shit from either of the party leaders,(no nutpicking) and educate me.

[Sarcastr0]

Here's a survey of Musk acting like a child and European politics are toys he wants to break:
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/03/elon-musk-uk-tommy-robinson-starmer

Reform UK is 50-50 on Tommy Robinson, who isn't just anti-immigration, he's anti-Muslim.

As for AfD read the "German Nationalism" section of their wiki:
"Over time, a focus on German nationalism, on reclaiming Germany's sovereignty and national pride, especially in repudiation of Germany's culture of shame with regard to its Nazi past, became more central in AfD's ideology and a central plank in its populist appeals. Petry, who led the moderate wing of the party, said that Germany should reclaim völkisch from its Nazi connotations, while the more right-wing Björn Höcke regularly speaks of the Vaterland ("fatherland") and Volk ("nation" or "people", but with a strong ethnic or racial connotation)."
...
"The AfD supports a ban on kosher slaughter within the country, as well as the "import and sale of kosher meat".
...
"The party has run a billboard campaign that explicitly referenced the far-right Eurabia conspiracy theory."

If you're going to argue this is all folks following Trump, one muse wonder what you think Trump stands for when it comes to white nationalism.

[Bwaaah]

Malika said a "moderate CONSERVATIVE," not a "MODERATE conservative." You're mincing your Hitlers.

[Ed Grinberg]

They've been after this guy for years ... just for talking about things the British establishment doesn't want discussed.
From way back in 2018:
https://www.steynonline.com/8675/tommy-this-an-tommy-that-an-tommy-go-away

[Roger S]

Trump can only pardon the political prisoners in the USA.

[Kazinski]

He can make it painful to hold political prisoners almost anywhere.

[M L]

A bit of good news in medicine.

Some of the Bill Gates researchers have made some progress in the quest for turning mosquitoes into flying vaccine syringes. They have been talking about and working on this for quite a few years so it's good to see their efforts yield some results.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2313892

https://www.theblaze.com/news/mosquito-bites-inject-human-test-subjects-with-parasite-in-study-at-bill-gates-linked-center

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't think that's the good news you think it is.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That is fascinating, thanks for the links!

[Commenter_XY]

So in 17 days, absent POTUS Biden granting a 90-day extension or SCOTUS granting some kind of administrative stay. Bytedance will be forced to divest itself of Tik Tok in the US.

My question is how does a deal even get closed in 17 days?
Haven't we already passed the point of no return?

What happens if neither POTUS Biden nor SCOTUS throw Tik Tok a lifeline?

[Mr. Bumble]

I think Biden is waiting to see what the SC rules.

[Malika]

Won't your guy Trump save it?

[Brett Bellmore]

"My question is how does a deal even get closed in 17 days?"

At a loss, typically. But it's not like they have only had 17 days notice, the law actually got signed last April. No responsible management would have failed to put out feelers at that point just in case.

[SRG2]

There's been more than enough time for the Chinese to set up shell companies with straw buyers, etc. etc. I doubt TikTok will ever have clean ownership

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm sure, and the Harris administration would have been fine with that, but I suspect that the Trump administration wouldn't play along.

Trump may have an interest in shielding internet platforms, given that he owns one, but he's at least not on the take from China.

I'm a bit more concerned about Musk in that regard, he's pretty exposed when it comes to Chinese retaliation.

[SRG2]

he's at least not on the take from China.

One would have thought that had there been evidence that Biden was on the take, a House committee would have found at least enough to leak to a friendly media outlet.

Perhaps China hasn't yet met Trump's price.

[Brett Bellmore]

This presumes the existence of friendly media outlets that you pay any attention to, doesn't it?

Comer Reveals How Joe Biden Received Laundered China Money

[Kazinski]

They probably have a deal ready to go if they need it.

And its probably not good legal.strategy to publicize that fact because it lowers the stakes for the courts.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's starting to look like Today in Supreme Court History has gone the way of Rev. Kirkland.
What will Capt. Dan do?(I know he has been posting cases elsewhere, but it's not the same).
Will it be missed? It normally got very few comments even from the "practitioners" who have complained about the quality of comments.

[SRG2]

To combine a number of threads, can anyone think of companies which would benefit both from very high tariffs on Chinese products specifically, and the continuation of the H1-B visa programme?

[Malika]

MAGAns think *Musk and Trump* are the guys to get tough on China. This, of course, is also the movement of draining the swamp via patronage/nepotism, populism via billionaire cabinets, etc.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Can anyone think of the kind of person who goes to the mat to defend and protect the CCP?

Besides Democrats, the Pentagon, and the State Department?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Would one of those companies also be thrilled about and pushing for VP Trump to end the EV rebate of $7500 because doing so would devastate its competitors?

