Midweek Midday Open Thread

Experimenting with a new time for an open thread; hope you folks enjoy it!

Comments

[SRG2]

Can we agree that Trump seizing Greenland by force would be indefensible?

[ducksalad]

You mean aside from it being morally repugnant, legally invalid, and not even useful on its own terms, since the Danes already let us have bases there?

I suppose if Trump and the neocons like Rubio he is installing in key positions absolutely insist on doing some invasion somewhere to prove their national manhood, Greenland would be less disastrous than doing Canada or Iran.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yup.

[David Nieporent]

Can we agree that Trump seizing Greenland by force would be indefensible?

Have you met Trumpkins? Trump underestimated them when he said that he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and it wouldn't cost him any votes. The truth is, Trump could shoot someone on 5th avenue and they would fall all over themselves to praise him for it.

They would absolutely defend Trump seizing Greenland by force.

[Mr. Bumble]

Where and when has Trump stated he would use military force to seize Greenland. His first comments were an offer to buy it (as Harry Truman had done 70 years ago).

[ducksalad]

He hasn't promised he'd use force, nor did anyone here claim he's said it.

What he has done - as I think you know - is give an explicit and unambiguous "no" when asked if he would rule out using military force to accomplish the transfer.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-refuses-to-rule-out-military-force-to-acquire-greenland-and-the-panama-canal/ar-AA1x7Q7h?ocid=BingNewsSerp

So he's left it as an option on the table, and it's completely normal for us to discuss and share opinions on whether a major foreign option proposed by the POTUS-elect are a good idea.

So, Mr. Bumble, do you think using military force to take Greenland is a good option?

[Mr. Bumble]

No. I'd prefer trading California for Greenland.

[ducksalad]

I believe the Greenlanders and Danes would only accept the deal if they got California without the current inhabitants.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or at least Gavin Newsom.

[VinniUSMC]

He said "no" to a question about using economic or military coercion. Not military force.

[Nelson]

Military coercion isn’t military force? What are they going to do, shout loudly?

[Mr. Bumble]

The question conflated two separate things.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

We have seen that you don't have to be Trump to have people support you if you murder people in midtown Manhattan.

I agree with you generally.

[Krayt]

The whole thing seems to be poking at the hyperbolist commentators on the other side, who know better, but are trying to lead Outrage Cruscade #78.

Having said that, "Maga people there!" does ape the "gotta save my ethnic peeps there!" ala Putin and Hitler.

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

Nobody knows what you mean.

[bernard11]

Begging the question, Krayt.

Once you declare that those you disagree with are "hyperbolists" you've locked in the conclusion that they are wrong.

[Kazinski]

Did Trump shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it?

Sure I have a list of suggestions for him, but if its anyone not on my list I would indeed think he should be held accountable.

[VinniUSMC]

Thanks Dave, for that epic display of dipshittery.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

FFS, Neiporent...take your damned meds.

[Frank Drackman]

You mean liberating it from the Danes? and we already have an Air Farce Base there.
Ex-squeeze me, SPACE Farce.

Frank

[ThePublius]

Trump hasn't said he'd seize it, he said he wanted to purchase it.

Interesting: why does Denmark 'own' Greenland?

[ducksalad]

What he's said is he'd prefer to purchase it, but will not rule out seizing it as an option.

[Mr. Bumble]

You do realize that pre-emptively ruling things out you limit your options and bargaining power?

[SRG2]

That's the rationalisation of thuggery.

[ducksalad]

Like threatening to shoot someone and take their wallet if they don't agree to hand over voluntarily, and then characterize it as "bargaining power".

[ducksalad]

Yes. That's how the Sudetenland was taken without a fight.

[Bob from Ohio]

A settler-colonial seizure from the peaceful natives.

[Krayt]

The denizens get a lot of money from Denmark, IIRC. So if the offer is good...

[Bob from Ohio]

100K per resident? 56 billion. Cheap.

[Krayt]

Yeah but what for? Is there tons of oil like Akaska, which nobody knew at the time?

The Loisiana Purchase? Tons of farmland and timberland and desirable expansion land. Not so a giant subcontinent that's more like a gigantic circular archipelago without the ice.

Denmark already allows US bases as part of NATO.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, actually, there are tons of oil, like Alaska, as well as a lot of other mineral resources.

[Krayt]

Sell the rights. Unless the "get in the way" crowd is holding court.

[Bob from Ohio]

"other mineral resources"

Rare earths and uranium.

[Mr. Bumble]

What for?
This:
So America needs Greenland for both national security and economic security. Is there any truth to this? Absolutely. Clingendael Research, a Dutch think tank that produces “state-of-the-art analyses and policy research in international affairs for governments, businesses and NGO's,” reported that “in 2018, the People’s Republic of China published its first Arctic strategy, claiming that the Middle Kingdom is a ‘near-Arctic state.’” It added that “it is quickly becoming clear that China has built a geostrategic presence in the Arctic that is not to be sniggered at. It is already reshaping circumpolar politics in fundamental ways.”

The report detailed intense Chinese activity in Greenland beginning in 2005 and noted that “the void created when Greenland was given greater autonomy [in 2009] from central authorities in the Kingdom of Denmark and subsequently left the EEC was happily filled by China. Even though the Kingdom of Denmark remains responsible for foreign policy and defence, Greenland can now conclude international agreements with foreign states on its own. This raises issues for both the Kingdom of Denmark and the EU.” Yet “While the Arctic rises in geopolitical and geo-economic significance, the EU has been slow to reconsider its strategic interests.”
https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2025/01/07/okay-trump-is-serious-about-acquiring-greenland-and-the-game-is-heating-up-n4935764

[hobie]

You should have attended public schools, Bob. A fair value for Greenland has been proposed as $1.2T. With an estimated 58,000 inhabitants that would be about $20M per inhabitant.

I used to say here that no way would Greenlanders sell out their patrimony at any price. But who would turn down $20M? Even Trump would sell out America for $20M

[David Nieporent]

Trump would sell out America for $20.

[hobie]

I doubt Putin ever paid him a cent

[Careless]

So... when did David get like this?

At least don't go full Ken White on us. It's a dark path

[VinniUSMC]

Trump broke him. Maybe he had a stroke, or an aneurysm, or a severe concussion as well.

[VinniUSMC]

I would sell Dave out for a Klondike Bar.

[Stella Link the dog]

Throw in American citizenship and the Los Angeles Dodgers and an additional $1 trillion to Denmark's monarch (whoever that might be) to be used to Make Denmark Great Again and maybe you'd have a deal.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Moe, Larry and Curly.

[hobie]

Well, women in both Greenland and Denmark have full reproductive freedoms. They might not be so keen on the idea of our style of democracy...oh, wait...we're not a democracy

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

Do you ever give YOUR opinion?
I guess calling killing a baby freedom is a clue.
THe question for a woman is, Does Greenland and Denmark help a woman keep her baby when being railroaded into government-sponsored abortion. YOu must be a male, only a stupid clueless make would call no-choice-to-keep-a-baby "Freedom"

[Bob from Ohio]

"You should have attended public schools, Bob."

Public grade school, junior high, high school, college, law school

" A fair value for Greenland has been proposed as $1.2T."

Proposed by whom?

I'm not talking "fair" anyway, I'm talking enough to get a majority to approve it.

[Roger S]

Denmark does not own Greenland. That was just a useful fiction that is not useful anymore. We should rename it Trumpland, in honor of the President who saw its value.

[hobie]

Sure. It's fair for any native nations to question why some foreigners claim ownership of their lands.

[Martinned2]

Why does the US 'own' Hawaii?

[Commenter_XY]

No, lol.

[bernard11]

You think it would defensible? Really?

[Commenter_XY]

You know that Pres Trump is just screwing with you (and uber-libs like you), right? And you fall for it every time, bernard11. Did you learn nothing from 45's stream of consciousness governing style? How quickly you forgot.