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, it's great when commercial interests and doing the right thing align.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and Jason should be happy about ending a tax break for the rich.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yes Brett, you're a retarded whore with Musk's jizz all over your face. We know.

Is the hypocrisy and stupidity of your comment evident to you, or does someone with a brain actually need to explain it?

[Mr. Bumble]

"...or does someone with a brain actually need to explain it?"
Well, that leaves you out.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I just thought of this joke: Which member of the Jackson 5 was the most relevant? Jermaine

[Frank Drackman]

Don't make me break out my Stevie Wonder material, it'll put your eyes out!

[Kazinski]

Sarcastro slams Musk above for spending millions on the election and leveraging X, fine.

But lets put that in context of the 2020 election.

A lot has been made about the turnout difference in '24 vs '20, and the number of votes.

The explanation is not fraud, its that Mark Zuckerberg spent 400 million on voter turnout activities in 2020 mostly in Democratic jurisdictions.

Complain about Musk spending all you want but Democrats have their own stable of billionares, and Kamala burnt through 1.5 billion in a few months.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Appeals to hypocrisy don't work on these people. They have no principles or morals even.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't about the US election. That sucks, but he was one element among many. He's increasingly becoming an openly malign influence accross the first world.

He's thinking about spending 100M on the next UK election in favor of Reform.
Parties generally have an entire budget of 70M budget for elections in the UK.

That's not grants towards election infrastructure, as you make a deceitful comparison to, but explicitly in favor of the anti-immigrant right-wing nationalist/populist party.

He's a rich asshole destabilizing democratic governments in the US and Europe in favor of whatever party is the most populist white nationalist through both money and via the platform he runs like his own personal bully pulpit.

[ThePublius]

"He's a rich asshole destabilizing democratic governments in the US and Europe in favor of whatever party is the most populist white nationalist elitist liberal progressive through both money and via the platform he runs like his own personal bully pulpit."

Now we're talking about Zuckerberg, no?

[Kazinski]

Or Gates, or Soros, or all the assholes in Davos.

Or Steve Jobs widow running the Atlantic as her own private smear factory, or Bezo's insane asylum at the WaPo, or Bloomberg spending half a billion in the Democratic primaries in 2020, and with his own business media empire.

Musk didn't make the rules, or set the precedents.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz...What pisses off Sarcastr0 and his fellow travelers is that Team R billionaires beat them at their own game. For that, Sarcastr0 can partly thank Marc Elias, who argued successfully for a change in statutory interpretation in court.

[Sarcastr0]

You're too mired in domestic politics; Zuck is shitty in his own weird ways, but he's not doing anything like Musk.

And Kaz, no there is no paralell to anyone else in what Musk is doing.
This isn't just making donations to Democrats!

Next time some billionare starts flirting with plussing up the LibDems and is named head of their own pretend government agency by a Democratic President in the US we can talk.

[Don Nico]

"but he's not doing anything like Musk."
As a major perpetrator of of the social media scourge, I have no use for Zuck. On balance, he has done a lot worse damage that Musk .

S_0, you're being purposefully blind about the megadonors for team-D.

[Sarcastr0]

1. The fringey parties Musk is hanging with, amplifying the voice of, and talking about donating to, are not the D and R equivalents.

2. Musk is not just donating.

3. US elections are extra expensive. Musk didn't make too much of a dent there. European elections are not the same. The amounts Musk is talking about there would be destabilizing.

He's a child and thinks western democracies are his toy. I have faith in our democracies, but don't care for a powerful child fucking about in them.
Yell about Soros all you want, Musk is openly doing way more than Soros ever did. In Service of levels of extremism Soros never messed with.

[Don Nico]

I never mentioned Soros, S_0. Why do you change the subject. You mentioned Zuckerberg; someone else mention a ridiculous amount spent by Bloomberg (of anti-16 oz soda fame).
Musk has done far more productive things for the US society than Zuck could ever dream of. He has driven innovation in many ways. I get that you don't like his political transformation. But that is the way people are.
You call him a child. But who are you to judge; again you just don't like his politics. I get that. Maybe you think that he is an asshole. You are not alone in that. He is done what many people with great wealth have done for centuries. Put himself close to the center of power.
You and I are never going to be there. but there is no utility in being envious.

[Sarcastr0]

So Soros doesn't count as a megadonor to team D? Come on, Don, I wasn't changing the subject and you know it.

Musk has done far more productive things for the US society than Zuck could ever dream of.
Now who is changing the subject?

I am taking issue with both his methods and his politics.

I don't like white nationalists. You can call that a political difference if you want, but that tells on you more than me.

You REALLY should be against AfD taking power in Germany. Musk thinks they can 'save Germany.' Far right nationalists taking power in Germany? What could go wrong!

In the UK, he's pushing white nationalist conspiracies about policing. And lets not pretend where half of Reform's populism comes from (it's white nationalism).