Suppose China invaded Greenland. America is bound by treaty to defend them and seize it by force. Pretty remote possibility of China invading (one hopes), but a possibility nonetheless.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nobody here is surprised that you're too idiotic to realize that he is also causing damage to our partners, friends, and allies. By extension, his stupidity and you dumb fucks supporting him are causing harm to our foreign policy and our national security.

But hey - who cares about global consequences and risking America's security if you chucklefucks can get a good laugh!

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

Jason,
India and China already loathe our guts. All that overlooking of organ harvesting and Falun Gong torture, internment of Uyghurs ---fro what? Limits on coal

CHINA
China's growing use of coal including the LONGEST coal transporting railway - which carries 200 MILLION tons of fossil fuel 1,141 MILES annually - draws pundit outrage as western nations spend BILLIONS to push citizens to reduce carbon footprint
A Scottish journalist highlighted the incongruity between the green initiatives coming from Western countries and those coming from China
China is responsible for 33 percent of the world's greenhouse gas, but continues to power itself by coal and establish itself as a global superpower
In the US, the Biden Administration continues to propose tens of billions of dollars be allocated to green initiatives that may or may not be effective

INDIA
India now consumes more coal than Europe and North America combined
To meet rapidly growing energy demand, it plans to boost domestic coal production from 982 million tonnes to more than 1.5 billion tonnes by 2030, according to the coal ministry.Sep 18, 2024

You are just another gullible Pollyanna

[hobie]

Screwing everyone is always a good trait in a president

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Commenter_XY: screwing with you

hobie: screwing everyone

Being a dishonest piece of shit...especially an inept one, like you...isn't a good trait in anyone.

[Michael P]

This is pretty much where I am. I think seizing it by force would be wrong, but somebody could find some (probably weak) basis to defend it as a devil's advocate. I think the strategic ambiguity is what Trump really wants.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree = strategic ambiguity

Pres Trump is a disruptor. Why do these uber-libs think he got elected? Pres Trump is doing exactly what the people who voted for him want him to do.

He has not even been sworn in, yet. And they are losing their minds, LMAO.

[bernard11]

What "strategic ambiguity?"

it's an outright threat, no matter that XY thinks Trump was just fooling around. Why anger a peaceful neighbor?

[bernard11]

What do I fall for? Trump is fully capable of doing any stupid thing. Why shouldn't I believe him when he says he has another one in mind.

Also, XY, if you think I'm an "uber-lib," you are wrong. There's plenty of stuff the more progressive types favor that I don't. Of course to you, ant critic of Trump is "an enemy of the people."

Then too, you have no way to know when Trump is serious, so spare me the "it's just talk" excuse. Not to mention that spreading this kind of crap might help a real estate operator (and Trump needed all the help he could get) accomplish something. But the words of a President-elect carry heavier weight, and are going to be taken seriously, with who knows what consequences and what detriment to the country.

The person falling for Trump's BS is you, not me. You defend it, swallow it, all uncritically. Whatever the man does, you're behind him. It's shameful.

[Commenter_XY]

It will be a very long four years, bernard11. Pace yourself. 😉

[Martinned2]

Let's hope it'll only be four years.

[Commenter_XY]

Pres Trump has been pretty clear about 'this is it' (meaning this term, or running for office again if he had lost). He probably has some more personally important issues, post-presidency; grandchildren, for instance.

[Martinned2]

...staying out of prison...

There are plenty of other would-be Trumpist presidents. If the century so far has taught me anything, it's that things can always get worse.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If the century so far has taught me anything

If your commenting has taught us all anything it's that you never learn.

[bernard11]

Did you learn nothing from 45's stream of consciousness governing style? How quickly you forgot.

I learned that it's a lousy way to govern, all the more so when the person doing the governing is an ignorant fool, a liar, and a thief.

No. I haven't forgotten.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I learned that it's a lousy way to govern

Was it? You do recall that until Covid hit (which is looking more and more like it was courtesy of people you defend, like Fauchi and his cronies) things were doing quite well under the Trump admin.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No more than seizing Robert E Lee's home.

[Joe_dallas]

Oft forgotten piece of history.

Current home of Arlington national cemetary

[Stella Link the dog]

Forgotten? Not by anyone who know anything about the history of the Civil War.

[MoreCurious]

What did Robert E. Lee ever do for us?

[Mr. Bumble]

Served honorably in the US Army especially during the Mexican-American War, served a Commandant of West Point for three years....

[MoreCurious]

And then . . .?

[Dr. Ed 2]

They took it the day that Virginia voted to secede -- didn't even wait to see the results counted.

Stand on the front doorstep of his house on a sunny summer day, as I have, and look at DC down across the river. Imagine what a battery of cannons in his dooryard could have done to DC...

[Stella Link the dog]

"The federal government confiscated the Arlington plantation in 1863 after Mary Anna Randolph Custis Lee, the wife of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, failed to pay property taxes in person."

"In 1882, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had unlawfully confiscated Arlington House and ordered the government to compensate the Lees. The court found that the tax sale was improper and that suit against the federal officers was proper."

It was Montgomery Meigs, a great American, about as responsible as anyone for the good guys winning the Civil War, who made the decision to put the cemetary in Robert Lee's front yard -- a quite fitting gesture which pretty much guaranteed that the Lees would never occupy the property again.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Congress abided by the Supreme Court ruling, and returned the estate to [George Washington Custis] Lee. By this time, however, Lee was less interested in obtaining the property than in receiving cash compensation for it. On March 3, 1883, Custis Lee sold it back to the U.S. government for $150,000"

[David Nieporent]

They took it the day that Virginia voted to secede

Another Dr. Edism!

[hobie]

Do you think Ed fantasizes about going back in time with modern weaponry, handing them over to Lee with a Dr. Ed salute and the condition he be regimented into the rebel army

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, what the US Parks Service teaches.

[Josh R]

The aqueduct?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?

[wreckinball]

Alex I'll take things not happening for a $1000. But yes agree.

[Riva]

Can we agree that Greenland is strategically important for the national and economic security of the US? Can we agree that other presidents have also sought to acquire Greenland? Can we agree that you clowns misinterpret and overreact like frightened children when President Trump speaks?

[Roger S]

Yes, Greenland is important, and Trump should acquire it. Greenland cannot take care of itself, and Denmark cannot manage it either. Denmark is too proud to admit it. The best solution is for USA control.

[SRG2]

The US has no right to Greenland. Why can't the UK or Canada acquire it, if, as you claim - unevidenced - neither Denmark nor Greenland can manage it.

How about asking Greenlanders to vote on a plebiscite? See where they want to go.

1930s Rudiger S: we need lebensraum!

[Roger S]

Greenlanders? There are only about 50,000 of them. They are insignificant, and cannot control the island.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So… who is controlling it right now?

[Don Nico]

SRG,
It would be okay for Canada to acquire Greenland as long as the US acquires Canada.

[SRG2]

Can we agree that you clowns misinterpret and overreact like frightened children when President Trump speaks?

No. Trump says something thuggish or moronic. Posters here point out that it's thuggish or moronic. Trump supporters here claim that he didn't mean it or he didn't actually say it. Trump clarifies that he meant it. We say, told you it was thuggish or moronic. Trump supporters now claim it's merely a negotiating tactic, or smart, or a sign of Trump's "strength" and that the rest of us don't get it, our heads are exploding, we have TDS.

Rinse, repeat.

[Riva]

Yeah, rinse, repeat. The same childish TDS rants, the same overreaction and dismissal of everything President Trump says as thuggish or moronic. You’ll never learn. Good. This way you’ll stay in the minority where your party can do no more harm to the country.

[SRG2]

Not my party. I'm a registered independent.

The point remains - when Trump says something thuggish or moronic, you approve.

[Riva]

No the problem is that you ignorantly and reflexively characterize everything President Trump says as thuggish or moronic.

And independent? Right. How many republicans do you vote for?

[David Nieporent]

He's got you there, SRG2; it's not fair to characterize everything Trump — there is no "President Trump" — says as "thuggish or moronic." Most of it is thuggish and moronic.