Do some research on what Musk has done internationally these past couple of weeks before you reflexively oppose what I write.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I never realized how horrible it is for a White person to believe and advocate their government prioritizing its own citizens!

Thats so vile! Whites are so evil! Why arent they prostrating themselves before blacks and the UN and demanding our government take care of other country's citizens first like a good non-racist global citizen!

That's so beyond the pale!!

[Don Nico]

Wow,
Your Distortion Knob is dialed up to High again.
Let's check the dialog.
You: "Yell about Soros all you want..."
Me: "I never mentioned Soros, S_0."
You: "So Soros doesn't count as a megadonor to team D? Come on, Don."
You did change the subject. You attributed to me an opinion that I never stated.
That is dishonest and you do such things all the time.
I don't give a shit about Soros. But you are apoplectic about Musk. Too bad.
Neither man has anything to do with undermining a democracy that does not exist except in your imagination.

[Don Nico]

Here again you moved the goalposts.
"You: "You're too mired in domestic politics; Zuck is shitty in his own weird ways, but he's not doing anything like Musk."
and
"Next time some billionare starts flirting with plussing up the LibDems and is named head of their own pretend government agency by a Democratic President in the US we can talk."
Me: "S_0, you're being purposefully blind about the megadonors for team-D.."
You: "...Musk is not just donating.....He's a child and thinks western democracies are his toy...but don't care for a powerful child fucking about in them."
Me: "He donated more than $2.5B? Really? Give me an accounting."
You:"UK and Germany, my man."

You see other were talking about the US elections and you moved the goalposts across the Atlantic.
To be kind in the New Year, I'll attribute it to careless reading of earlier posts

[Sarcastr0]

Where in your excerpts was I talking about US elections?

[Kazinski]

Don, you really should give S_0 more credit. He's been a model of consistently, don't you remember all the anti-Musk screeds he wrote before he bought X, back when he was giving all his money to Democrats?

Well I don't either, but I'm sure he would have written them if he knew one day Musk would support Republicans.

I realize you and I differ about Trump, but you are honest about what you see, S_0 is only honest about what side he wants to win,.

I have always been to the right (libertarian right) of Trump, so I don't have any viable alternative. But at least I try to be honest about what I see.

[Brett Bellmore]

Zuck laundered massive donations for Democratic party GOTV drives through nominally non-partisan donations to local elections officials who ran the drives out of election offices.

[Sarcastr0]

Do tell.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Now you're pretending you never heard of the Zuckerbucks election stealing controversy?

Have you no shame?

[Kazinski]

NPR says Zuckerberg spent 350 million, but i don't think laundered is the correct term, I think Zuckerberg donated stock, pre capital gains to entities that the coverted it to cash tax free. I have seen numbers that claim 450 million, but I know how sensitive you are about sources so we will go with NPR's figure.

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/943242106/how-private-money-from-facebooks-ceo-saved-the-2020-election

[Brett Bellmore]

The laundering aspect was avoiding having to treat it as the political donation it actually was, and report it as such.

[Sarcastr0]

That didn’t go to the Democratic Party.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess you don't understand how money laundering works.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it went to things the Democratic party would otherwise have to have spend their own money on. GOTV drives in heavily Democratic precincts, run by local election offices.

[Sarcastr0]

Ease of voting isn't a partisan issue, you antidemocratic aristocratic ass.

[Brett Bellmore]

Taking care to only ease voting where it will result in more Democratic votes is damned well a partisan issue.

[Sarcastr0]

So outcome oriented you can't see any benefit to people voting if they vote wrong.

Cities are where all the people are.

[RedheadedPharoh]

You see this gaslighting piece of shit?

Zuckerberg colluding with local governments to drive Democrat voters but not Republican voters is totally okay. Don't be so "outcome oriented" he finger wags as he sniffs his own farts.

Elon Musk however, that's "an openly malign influence accross the first world" and "He's a rich asshole destabilizing democratic governments"

Don't be so outcome oriented, Gaslightr0, he's just educating the masses. How can informed voters be bad for Sacred Democracy?

[Kazinski]

The Labour party was sending 100's of volunteers to help Kamala win, and that's legal.

Musk has companies and factories in the UK and Germany, and its legal for corporations to make contributions at least in the UK.

As long as he follows the law I don't see why its a problem.

[Sarcastr0]

None of it is illegal.

It's just awful.

I don't fucking care where Musk has companies, he's funding white nationalists around the globe!

Quit apologizing for him!

[TwelveInchPianist]

People voting for people you don't like is awful?

[Bob from Ohio]

Harris just set 1 and a 1/2 billion on fire, he still thinks money is decisive.

[Sarcastr0]

I think a donation in excess of what the 2 main parties budget for the entire election is destabilizing.

[RedheadedPharoh]

5 years of silence of Zuckerberg influencing 2020.

Now you complain. Of course, you'd be defending it had the election gone the other way because you, and everyone else in your political tribe, have no integrity or principles other than power and control.

FYI, it's illegal to make a donation of that size. So on top of being a filthy, no integrity, unprincipled economic leech, you're also a liar.

[Don Nico]

He donated more than $2.5B? Really? Give me an accounting

[Sarcastr0]

UK and Germany, my man. I’ve been pretty clearly talking about Europe.

[Mr. Bumble]

You don't "talk" clearly about anything. That's why you're a douche.

[Don Nico]

If those countries permit it. Bully for them.
Both countries have politics that are a mess right now. That was not Musk's fault.
I am not a fan of the AfD. I support the CD in Germany.

[Sarcastr0]

If those countries permit it. Bully for them.

We've learned from past history that's actually very bad.

Especially for Jews.

[Kazinski]

Nobody listens to that white nationalist crap any more.

And its not true anyway, the AfD an indigenous rights party. Stop the racial smears.

[RedheadedPharoh]

He can't. It's one of his magical incantations. He still believes in it's power.

[Sarcastr0]

Nobody listens to that white nationalist crap any more.

No, YOU don't. We'll see where that takes you.

[Kazinski]

They ran it non-stop during the election.

It failed miserably in focus groups, See Mark Halperin's Morning Report focus groups on YouTube.

It convinced 100% of people already convinced, and nobody else.

Its a loser of an argument, for losers.

But I am sure you already know that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"destabilizing democratic governments"

I thought part of democracy is competing parties?

Musk is backing existing political parties, GOP [Trump} and Reform [Farage] and Alliance for Deutschland. So do millions of people.

Its not "destabilizing", its freedom of speech, you just do not like his choices.

Why do you hate freedom?

[Sarcastr0]

Democracy is not supposed to be billionaires buying elections because they can.

And that he's doing it in service of white nationalists...you don't care.
You're a moral void. You'd support anyone if it owned the libs.

[TwelveInchPianist]

By buying elections, you mean attempting to convince people who they should vote for? Why do you hate democracy?

[Bob from Ohio]

"white nationalists"

New left bogeyman. Meaningless playing of the race card.

77 million people voted for Trump. All racists according to you.

[Ska]

New?

[Sarcastr0]

Comparing Trump to the German and UK far right parties is not the master stroke you think it is.

[Kazinski]

Heh.

I don't expect you to get it.

Trumpism is not a Western wide phenomenon, but "We don't believe your crap anymore, that everyone that doesn't go along with your no borders bullshit is a Nazi."

Not working in Greece, Italy, France, Hungary, Netherlands, UK, , Germany, or US.

Everyone sees it except the "I know it looks bad, but we'll call them Nazis and win" crowd.

I don't know whether you are one of the cynics, or dupes, It doesn't really matter.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>Democracy is not supposed to be billionaires buying elections because they can.

2024 election was illegitimate? That's the subtext of your statement.

Are you sitting there harming our sacred democracies by saying our elections, like our vaccines, aren't the safest most securest elections ever in the history of all time elections?

HOW DARE YOU, SIR! HOW DARE YOU

[Don Nico]

"Democracy is not supposed to be.."
Your version of democracy has never exited in the US and I doubt is has existed anywhere except in your imagination.

[Sarcastr0]

This is one guy, Don.

For once in your life read what I'm saying before you slam the post button.

[RedheadedPharoh]

" openly malign influence accross the first world."

lmao wtf

A person who doesn't tow the establishment line is an "openly malign influence"?

Were you one of those Deep State assholes that put together those DoD slides that claimed "criticizing the government" was a sign of a domestic terrorist?

Could you lick the boots of your masters any harder?

[tylertusta]

I think complaints about money spent on elections- in either direction- are entertaining to watch because of how poorly most people understand money and elections. Beyond a minimum threshold for being viable in an election, raising and spending money doesn't matter all that much.

Zuckerberg in 2020 mattered far less than the pandemic, pandemic-era voting rule changes, and an electorate that seemed like it was done with Trump. If I were to place Zuckerberg on a list, he wouldn't even rank the top 10 reasons why Trump lost, and I can only think of 10 reasons.

Elon Musk's spending in the UK might backfire given UK attitudes of elections as being quiet affairs and not the expensive, profligate ruckus that Americans are used to.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree Musk's mucking about might backfire.

Doesn't make it suck less.

[tylertusta]

Actually, it makes it suck a great deal less.

It means that if the Tories win, it won't be because of Musk's money. It'll be because Labour sucks at governing.

[Sarcastr0]

Your might just turned into a will. Risk doesn't work like that.

Moreover, destabilization of a democracy has legacy effects sufficient to be bad in and of itself, even if the final result is unchanged.