[BrotherMovesOn]

I always ascribed it a feminine persona, not solely from its name, which is in the feminine form, but because of the tone. Like a scolding schoolmarm of yore.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't like women or don't like girlie men?

[Riva]

I'm content to be disliked by two such monumental a-holes. I'd be very upset if I agreed with you hack trolls on anything, which is not likely because, well, you're a-hole trolls.

[hobie]

Greenland might be important in about 40 years when all the glaciers have melted. Right now you can't get at much of its shit. Whereas there's tons of rare earth claims in the USA right now. How about buying all that out and working it? I guess not enough endorphin-producing, societal chaos in propping up American mining

[Swede425]

He won't have to.

[VinniUSMC]

Can we agree that Trump seizing Greenland by force would be indefensible?

Yup.

[Riva]

Well, I’ll agree that Greenland couldn’t defend itself.

[Voize of Reazon]

He has to pull out of NATO first.
Article 5 covers Greenland, and doesn't have an exception for armed attacks by other NATO members, so if the US attacks Greenland it will be obligated to defend against itself, taking

such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

[SRG2]

He has to pull out of NATO first.

What mechanism would effectively stop him?

[Voize of Reazon]

The embarrassment and moral conflict of having a treaty duty to use the US military to repel an attack by the US military?

[Martinned2]

That's a funny joke!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Can we agree that Trump seizing Greenland by force would be indefensible?"

Sure. Now Diego Garcia, that's different.

[gVOR08]

Denmark is a member of NATO, so, morality aside, if we attack Greenland we're obligated to defend Greenland.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ Can we agree that Trump seizing Greenland by force would be indefensible?”

After the whole Danegeld thing? It’s the least we could do.

[Martinned2]

The Trumpist majority in the House Foreign Relations Committee explained it all on Twitter:

Our country was built by warriors and explorers. We tamed the West, won two World Wars, and were the first to plant our flag on the moon.

President Trump has the biggest dreams for America and it's un-American to be afraid of big dreams.

There was a graphic and everything, but for some reason they took it down.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, Monday and Wednesday, or just Wednesday?

[John F. Carr]

Maybe it's supposed to be a surprise.

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess we'll know one way or the other next week.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or maybe by tomorrow if there is no Thursday open thread.

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe M, W, and Thurs.

[Mr. Bumble]

Since it's the most popular feature, maybe everyday.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm guessing one thread, on Wednesday.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think we all overlooked "Mid-day" as opposed to 3:00 AM.

[Life of Brian]

Hope you're right. It'd be nice to get involved in discussions earlier on instead of waking up to 200+ posts from Europeans/insomniacs.

[John F. Carr]

In free speech news:

A fired Boston Police Department sergeant is suing over her termination. She was fired after leading anti-vaccination mandate protests outside the mayor's house. (The mayor later banned protests outside her house.) She was on Mayor Wu's enemies list, an actual list that was sent to the police department.

The case was just filed and the city has not responded.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510823/cottone-v-city-of-boston/

https://www.bostonherald.com/2025/01/06/ex-bpd-sergeant-fired-after-leading-anti-vax-protests-sues-boston-mayor-for-wrongful-termination/

In 2022 the plaintiff sued over the city's vaccination and masking law. She lost due to lack of standing. Maybe the pizza place would have refused to serve her without action by the named defendants. Like maybe the social media companies would have censored conservative views without pressure from the government.

[ducksalad]

Like maybe the social media companies would have censored conservative views without pressure from the government.

Yes. If one believes freedom of the press prohibits government censorship, but also protects publishers' right to select content using their own biases, then there needs to be some controls on "jawboning".

A small step that wouldn't infringe on private citizen's rights would be to require government officials to disclose contacts with publishers.

[Jmaie]

I first assumed at seeing use of the word "publishers" that this was a comment by our friend Lathrop and so was confused by the brevity. My mistake...

[ThePublius]

Will Melania Trump be treated any better this time around than the last? Vogue covers? Puff pieces? I kinda doubt it, which is a sad commentary on the U.S. media.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well Amazon gave her a $40 million four year deal so that's a good start.

[SimonP]

Let the grift begin!

[Mr. Bumble]

Go tell the Conehead head of Amazon.

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

Why is that grift? That hag Jill got a Vogue cover.

[SRG2]

I am reminded of the story of Eva Peron being escorted around some sights in Italy, during a visit, by a retired naval officer. She complained about how the Italian gossip magazines were calling her a prostitute. Her escort replied, "I know how you feel. I've not been to sea for 20 years and they still call me 'admiral'".

[Bob from Ohio]

Classy comment.

[M L]

The comment you replied to was about Melania not Kamala.

[SRG2]

I am well aware. Have you any other stupid points to make? If you post them all now, it gets it over and done with.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's saying Harris is the former whore, not Mrs. Trump as you implied, you dolt.

[Mr. Bumble]

Was that before or after she worked the fry station at McDonald's?

[Stella Link the dog]

If Harris is a former whore is it not likely that Melania is a former whore by the same standard?

[SRG2]

If they didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards.

[Mr. Bumble]

Clever. Do you just think that up?

[SRG2]

No. It's an old line, entirely appropriate to your position.

[Mr. Bumble]

Another old line:
Day late and a dollar short, but you keep trying.

[SRG2]

I understood what he was saying, you moe-ron.

The evidence that Melania was an escort is somewhat better than that Kamala was.

[Stella Link the dog]

In fairness to Melania, is it true that there is any decent evidence that Melania worked as an escort? She sued both Webster Tarpley and the Daily Mail for publishing rumors about her and both retracted the statements and Tarpley settled. There is, though, evidence that she worked as a soft core porn model.

For anyone who is blissfully unaware of that which is Webster Tarpley, he is one of the more cracked of conspiracy theory spouting crackpots and is a totally repugnant and worthless knob.

[SRG2]

Winning a libel case against a British tabloid isn't necessarily significant. Liberace successfully sued the Daily Mirror for strongly suggesting he was gay.

[Mr. Bumble]

He wasn't?

[Stella Link the dog]

The suits were filed in Maryland. Tarpley, a Maryland resident, settled. Daily Mail went for a jurisdiction strategy, dismissed in Maryland, refiled in NY and setted for less than $3million.

[not guilty]

When Liberace presented at the Pearly Gates seeking admission to heaven, Saint Peter told him, "It seems there is a problem. The Book of Life says that once in concert, you bit the head off of a live bat."

Liberace replied, "Oh, no. I think you have me confused with Ozzy Ozborne. On the other hand, I may have eaten a cockatoo."

[Mr. Bumble]

Keep your day job.

[hobie]

And there's ample evidence Trump only whores around with escorts. Has there even been any woman of his that wasn't in the sex trade?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Has there even been any woman of his that wasn't in the sex trade?"

Another classy comment!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

M L is paid rubles by the hour. Expect more bullshit from him a bit later so he can claim a full workday.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Will Melania Trump be treated any better"

Maybe. I bottom feed at Yahoo and I've seen some soft pieces about both her and Trump from various places.

Not Vogue though, she can't compete with the fashion icons known as Jill Biden and K. Harris!

[Joe_dallas]

nor michelle obama

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

Whatever you say about Kamala, she screams anti-feminity. Check the husband --- as the women in my life would say

https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2024/08/06/4224132453412849998/1024x576_MP4_4224132453412849998.mp4

[Commenter_XY]

She will not be treated any better. Melania has complete and utter contempt for the MSM; justifiably so.

[MoreCurious]

Nothing wrong with Melania except for the bad judgment shown by her choice in husbands.

[Frank Drackman]

You've got her confused with your husband

[MoreCurious]

Aside from making her a wealthy woman, what has being married to DJT done for her?

[Commenter_XY]

She has a wonderful son, who she is very devoted to, by all accounts.

[Mr. Bumble]

All things considered, Trump's large blended family all seem to get along well. Even the exs.

[hobie]

It must be familial love that keeps them all from bailing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ah yes, familial love like fucking your late brother's wife and getting her and several family members hooked on drugs or fathering a child and denying it until DNA proved you did or showering with your daughter: Oh wait, wrong family.