[tylertusta]

Labour might go down, but Musk will face consequences regardless of what happens to Labour. This isn't hard.

I find it amusing that you can't conceive that democracy involves more than meekly voting for Democrats or their overseas analogs. Sometimes democracy involves people you don't like asking people to vote for other people you don't like.

If ya'll clutched pearls any harder they'd turn them into diamonds.

[Sarcastr0]

Musk is of a class that does not face consequences.

Lots of people are claiming this is just me not liking any parties that don't agree with me. Bullshit.
I don't like nationalists far right populists winning elections off the back of targeting outgroups, whether immigrants or Muslims or blacks.

I don't care if the kill-the-Muslims party or whatever is popular, I am not going to say they're cool and good. Even if they win elections. Those types are bad for a nation to have in leadership. Similarly, if they start to kill the Muslims I will not shrug and say 'well, the people voted!' There are some actions that are illegitimate even if popular and made legal.

And when nationalist front type assholes win alongside a billionaire childman doing all he can to help those groups, I'm going to call that bad as well.

Historically, you're in the group asking me to calm down as the Nazis warm up the ovens.

[Moderation4ever]

I have noted several news stories reporting on how wind turbines are providing additional income for farmers and reducing their debt. I don't believe that renewable can meet all our energy need by I do believe they have a place and provide significant benefits. Those benefits can be broader than the energy alone.

[Kazinski]

Be nice if the same rules that apply to noise, bird and whale kills, and other environmental laws applied to wind farms same as they apply to everything else.

[Moderation4ever]

You might want to first start applying noise standards to neighborhoods around airports. Wind turbines kill about 700K birds a year, outdoor cats over 2M. And you forget that to mention that windmills cause cancer, even Trump knows that.

[Kazinski]

How many Golden Eagles or Bald Eagles or migratory waterfowl do cats kill? Or Right whales for that matter.

Or whales being killed by pile driving and seismic testing for wind farms off the east coast.

"There have been no studies to date on the direct effects of pile-driving on right whales*. The most equivalent information available is data on the reactions of bowhead whales to airgun shots underwater. The studies suggest that right whales (closely related to the bowhead whale) will avoid airgun shots (similar to the strike of a hammer on a monopile) at a distance of approximately 20 km and sound pressure above 120 dB re 1 μPa (RMS) (Richardson et al. 1999). Given the intensity of source
sound during pile-driving, and the avoidance behavior observed in other large baleen whales (in this
case bowhead) in reaction to underwater airgun noise, the installation of monopiles is of critical concern
to the acoustic environment for right and other large whales, as it will likely cause injury at close
proximities and responsiveness at up to 20 km away.
Pile-driving is of particular concern because it is widely used for turbine base installation and because it
may cause acute negative effects in cetaceans (Madsen et al. 2006). Other activities that may be
associated with the construction of wind turbines include: drilling, dredging, gravity support structure
installation, rock laying, trenching, and turbine support structure installation. There is insufficient
information to document the source noise from gravity support structure installation, rock laying, trenching, and turbine support structure installation. The noise data associated with pile-driving, drilling and dredging activities are summarized from Nedwell & Howell (2004) in Table 1"

https://capecodcommission.org/resource-library/file/%3Furl%3D/dept/commission/team/Website_Resources/dcpc/Whales_and_Sound_KS_PCCS.pdf

*This is spun as 'no evidence' by factcheck.org despite the rather convincing indirect evidence.

[Moderation4ever]

Again, a smaller percentage that other reasons for death of eagles. Why not start at poisonings, gun shots, and vehicle trauma.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Good to see you on board with whale protection. Where and how often have you engaged on the topic? What whale-protection groups get your donations?

What is it about renewable energy that makes MAGA types want to prevent it? Are they really all fossil fuel investors? WTF is going on with this crap?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't want to prevent renewable energy. I want to prevent unreliable energy with a low EROEI and high cost per KWH.

Unfortunately, that's a good description of most energy sources that get labeled "renewable". Not all, of course: Hydropower is pretty good.

But take solar, for instance: In order to make solar as reliable as nuclear, you'd need 12-16 hours of storage for full demand to compensate for the time the sun is near the horizon or below it, and about a 7 fold over-build to deal with periods of extremely low insolation due to weather and season. By the time you've done that, solar is insanely expensive.

Wind? It doesn't even have the daily regularity solar does!

Which is why it's usually proposed, sotto voce, to just have people get used to routine blackouts.

And, why wouldn't you call nuclear "renewable"? Extraction of nuclear fuel from the ocean has now been proven out at an excellent productivity, and the sea isn't going to run out of uranium and thorium until plate tectonics stops throwing up new mountains to erode into the sea. Which is scheduled to happen some time after the Sun becomes a red giant and swallows the Earth.

Can't get much more renewable than that.

[Absaroka]

One never knows what directions technology will go in the future, but it's not a one or the other thing, even though partisans on either side seem to look at it that way.

On a micro scale, lots of off grid folks have solar (and sometimes wind) with 24 to 48 hours of storage, plus a small generator for extended periods of low sun. That is cheaper than either running a generator 7x24, or putting in enough batteries for 99.9% uptime.

I'm not saying grid scale economics are the same, just that it's not an either/or thing.

[Bwaaah]

Good practical model that would work well for many suburban/rural dwellers. As you indicate, that's already happening as a result of sensible opportunism.

But there's not much there that an ideological zombie (read: "partisan") could sink his teeth into. Try to focus on one way, dig in your heels, and seethe contempt for all others. Focus less on solving energy problems, and more on building an ideological coalition.

Speaking politically, your model is a non-starter. Speaking pragmatically, politics is loaded with dumbass narrow-minded advocacy.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Wind? It doesn't even have the daily regularity solar does!

Which is why it's usually proposed, sotto voce, to just have people get used to routine blackouts."

Yet another completely fabricated piece of stupidity by the Idiot King.

[Mr. Bumble]

I see you're pinch hitting for Il Douche this morning.

[Bwaaah]

I'd call him "Il Douche II," but there was already too much of a problem distinguishing the "I"s from the "L"s.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/05/dunkelflaute-cut-wind-power-generation-germany-uk/

[ThePublius]

In the long term, in the time context of the lifetime of conventional power plants, solar and wind DO NOT provide significant benefits. It is much more expensive over the long haul, and during its deployment life cycle provides far less reliable energy. It is much more harmful to the environment, considering what it's made of and how its ultimately disposed of (i.e., very little of it is recyclable). It has much higher human misery cost in the mining of necessary materials with which its produced. It only "works" when government mandates it and subsidizes it, and it NEVER results in lower energy costs and higher reliability for consumers compared to conventional power plants.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sadly, farmers are not going to be able to build and operate conventional power plants to offset their debt any time soon...

[M L]

Why not hire people to dig holes and fill them back in as well. By hand.

[Brett Bellmore]

But the only way it can do that is if the wind turbines are extensively subsidized. There are very few places indeed where wind turbines make any economic sense without subsidies.

Admittedly farmers aren't unacquainted with that game, but I don't see why the rest of us should play it.

[Mr. Bumble]

The same is true of solar applications.

[SRG2]

And oil, though the subsidy there, insanely expensive that it is, is indirect.

[Brett Bellmore]

The subsidy of oil, when you look into it, is usually just that it's not taxed as heavily as the people saying it's subsidized think it should be.

[SRG2]

No. I am referring to the indirect subsidy that is the US's foreign policy and military expenditures that arise from oil dependence.

[ThePublius]

That doesn't make an awful lot of sense. The US protects trade routes and strategic choke points all over the world for many more reasons than oil. Would you consider that the U.S. is subsidizing Chinese goods, Russian grain, and so on?

It's not a subsidy.

[SRG2]

It's a subsidy because consumers don't pay the full economic cost of oil and the gap between what they do pay and what the US government pays to protect that supply is a subsidy. You may not have thought about it like that before - and one or two people seem incapable of thinking, full stop - but in economics terms it is an indirect subsidy.

Indeed, many products are thus indirectly subsidised, but none remotely to the extent that oil is. We don't have a long-running foreign policy significantly affected by which countries produce steel, we didn't go to war to protect silk imports, etc.

[Bwaaah]

It's a subsidy because you redefined the word "subsidy" to fit your nonsense economic narrative, as if words and mere semantics were the problem with your thinking.

Yours is just more of the b.s. language arts, like "gender," and "systemic," and "equity," and "coup," and "diversity." At the end of your thesis, there is no intrinsic meaning left to your words.

Try to consider language as being a mechanism to share common understandings, and not just another way to swing your impulsive dick.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If you get to define "subsidy", you get to win that argument every time...

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, being able to control the definition will get you a win every time.

[SRG2]

Yes, but I am not providing a peculiar definition. I am providing a generally unconsidered one.

[Brett Bellmore]

You are using a definition of "subsidy" under which a product which is a massive net source of tax revenue can be "subsidized".

[Moderation4ever]

We spent a lot of time in 2024 talking about radicalization on the college campuses, but the perpetrators in NOLA and Vegas were army soldiers. I think we need to be careful about radicalization that can occur in any group of people.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

We spent a lot of time in 2024 talking about radicalization on the college campuses, but the perpetrators in NOLA and Vegas were army soldiers.

That's because were treated to display of radicalization on campuses on a more-or-less daily basis via news coverage of protests and generally ass-hattery on them. What's happening at military installations and among military personnel out of view of the cameras, not so much. But yeah, it's clearly a significant issue as well.