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

She would have married you, so at least there's that.

[Drewski]

I really don't care, do u?

[not guilty]

How carefully has Donald Trump thought out the notion of annexing Canada to make it the 51st state?

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/08/canada-new-state-electoral-college-001966?template_id=OTJIR2CRKUD6&variant_id=OTVPXN5JGTYRX&is_login_link=true

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Articles of Confederation left it open:

Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the united states, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union: but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine states.

Also, why just one state? As we saw with the Dakotas etc., Republicans support making thinly populated areas with large land areas into multiple states.

[Krayt]

It's already divided into provinces, which would slide in as states as-is.

Now commentators here have to decide if that will net more Democratic or Republican senators, before deciding if it's a crass, stupid idea, or a great one.

Gotta take a survey. Find out what I think.

[ducksalad]

It would be interesting if the new state(s) hung on to and continued voting for their current parties, which are more than two and don't map precisely onto Democrat and Republican.

For example, imagine having four or five Partie Quebecois guys holding the balance of power in the House, and the kind of concessions they'd demand.

[Roger S]

A lot of foreigners would have to be deported, before making Canada a state.

[ducksalad]

Just out of curiosity, after annexation, which Canadians would you classify as "foreigners to be deported" and which ones "potential new citizens"?

That might shed some light on what qualifications you'd want for people to stay in the existing 50 states, once you toss out birthright citizenship and thereby invalidate the citizenship of something like 90% of current residents who relied upon that to get their first passport/voting card/etc.

[Roger S]

Canada has radically imported millions of people during the Trudeau years. That should be undone.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It's already divided into provinces, which would slide in as states as-is.

pre-existing divisions weren't followed each time the U.S. annexed new territory & it wouldn't have to be here

[David Nieporent]

And a bunch of the provinces are ridiculously small (populationwise) to be states.

[Martinned2]

Which is why they're not provinces today, but territories.

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

[David Nieporent]

I wasn't even talking about the territories; I was thinking PEI and Newfoundland.

[Martinned2]

PEI's 150k inhabitants would be low for a US state, that's true. But Newfoundland's 500k-550k (depending on who you ask) is comparable to Wyoming and Vermont.

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

According to the US Constitution, there is no specific population requirement stated for a territory to apply for statehood; the power to admit new states lies with Congress, and they determine the conditions for admission, including population size, which is typically based on historical precedent and not a strict constitutional mandate.

In 1811, a U.S. Congressional bill enabled the people of the Territory of Orleans to draft a constitution and apply for admission into the union; the population had reached the necessary 60,000 to do so.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It is somewhat ridiculous Wyoming is a state with two senators. Vermont makes somewhat more sense in context.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, The Donald is just screwing with the MSM and assorted uber-libs with his stream of consciousness rap. He plays them like a fiddle, it is comical to watch. I don't see America annexing CAN anytime soon, and absent a very extreme and dire circumstance (like an existential war or something), taking control of Greenland. Or the Panama Canal.

We already have a treaty to make USA responsible for Greenland defense.

[Brett Bellmore]

And God forbid that we'd have to take Ontario as part of the deal.

Now, Canada breaking up and some of the provinces deciding they'd be better off as states? That I could see.

[bernard11]

WTF is wrong with Ontario?

Toronto is a lovely city, not that you could ever regard any city as lovely, but that's your insanity.

[Brett Bellmore]

I used to live in Michigan, a 20 minute drive from Ontario by way of the Blue Water bridge. I grew up watching Canadian TV. My family had a cottage in Belle River, on Lakeview Drive. I've frequently been to Windsor, admittedly never to Toronto. Only thing I found offensive about Windsor was driving through Detroit to reach it.

I'm not saying Ontario is a bad place to live. But we don't need a state where people speak French, not English, and are pissy about it.

[David Nieporent]

Did continental drift cause Quebec and Ontario to merge?

[Bob from Ohio]

The response from Canadian and Danish politicians is the funniest thing. Much outrage!

Sending Don Jr, for a Greenland visit was a nice touch too.

[Commenter_XY]

The lady PM for Denmark looked like she bit into a sour lemon and smelled stinky shit simultaneously when she was addressing the matter earlier this morning. Her facial expression was priceless.

The next NATO confab should be hilarious, when they do the press conference.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

^ That's you laughing at the damage he is causing to our relationships with our allies.

[Commenter_XY]

Can you clutch the pearls any harder, Jason? 😉

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So you have no substantive response to someone calling out your stupidity?

I wasn't expecting to be surprised today, so thank you for not upsetting that apple cart.

It'd be more funny if we were talking about a stranger demanding sex with your mother, and refusing to rule out just raping her if she didn't agree, right?

Oh wait, Trump does that too. So funny!

[Bwaaah]

LOL. With each Trump remark, Jason's panties ride up another inch.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You are one of the last I would ever expect to understand the damage being done or the analogy and its purpose, though I admit you would probably wise up before C_XY.

[Commenter_XY]

Bwaaah...It is hilarious, watching them give themselves self wedgies.

[Martinned2]

The explicit reference to the fact that the PM of Denmark is a woman is pretty revealing too, as if having a female leader makes a country automatically not worth taking seriously.

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

Usually it does.

[Bob from Ohio]

No, being in the EU makes a country automatically not worth taking seriously.

[bernard11]

I don't understand why you think this is all just funny.

Of course the PM's are going to be outraged. Are you a second-grader?

[Martinned2]

That sounds like a great person to put in charge of the US Army, the person who leaves both his constituents and the rest of the world confused about whether he wants to invade his country's closest ally. It doesn't matter whether he's doing it on purpose, it makes him unsuited to be president regardless.

[John F. Carr]

I would take the prairies and leave the East.

How would Canadian politics change?

[wreckinball]

They wouldn't and that's why I'm a no on it. Keep there there not here.

[wreckinball]

One, its not happening. Two its a terrible idea. They just has 9 years of Trudeau. Nobody wants that.

[Riva]

Get some treatment for the TDS. For you own well being.

[Swede425]

Silly.
You don't make them states.
You make them territories.
Then strip mine their resources, janissary their citizens, and take control of maple syrup production.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Seems like Merrick Garland ought to at least release copies of Jack Smith's full and unredacted reports into the hands of Congressional leaders of both parties in both houses. Can anyone see any reason SCOTUS could use to justify blocking that?

[SRG2]

This was prompted by another instance of Cannon doing what Trump wanted.

[Bob from Ohio]

11th Circuit nominations aren't free!

[Commenter_XY]

I thought her order was: No release of report until 3 days after the 11th circuit has ruled on the merits of Pres Trump's appeal. What's the big deal?

I do not have a problem releasing the 2020 election report. It is a matter of important significance. Pres Trump has been certified as Pres-Elect, that isn't changing. The MSM will breathlessly tell us it is the end of the world, meanwhile the rest of us normies will yawn, and say, 'whatever'.

Tanya 'Red Diaper Baby' Chutkan took her best shot. Didn't work.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Tanya 'Red Diaper Baby' Chutkan "

I don't understand this apparent attempt to assign fault to people based on the implied character faults of there parents and ancestors. Particularly when made by people who are fans of the grandson of a pimp and the son of a Klansman.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just because you can lick your own ass doesn't mean you can go all superior.

[Stella Link the dog]

Do you have some point, Bumbleberry, or are you just ejaculating prematurely?

[Mr. Bumble]

Gee, not only can you lick it you can speak out of it.
Impressive. Most impressive. Obama-Wan has taught you well.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If you haven't figured it out yet, C_XY is an unapologetic misogynist.

[not guilty]

Commenter_XY, I have asked you before what and how you claim to know of Judge Chutkan's parents' politics. I don't recall that you gave any responsive answer.

[Commenter_XY]

Then go back and look, NG. Family ties are the ties that bind.

[not guilty]

IIRC, you replied by referring to someone unrelated to Judge Chutkan. If my recall is incorrect, please refresh my memory.