[Bob from Ohio]

The military is worried about phantom right wing violence, not actual terrorist acts. Wrong perps, like in the UK rape scandal.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, like the UK, this was engineered by politicians, it didn't arise spontaneously. Democratic administrations have been hard at work any time they can, reengineering the military into something that, while it might not be any good for it's nominal purpose of defending the country, might actually be willing to be used against the left's political enemies.

[David Nieporent]

To quote Judge Haller to Vincent Laguardia Gambini, "Are you on drugs?"

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm just not ignoring the massive investment in political commissars/DEI, and politically purging the officer corps.

Biden Administration Orders Ideological Purge Of U.S. Military Academies

You're literally more likely to be kicked out of West Point for being a conservative, now, than for being a communist.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Get your news from more trustworthy sources that don't saturate themselves with blatant partisan bias and bullshit.

It's no wonder that you come here with such retarded hot takes and conspiracy theories when your media diet consists of that kind of trash.

[Sarcastr0]

You're literally more likely to be kicked out of West Point for being a conservative

Word?

[David Nieporent]

Let's pretend that the Federalist is a legitimate news source. Even so, the article doesn't support the headline and the headline doesn't support your claim.

You have turned a story about Biden replacing some political appointees to the board of visitors — I mean, Sean Spicer, Kellyanne Conway, and Russ Vought aren't exactly apolitical career military types, now are they? (You may remember Vought from the Project 2025 that you and Trump pretended wasn't Trump's) — with "politically purging the officer corps," which you then further loony-toonily described as making the military into something that "might actually be willing to be used against the left's political enemies."

No support for any of that anywhere in this reality.

You're literally more likely to be kicked out of West Point for being a conservative, now, than for being a communist.

And by "literally" you mean "I am completely and utterly full of shit and have zero basis whatsoever for this claim."

[Sarcastr0]

Good thing you had that 'might' there. Otherwise, it'd be disinformation!

You jumped from 'military includes DEI now' to 'Democrats are planning a military attack on their political opposition.'

How is this not a lie, Brett? How in the world would you think people wouldn't think you were a crazy person when you type that kinda stuff?
This is manifesto material. Don't generate manifesto material.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Misfire

[Michael P]

Freddie de Boer makes some good points in his latest post, at https://open.substack.com/pub/freddiedeboer/p/that-one-side-would-like-to-utterly . For example, I wonder which group our resident wokists fall into:

There’s a core of true-believers who do {think that social justice politics as currently composed are healthy or just or likely to result in tangible positive change}, and there’s a group of those who profit directly from the hegemony of social justice politics in elite spaces. (The former two groups have some overlap, but it’s not a perfect circle.) There’s conservative critics, who are both the most natural targets of social justice ire and yet those the social justice movement seem least interested in targeting. There’s an island of misfit toys of left and leftish critics of social justice politics like me. And then there’s the great big mass of people who are just scared.

But he's very wrong when he says two related things, by saying "substantively-conservative identity neoliberalism" and later that getting somebody fired over advocacy (at least "in a world where you have to work to eat") "can never be an authentically progressive or left-wing action". The identity leftists are reactionary rather than conservative, and in particular they are acting to re-impose very authentically left-wing governance structures like those of 1950s communism through to the Khmer Rouge.

[M L]

Bernie Sanders is one hundred percent correct here:

Elon Musk is wrong.

The main function of the H-1B visa program is not to hire “the best and the brightest,” but rather to replace good-paying American jobs with low-wage indentured servants from abroad.

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2025/01/02/sen-bernie-sanders-elon-musk-is-wrong-on-h-1b-middle-class-outsourcing/

[Sarcastr0]

I feel like ML spends all his time reading Breitbart.

[Commenter_XY]

There is some truth to what Senator Sanders and Elon Musk are saying wrt H-1B visas. Both can be accommodated by a stricter interpretation of regulatory statutes that govern the program. The statutes give lots of discretion to the Fed government bureaucrats administering the program.

We can interpret the current statutes in such a manner as to 'skim the cream' from other countries, and not the dross.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thought about the foreign policy implications of a cream-skimming/dross-leaving policy might prove wise. Folks concerned about arrogant elites might even worry about domestic implications. It might turn out that multiplication of Musk-type political activity would not be what anti-elitists really prefer. Just speaking for my own dross-like concerns, I would prefer to see cream/dross attributions out of government policy hands.

[David Nieporent]

Horseshoe theory strikes again!

[John F. Carr]

Last year I talked about the potential for a constitutional standoff if the House held a Biden administration official in contempt using its inherent power. The House has the ability to lock up a reluctant witness. The House has to get its hands on the witness first. The executive branch security team might prevent the legislative branch from taking the official into custody. That scenario is happening in Korea this week. The impeached president's security detail is preventing him from being arrested.

[Mr. Bumble]

Forgive me but I lost my score card; is that the president who declared martial law or the acting president?

[John F. Carr]

The president who declared martial law has an arrest warrant. The warrant is valid until January 6. I like the fact that warrants expire. In America you can be arrested on a decades-old warrant that the authorities forgot to cancel.

[Martinned2]

Given how many Trumpists on this blog have some combination of Keir Starmer Tourette's and taking everything Trump and Musk write on Twitter as gospel, I thought it might be useful to share this article, where the (far right) prime minister of Italy explains how great Starmer is: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/03/far-right-italian-pm-giorgia-meloni-says-she-is-in-tune-on-many-issues-with-keir-starmer

As they say, YMMV

[Mr. Bumble]

I see Meloni being politically polite in this piece.

[John F. Carr]

There's a new TikTok felony fad. Young people are trying to act out "To Catch a Predator" by confronting men showing up for a date with a young woman. Young in the case in my local news means 18, which is not illegal. The man got beat up, held captive, and called a pedophile anyway. Which is assault, kidnapping, and conspiracy. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/01/02/metro/assumption-college-catch-a-predator-students-charged-tinder-tiktok/

Previous viral felonies include arson and bank fraud. The "penny challenge," shorting out a plug with a coin, was held to be arson by Massachusetts courts. Check kiting was always a felony.

[ThePublius]

Article is paywalled.

[John F. Carr]

https://www.wcvb.com/article/assumption-students-charged-fake-predator-plot/63324959

Police the five students behind the attack invited the victim with the sole purpose of framing him as a sexual predator trying to meet underage girls. Only, police say, there was no predator to be caught, and this was all based on lies.

[David Nieporent]

New York judge upholds Donald Trump’s hush-money conviction, schedules sentencing for Jan. 10

So much for all the cope by the MAGA nuts here about how Merchan was going to dismiss the case because it was so obviously flawed. Or about how Trump wasn't "really" a felon because he hadn't been sentenced. Also so much for the conspiracy theorizing about how he was going to refuse to sentence Trump so that the case would hang over Trump's head w/o Trump being able to appeal it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You forgot to put scare quotes around "sentence".

[David Nieporent]

It will be nothing more than a slap on the wrist, to be sure — but a first-time, near octogenarian non-violent offender (in this case, anyway) was never going to prison.

[TwelveInchPianist]

From the article:

"He said he plans to order an “unconditional discharge,” a designation in New York criminal courts for a non-jail and non-probation sentence that carries no other obligations."

[Commenter_XY]

David, in your experience, how often does a Judge apply an unconditional discharge where punishment serves no purpose. I have never heard of that, is that just a NY thing? Have you ever gotten a client an unconditional discharge?

[Brett Bellmore]

How often is a Judge dealing with a defendant who's almost certainly going to be acquitted eventually on appeal, where the judge is just trying to get a guilty verdict onto the record to smear them?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You idiots are a cancer America needs to purge.

[David Nieporent]

The guilty verdict came from the jury, not the judge, and Trump is not going to be acquitted on appeal.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Merchan also revealed he is unlikely to jail Trump, 78, and could give him an 'unconditional discharge.'

That means Trump would not have to pay any fines or serve any probation. He had been potentially facing up to four years behind bars.

Merchan wrote that it was the 'most viable solution to ensure finality' while also allowing Trump to continue his appeal."
From the Daily Mail (your link is paywalled).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14248485/trump-sentenced-hush-money-case-january-10.html
Will this case survive appeal?

[David Nieporent]

Not only is Donald Trump a whiny little bitch, but he's a pathetic, lying whiny little bitch. He whined on TruthSocial [sic] that the flags would be at half staff for his inauguration. That's petty and pathetic enough, but to make himself out to be even more of a victim, he whined that it was the first time a president ever had to deal with that. Worst part is, it isn't even true; they were at half staff for Nixon's second inaugural because Truman had recently died.

[MoreCurious]

That's pretty much what I would expect from a convicted felon, serial philanderer, and adjudicated sexual assaulter. The next four years are going to be fun as the voters see just how much worse he can be now that there are no restrictions on him.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

In your universe no one changes. Once bad, always bad.
You are too dumb to realize who you are really insulting.
Can you really say Kamala is brilliant with a straight fact? My money is on "yes, you can"

[David Nieporent]

Commenter who can't figure out how to use the "Reply" feature has thoughts.

[MoreCurious]

Can you really say that Donald Trump has suddenly turned into a good person? If I understand you correctly, you're perfectly okay with your president being a convicted felon, serial philanderer, and adjudicated sexual assaulter. Is that what you're going to teach your kids and grandkids?

[Paul Elliott]

What is a reputable source of legal insurance? Never had a legal problem. No Prior conditions as they call it.