[Mr. Bumble]

Her maternal grandfather Frank Hill.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t get the reference either (or remember you ever explaining it). Could I get a hint?

[not guilty]

XY, if you've got bupkis about Judge Chutkan's parents, just say so.

[Commenter_XY]

Mr. Bumble pointed you in the right direction. Frank Hill, Red Diaper Baby's grandfather, was a committed communist. He was a significant influence in her childhood. I did tell you, family ties are the ties that bind.

[not guilty]

Once more, if you've got bupkis about Judge Chutkan's parents, just say so.

One generation's political affiliation does not necessarily indicate the politics of the succeeding generation. If I may be indulged a personal anecdote, I was born to parents who were fundamentalist, Bible thumping Christians who routinely voted Republican. (They were big Goldwater and Reagan fans.) I am politically, culturally and religiously liberal. I don't know what my grandparents' political views were. Sometimes an acorn does fall far from the tree.

[Mr. Bumble]

"One generation's political affiliation does not necessarily indicate the politics of the succeeding generation."
...and sometimes it does.

[not guilty]

Judge Cannon once again has embarrassed the federal judiciary. The Government's filing of the notice of appeal as to the dismissal of the indictment divested the District Court of jurisdiction to act. That lack of subject matter jurisdiction could be a complete defense to any contempt proceeding for violation of the purported order, in that a purported order issued by a court without jurisdiction is coram non judice and void.

In the underlying appeal, briefing is complete, and oral argument would be unlikely to aid the appellate court in making its decision. Here is hoping that the Court of Appeals will decide the case prior to January 20, reversing the dismissal of the indictment of the defendants Nauta and DeOliveira and ordering that the matter be reassigned to a different district judge upon remand.

[Bob from Ohio]

Keep hope alive!

Persecuting low level minions is all you have left now.

[not guilty]

No, not really. Donald Trump remains subject to multiple civil suits for damages for his actions and omissions regarding the siege of the Capitol.

Per Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), and Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2023), discovery may proceed, and the trial need not await Trump leaving office.

Since the D.C. prosecution of Trump was dismissed without prejudice and could be reinstated, Trump retains his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but if he asserts that privilege, the civil trier of fact can draw an inference adverse to Trump.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Donald Trump remains subject to multiple civil suits"

Keep hope alive!

[hobie]

That's how they got OJ

[Riva]

So, given your great respect for the rule of a law (not really but we'll pretend), how is it that the unconstitutionally appointed thug Smith can proceed to do anything in this case?

[David Nieporent]

1) Smith was constitutionally appointed.
2) In what case? The case was dismissed. Filing a report is not doing anything in the case.
3) Even if he were "unconstitutionally appointed" (LOL), that would not affect his ability to submit a report. A janitor can submit a report.
4) What do you think he's "proceeding to do," anyway?

[Riva]

5) He was unconstitutionally appointed and has no authority to do anything.
6) He can't hide at The Hague to escape accountability
7) Conspiracy against rights. I think you'll be hearing more about this.
8) You seem to have some sick attraction to me. Sorry, I'm not gay and if I were, I wouldn't be interested in a bat shit crazy clown like you.

[Roger S]

A janitor might be at least drawing a salary lawfully. Nothing about Jack Smith is lawful.

[hobie]

Can the Judicial bar the Executive from releasing its own work product?

[Riva]

The judiciary has already concluded that Smith was unconstitutionally appointed and has no authority to do anything on behalf of the government.

[David Nieporent]

The judiciary has already concluded that Smith was unconstitutionally appointed and has no authority to do anything on behalf of the government.

"The judiciary" has concluded no such thing. One single incompetent and/or partisan judge concluded that. (Well, the first part of that. The second isn't right even if Cannon's decision were correct. Even if he can't exercise the powers of an officer does not mean he has "no authority to do anything on behalf of the government." Even under her misconception he's still an employee of the DOJ.) You are apparently unaware that another judge, following circuit precedent, has expressly rejected the notion that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional.

[Riva]

Provide a cite to the DC court that expressly upheld that thug hack's appointment.

[not guilty]

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047, 1049-1050 (D.C. Cir. 2019), upheld the authority of the Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515 and 533(1) to appoint special counsels and define their duties, specifically citing United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974). The Court there expressly opined:

The question whether Congress has "by law" vested appointment of Special Counsel Mueller in the Attorney General has already been decided by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974), the Court stated: "[Congress] has also vested in [the Attorney General] the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, 533." In acting pursuant to those statutes, the Court held, the Attorney General validly delegated authority to a special prosecutor to investigate offenses arising out of the 1972 presidential election and allegations involving President Richard M. Nixon. Id.

916 F.3d at 1053. The Court specifically rejected the appellant's contention that the subject language from Nixon was dictum. Ibid.

[Riva]

As noted below, I’m well aware of the sloppy and flawed DC circuit court cases. That’s NOT what crazy Dave claimed and that’s NOT what I asked. The little lying clown was claiming that the thug Smith’s appointment was specifically addressed and upheld. That never happened in DC. Now there is a Florida judge that has issued a cogent opinion that carefully examines the statutes, non-controlling and unconvincing DC precedent and Nixon. You never address the substance of that decision and just insult at the judge or insult me. Troll clowns.

[Riva]

Now, it may be that the truly awful circuit court rulings may support the upholding of the thug's appointment but there is no specific ruling on that. Why crazy Dave is so phenomenally dishonest is anyone's guess. Some people are just jerks.

[hobie]

The Judicial barred Smith from prosecuting in its court. What the Executive does on its own time is none of the Judicial's business. You know, core functions like bringing charges, writing motions. You're not very bright, Riva

[Riva]

Smith was unconstitutionally appointed. He has no authority to do anything. Sorry, I can't dumb that down anymore.

[CountmontyC]

Will you hold that same view when the Executive is Donald Trump? I suspect it will be quite different.

[Riva]

Don't know why you would say that. Smith's appointment would be unconstitutional regardless of who was president.

[Mr. Bumble]

How fast would Adam Schitt release it?

[SRG2]

As he should. Just because Cannon thinks the public has no right to know doesn't mean we don't.

[Mr. Bumble]

Still waiting for him to release the proof he has seen of Russian collusion from 2016.

[Martinned2]

Even after it was released. That's why Trumpists shouldn't worry about anything being released. Even after something is released it's still perfectly possible to deny that it says what it says.

[Bob from Ohio]

" Just because Cannon thinks the public has no right to know doesn't mean we don't."

Didn't she issue an order? No respect for the rule of law from you. Tsk Tsk.

[Riva]

We know the thug Smith was unconstitutionally appointed. And soon we'll learn more about the Biden administration's lawfare abuses.

[MoreCurious]

For those of us who are not brilliant legal scholars like you, please explain how "We know the thug Smith was unconstitutionally appointed." A couple of appellate court decisions in support of your argument would be most helpful.

[SRG2]

We know no such thing. We know that Thomas suggested as much to Cannon - quite unnecessarily, which comments proved once and for all how biased Thomas is, and she went along with it, but beyond that, nope.

[Riva]

Her order wasn’t a suggestion. And her well reasoned decision found that the thug was unconstitutionally appointed.

[SRG2]

her well reasoned decision

LOL.

[David Nieporent]

Her order was a nullity, since she lacks jurisdiction. Also, her prior decision ignored binding precedent, history, and text. Other than that, it was well-reasoned. And also her decision is of course non-precedential and irrelevant to everyone outside of the specific case in which it was issued.

[Roger S]

Her order is law, unless reversed on appeal.

[David Nieporent]

Do you understand the concept of jurisdiction?

[Riva]

Hey, I'm with you crazy Dave, go for it. Let Garland and his thug ignore the court and see what happens.

[not guilty]

A purported order issued by a court with no jurisdiction is void and binds no one.

A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to enforcement ... All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. 30A Am.Jur. Judgments '' 44, 45.

"A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its want of vitality, is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off, if the power so to do exists" People v. Greene,74 Cal. 400, 408 (Cal. 1887).

[David Nieporent]

Based on his 11th circuit filing today, Garland plans to immediately publicly release the report about the J6 prosecution. With respect to the Florida documents theft case, he intends to release that only to congressional leaders at this time. (And of course it'll never see the light of day since Trump will take office in less than 2 weeks.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you living in a cave?
Congress has more leaks than the SS Minnow.

[Bob from Ohio]

Jeffries will put it in the Congressional Record the next day.

[bernard11]

Good.

[Riva]

That is exactly why the rat weasel wants to disclose this one-sided piece of garbage to Congress.

[David Nieporent]

Bot doesn't know that the long existing regulations require that the AG submit the report to Congress. 28 CFR § 600.9.

[Riva]

There was no legally appointed "special counsel," you f'ing bat shit crazy clown. There was no legal investigation. Only an unconstitutionally appointed lawfare thug who is not authorized to do anything, except cop a plea if the cowardly thug really wants to .

[David Nieporent]

There was no legally appointed "special counsel," you f'ing bat shit crazy clown.

The Supreme Court and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals disagree with you.

[MoreCurious]

David: I'm sure that any minute now Riva will dazzle us with a list of appellate decisions that support his brilliant legal conclusion. Be patient.

[Riva]

S.Ct.? Let’s see that was…no actually that never happened. Now there was a recent, well reasoned district court decision in Florida. Go read it. Even you could understand it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Even if you want to dismiss the passage from Nixon as dicta, the Supreme Court still said it.

[David Nieporent]

And even if it wants to pretend that her decision was "well-reasoned," it's still nothing more than a district court decision that one particular case be dismissed. It is not an injunction. It is not binding on any other judge in the SDFL, let alone on any other judge or court anywhere in the United States. And there is actual contrary circuit court precedent in DC — the place where Smith was appointed — that is controlling.

[Riva]

No that's why it's dicta. The Court speaks through its holdings. This was not a holding.

[Riva]

The thug was prosecuting President Trump in Florida, which does raise a substantial amount of questions as to the thug's use of a DC Grand Jury to investigate the matter the matter in the first place. But what's your point? Garland can just ignore the court's decision?

[Riva]

And further on the dicta, as Judge Cannon concluded, it was not very compelling.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No that's why it's dicta. The Court speaks through its holdings. This was not a holding.

David Nieporent didn’t say it was a holding. (It is, but he didn’t say that.) He said the Supreme Court disagrees (with Judge Cannon) which they did.

[David Nieporent]

And further on the dicta, as Judge Cannon concluded, it was not very compelling.

Things necessary to holdings are not dicta, and this was. And also, Supreme Court dicta is always compelling, because it comes from the Supreme Court. And also, the text of the statutes is unambiguous; she had to rewrite them to come up with her ruling.

Garland (and everyone else) can indeed ignore orders issued by courts lacking jurisdiction. (But I'm also not sure why we're discussing this, since he has not ignored any orders.)

[Riva]

Well apparently crazy Dave believes this is controlling precedent notwithstanding that the issue of the Attorney General’s appointment authority was not raised, briefed, argued, or disputed before the Nixon Court. And that question was not essential to Nixon's justiciability analysis. The brief comments of the Court are at most antecedent assumptions not entitled to precedential weight. As I've noted before, I'd consult a fruit fly before seeking the opinion of crazy Dave.

[Commenter_XY]

David, You appear to have a remarkably benign view of DC. Shit, I thought you were a New Yorker, lol. New Yorkers have a benign view of nothing.

Do you think the report will be leaked?
Does it even matter?

[David Nieporent]

I am not, and have never been, a New Yorker. Take back that libelous accusation!

[Mr. Bumble]

Whitelandia NJ same same.

[Bob from Ohio]

NJ is just a sleazier and slummier NY.

[David Nieporent]

I do live in NJ — indeed, I've lived here my entire adult life, staying here after college — but I did not grow up here and do not consider myself a New Jerseyan either. But at least that's marginally less insulting than New Yorker.

[Commenter_XY]

I take back my scandalous and libelous accusation of you as a New Yorker. My most profuse apologies!

[Mr. Bumble]

Stateless?

[David Nieporent]

As Commenter_XY probably remembers, I am an Orioles fan, which should answer the question.

[Mr. Bumble]

Poor you. From one Dem shithole to another.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, it will do as much good as his blockbuster unveiling in Chutkans court did.

Will there even one new thing in it?

[Commenter_XY]

It won't matter, ultimately. Pres Trump will take the oath and start his second term as '47', and then, let the true fun begin.

[Riva]

Just to be clear, we're talking about the report from this unconstitutionally appointed Jack Smith that a federal district judge blocked from release?

[Roger S]

Yes, and if the House committee had done its job, all of that info would have been public a long time ago. We are still waiting for a report on the involvement of federal agents. That is all we need from Jack Smith, but he is probably destroying that evidence.

[gVOR08]

It's time for someone to pull an Alito and mail a thumb drive with an unredacted copy of both reports to NYT.

[Krayt]

Was watching live California wildfire feeds last night. Those people are crazy and may be a burden on rescue workers, who have to worry about everyone, in spite of streamer self-disclaimers.

Anyway, winds were, and are, gusting over 80 mph, and are steady about 20. This was already bad and morning proves it. Even with all hands on deck from outstate, it doesn't look like they can even try to save more than 1 of 10 buildings. Probably a lot less.

[Brett Bellmore]

Is it true that the fire hydrants ran out of water because they'd economized by not keeping the reservoir full?

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-08/lack-of-water-from-hydrants-in-palisades-fire-is-hampering-firefighters-caruso-says

[wreckinball]

Hmm the LA Times says everything was full. I suspect they weren't. the SA winds are not a new thing, drought is not a new thing, CA wildfires also not new.

This complete helplessness is new. Investigate that.

LA Times= propaganda

[Dr. Ed 2]

See below -- it's how fast you can suck water through the straw, not how much water is in the glass (as long as *some* is).

Water mains aren't big enough or they are old and are partially clogged by rusty growth. That said, you can not realistically prepare to be able to deliver the amount of water needed for something like this.

The real failing is in letting a fire like this get started, and that is failure to clean out the underbrush and having 80 year old power poles that fall over, and uninsulated power lines that shoot sparks when they fall down.

[hobie]

What was their excuse in the Texas panhandle last year when a million acres got scorched? Or are you being uncharacteristically partisan again, Ed?

[Longtobefree]

https://notthebee.com/article/los-angeles-fire-hydrants-are-out-of-water-less-than-a-day-into-this-massive-wildfire-but-at-least-they-have-their-first-ever-lesbian-fire-chief

[DeAnnP]

She is a 22 year veteran of the LAFD.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wow, 22 years of DEI. California is so out in front.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The LAFD didn't have any 22-year veterans that could put fires out?

Well, sure all the houses burned down, but at least the fire chief has a vagina, amirite libs?

[Absaroka]

"The LAFD didn't have any 22-year veterans that could put fires out?"

Nobody can put out a fire in those kinds of winds.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The standpipes (water towers) may be dry, but I really doubt you can drain a reservoir in a day. Again, the straws coming out of it are only so big...

[DeAnnP]

Not sure if this would actually contribute or not, but I have seen residents who said they left their garden hoses running upon evacuating to try and soak the areas around their houses.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No Brett -- they are taking it out of the pipes faster than they are putting it in.

Each and every one of the houses that burned down had a water pipe of (say) 3/4 inch -- and those pipes are melted/broken so whatever pressure in those pipes is running into the cellars. That alone is a lot. The some people have put sprinklers on their roofs and that is taking water.

Code calls for a 5 inch water main for a sprinkler system, but that is for just one building, with the presumption that the ones on both sides aren't *also* on fire. And you will notice that most large buildings have female fittings on the outside for fire departments to pump into the building's sprinkler system to "boost" it.

So even without fire trucks pumping several thousand gallons a minute, it is not difficult to drain the water mains due to overconsumption. Look at it this way -- most houses have a 100 or 200 amp electrical service -- 12-24 kW while the utility is only providing an average of 3-4 kW of electricity because not everything in every house is on at the same time.

Now pipes do get clogged over time -- rust forms inside them to narrow their diameter and hence capacity. This is a problem in places where water mains are a hundred years old and haven't been replaced -- it was a major problem in the 1973 Chelsea fire where they had to relay from truck to truck as only a trickle came out of the hydrants. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chelsea_fire_of_1973

The water mains in LA are 70 years old (streets laid out in the 1950s), maybe this is an issue.

You can drain a water tower in hours, it happened at UMass in 1980, but to drain a reservoir, absent a dam breach, would take days and not hours. It's definitely doable -- and California is going to have to deal with the reservoir shortfall next summer from the water being used now, but the pipes coming out are only so big...

Now if they should have built MORE reservoirs so as to increase their year-to year storage capacity, yes, but I am not aware of any dry reservoirs right now.

[Krayt]

Famed Laurel Canyon through Mulholland Drive ordered evacuated, down to Hollywood bowl. I don't know the area but...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Is Trump upset that Martin Luther King Jr's Day falls on 1/20 this year? Talk about taking the focus off him.

Better yet, who cares? His blather will now be constant news fodder but we don't have to worry about it. I grant some people have to keep track of it to some degree and see what is not just logorrhea. One of those unpleasant tasks like cleaning bedpans.

Meanwhile:

"The Justice Department does not plan to publicly release special counsel Jack Smith’s findings on Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents until litigation against his co-defendants concludes, according to a filing in a federal appeals court Tuesday morning.

But prosecutors said Attorney General Merrick Garland does intend to release the portion of Smith’s report outlining his investigation into Trump’s efforts to undo the results of the 2020 election — and to permit select members of Congress to review the withheld portions on the classified documents probe."

[Washington Post]

I understand the logic of that even if the net result is going to be the other half won't be released. I suppose it might be leaked.

[Mr. Bumble]

Only suppose?
The Magic 8 Ball says "It Is Certain".

[Ska]

This made me think of the opening to The Great Escape:

Herr Kuhn: We have reason to believe this prisoner is the mastermind behind numerous criminal escape attempts.

Von Luger: Squadron Leader Bartlett has been three months in your care... and the Gestapo has only "reason to believe?!"

[John F. Carr]

The executive routinely shares classified information with a few members of Congress who can be trusted to keep their mouths shut despite the potential for partisan advantage. The most common group is known as the "Gang of Eight".

[Commenter_XY]

It will be leaked. This is DC.

[Krayt]

Release it? I am outraged!

Wait. Does releasing it now benefit or hurt Trump? I need to know before I fire up the polemecist cannon so I know which way to point!

[Bob from Ohio]

"benefit or hurt "

Neither. Most everyone has moved on.

[Paladin_44]

polemecist (aileen) cannon, that is...

[ducksalad]

I understand the logic of that

I don't, those co-defendants are almost certain to get blanket pardons shortly after the inauguration.

The only semi-valid reason I could see for withholding anything is to protect people who gave depositions against Trump from retaliation.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

As an institutional thing, the Justice Department isn't going to assume such things.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Better yet, who cares?"

LOL You and your comrades get outraged about everything he says or does.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don't keep track of much of what he blathers about.

He says a lot of bad things. Sensible to pace the outrage meter. Some of his petty whining in particular is a waste of effort to worry about. He says more than enough to worry about.

If so many people moved on, Trump shouldn't/wouldn't care so much. Let the report go out. Yawn. etc.

[John F. Carr]

There is probably not much left to learn because the court filings have been so detailed.

[wreckinball]

No

[Longtobefree]

" . . . Attorney General Merrick Garland does intend to release the portion of Smith’s report . . . "

At least during the next 11 days- - - - - -

[Riva]

Do you think the Democrat Party will take the opportunity this Jan 20 to apologize for their history of supporting slavery and the slave trade? And Jim Crow laws? And racial segregation in general?

[wreckinball]

No

[David Nieporent]

What is this "Democrat Party"? Is that like the imaginary "President Trump" that the bot is often writing about?

[Bob from Ohio]

"imaginary "President Trump""

In 12 days you won't be able to make this tiresome point.

Its common [but not required] to use former titles when discussing former officials.

"Now, let’s look a little closer. In an informal setting (such as a private lunch), it’s acceptable to use the title the ex-official held. Here, you could refer to former President Jimmy Carter as either “President Carter” or “Mr. Carter.” In reality, many people ignore this convention and refer to former Presidents as "President Last Name" when they are in settings where nearly everyone would afford them the honor of the title. Technically, this is still incorrect but there are enough former Presidents allowing this that it has become a somewhat common mistake." emilypost.com

[David Nieporent]

In 12 days you won't be able to make this tiresome point.

And in 1473 days (less, if we're lucky), I will be able to again.

[Bob from Ohio]

"(less, if we're lucky),"

Classy as always!

[CountmontyC]

Then it will be President Vance.

[Riva]

Clever crazy Dave, but they're still the party of slavery, and if I'm not being technically accurate with their name its only because I really don't give a shit. And it seems to bother a-hole trolls like you, which is an added bonus.

[not guilty]

"Do you think the Democrat Party [sic] will take the opportunity this Jan 20 to apologize for their history of supporting slavery and the slave trade? And Jim Crow laws? And racial segregation in general?"

Riva, I am proud that my party repudiated its sordid history regarding race relations more than fifty years ago. Are you proud of how eagerly your party stepped into the breach?

And FWIW I still don't understand why those who bleat about "the Democrat Party" think that the use of non-standard English is persuasive. Perhaps they regard the impulse to channel Joe McCarthy and Big Pharma Rush Limbaugh as irresistible.

[Riva]

Democrats never repudiated or apologized for anything. Not their advocacy for the “peculiar institution,” their Jim Crow laws, their support for segregation (didn’t they also oppose the Civil Rights Act?). But apparently that doesn’t really concern the Democrat trolls here. No, what bothers them to no end is to call the Democrats’ party the “Democrat Party.” I give not a shit that I irritate racist sleaze.

[hobie]

All the Dixiecrats ran to the Republican party when everyone switched sides under LBJ. I guess you don't remember that. I'll apologize for what the Democrats stood for prior to the 60's.

[John F. Carr]

The Biden administration is considering exchanging a Guantanamo detainee for three Americans held in Afghanistan. The exact numbers on each side are up for negotiation. I think it's a good deal. I want to get rid of the last few people awaiting trial after two decades in custody. If we get can something of value for them, great.

[Bob from Ohio]

Such swaps just encourage evil regimes to seize more Americans.

"I want to get rid of the last few people awaiting trial after two decades in custody."

A bullet to the back of the head works.

[John F. Carr]

The government could not get away with summary execution.

My understanding there is a chance some of these people are innocent. Not in the sense of "innocent until proven guilty" or "not 100% certain beyond any chance of a doubt guilty", but wrong place in the wrong time bycatch. I should add that I don't approve of prosecuting 100 year olds for murder because they typed paperwork at Nazi concentration camps. I don't think everybody who was hanging out with Al Qaeda in 2001 should be executed now.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The government could not get away with summary execution."

We have 17 secret intelligence agencies. Surely at least 1 has a pistol.

[Krayt]

As W once said in a state of the union, many terrorists "have been killed or captured, or otherwise dealt with."

[John F. Carr]

I have grown to appreciate the official Turkish euphemism, "etkisiz hale getirmek." Literally "to bring to an ineffective state." Roughly similar to English "neutralize".

[Martinned2]

In Russia enemies of the regime fall out of a window, in the US they are "otherwise dealt with". Same rule of law, congratulations!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Every one of them could have been legally killed on the battlefield.

[John F. Carr]

Police have a broad license to shoot people on the street. Once people are taken into custody it is for practical purposes impossible to have them executed.

I would make it hard to get away with shooting people and easy to execute them after trial. The law as it stands says the opposite.

[Martinned2]

Police have a broad license to shoot people on the street.

Permanent low-level civil war. Greatest country in the history of the world FTW!

[bernard11]

So you think POW's can legally be executed?

As far back as Henry V you could get in trouble for that.

[Martinned2]

No, he doesn't care whether it's legal, and he thinks his fellow US citizens don't care either. (And, given the state of the US, he's probably right.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

We have had such good results with the people we have released from Gitmo in the past. And this DOES encourage more hostage taking.

Now parking an aircraft carrier (maybe two) a mile off the Gaza beach would make a very subtle statement -- release in 48 hours or we CARPETBOMB Gaza, leveling it and killing everyone who hasn't fled.

[Martinned2]

You mean CARPETBOMB, unlike what the Israelis have been doing?

[Commenter_XY]

Since Israel does not carpet bomb gaza, your point is moot.

[Martinned2]

It doesn't? Since when?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Carpet bombing is usually achieved by dropping many unguided bombs."
Since by definition this is not what Israel is doing.

[Martinned2]

It isn't?

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/intelligence-assessment-dumb-bombs-israel-gaza/index.html

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/legal-questions-answered-and-unanswered-in-israel-s-air-war-in-gaza

[Mr. Bumble]

Links to two old, bullshit stories from the first weeks of the war.

[Martinned2]

I apologise for my poor research.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240716-what-we-know-about-the-bomb-israel-used-on-gaza-safe-zone

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2024/october/closer-look-israels-use-80-bunker-buster-jdams-beirut

[Commenter_XY]

M2, this war would have been 'over' in 5 days, had Israel carpet bombed gaza. Israel has that capability. Former PM Bennett made exactly that point shortly after the Simchat Torah pogrom (10/7).

The extraordinary efforts of the IDF to preserve civilians lives are well documented.

I know for antisemites like yourself, it pisses you off that we Jews are fighting back, and winning. Get used to that feeling.

[Martinned2]

There's not a single building left standing. What makes you think only using dumb bombs would have changed about anything? The place is smashed to bits either way.

[Martinned2]

O, and if that's what winning looks like, you can keep it. After 15 months of fighting neither Israle nor the Palestinians have a functioning state anymore, and they will keep hating and killing each other for decades more without any prospect of peace or any other form of livable conditions.

[Mr. Bumble]

"O, and if that's what winning looks like, you can keep it. "
I'm sure your parents or grandparents felt that way when the Allies bombed Germany.

[Brett Bellmore]

"O, and if that's what winning looks like, you can keep it. "

In this context, what "winning looks like" is Palestinians not flooding into Israel and gleefully murdering people.

Has that been happening lately? No.

So, yes, this is what winning looks like.

If the Palestinians could be counted on to refrain from gleeful murder, winning would look somewhat nicer.

[Martinned2]

@Brett: What you're describing there is "not losing", which should be familiar to you because it's what the US did in the Middle East for 20 years before withdrawing in ignominy.

And yes, it would be nice if everyone could refrain from gleeful murder, but I don't see any signs of that being likely.

[Brett Bellmore]

The whole thing is pretty ugly, and I have no hesitance about admitting that. But the Israelis would gladly live in peace with the Palestinians, if the Palestinians ever allowed that to be an option. The problem all along is that the Palestinians, or a controlling faction of them anyway, are genocidal maniacs.

So, what are the Israelis to do? No country is going to tolerate something like October 7th. If Mexico did anything remotely similar to the US, we'd erase them from the map! We'd have been in a state of hot war with them just over the rockets! No government anywhere that's remotely democratic can just take something like that and not do something.

Palestinian schools in Gaza and the West bank are run as Jihadi factories, teaching genocide along with the ABCs. That has to change, and how can it change as long as the genocides are running everything in the Palestinian territories? It can't.

The only solution will require at least a generation where the Palestinians are stripped of control over their own territories. Basically, de-Hamasification, like we de-Nazified Germany.

Only the Nazi party wasn't in control of Germany nearly as long as Hamas and it's brethren have been in control of the Palestinian territories, so de-Hamasification is going to be proportionately harder.

[Martinned2]

But the Israelis would gladly live in peace with the Palestinians, if the Palestinians ever allowed that to be an option.

That seems like an extremely dubious proposition, although it might be more plausible if you made it "a majority of Israelis".

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2025/01/07/chart-of-the-week-settlers-have-used-israels-wars-as-cover-to-build-more-outposts-on-palestinian-land/

[Brett Bellmore]

If you look at how restrained Israel had been in the face of rockets being launched into their residential areas from Palestinian areas, yes, I'd say that they'd be open to peace.

I repeat: If Mexico acted like the Palestinians, the US would have already have erased the country of Mexico from the map. The amount of provocation the Israelis had already absorbed from Palestine and NOT done this is off the charts.

The fact of the matter is that the military imbalance between Israel and the Palestinians is so profound that if Israelis were equally genocidal, the Palestinians would already all be dead.

[Bob from Ohio]

"There's not a single building left standing. "

As accurate as the rest of your comments.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I'm sure your parents or grandparents felt that way when the Allies bombed Germany."

They just released a big list of hundreds of thousands of pro-Nazi Dutch. Odds his ancestors are on it?

[Commenter_XY]

So Pres Trump has appealed the sentencing hearing of Judge Merchan directly to SCOTUS. Do they take the appeal?

[Riva]

If they care that a state judge is spitting on their immunity decision and the office of the President.

[not guilty]

Whether a state court decision regarding immunity is subject to an interlocutory appeal is a question of state law. The federal collateral order doctrine, which is an interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, does not govern. Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911 (1997).

Even if the collateral order doctrine did apply, here Justice Merchan's (posttrial) immunity rulings are not "effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment," Coopers Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978).

[Noscitur a sociis]

Whether a state court decision regarding immunity is subject to an interlocutory appeal is a question of state law.

My reading of the Trump majority is that the interlocutory repeal is constitutionally required, so I’m not sure that’s entirely correct.

[not guilty]

The Trump interlocutory appeal was from a United States District Court to the United States Court of Appeals, pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, by which federal courts interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

That federal court interpretation of a Congressional enactment is not binding on state courts, which need not provide interlocutory review of denials of motions to dismiss on the basis of a defendant's claim of immunity, even for federal claims. A unanimous SCOTUS so ruled in Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911, 916-918 (1997).

[Josh R]

Does New York have a rule that precludes an interlocutory appeal in this case?

[David Nieporent]

In civil cases, New York allows interlocutory appeals for pretty much anything and everything at any time; it's actually kind of insane. But in criminal cases in NY, interlocutory appeals are generally not provided for.

[Josh R]

Is there NY caselaw on immunity defenses in criminal trials?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The interlocutory appeal was indeed authorized by statute (or so the DC Circuit concluded). But as I understand the discussion of this point (pages 35-37 of the slip opinion), the Trump court concluded that the separation of powers principles that its analysis depended on required the opportunity for an immediate appeal. So while the Supreme Court couldn’t second-guess a state’s interpretation of its own procedural rules, it could (and in this case, I think, has) conclude that the state rule violates the U.S. constitution.

(Of course, this only means that the state court system has to afford an opportunity to appeal—I don’t see anything that would imply or even suggest that there’s a right to jump straight to the Supreme Court.)

[Josh R]

Indeed it appears the Court strongly hinted at a constitutional right of interlocutory appeal for the president. On the other hand in this case, the trial is over and the sentence of discharge would not appear to render Trump "unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties" because there is no "burden of a trial and [...] the inevitable danger of its outcome."

We will know soon enough.

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court in Trump relied on Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 524-530 (1985), which held that a district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment. Id., at 530.

The collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), and its progeny (which gave rise to Mitchell) is purely a creature of statutory interpretation.

[Josh R]

True, but in Trump v United States SCOTUS said (my emphasis):

Questions about whether the President may be held liable for particular actions, consistent with the separation of powers, must be addressed at the outset of a proceeding. Even if the President were ultimately not found liable for certain official actions, the possibility of an extended proceeding alone may render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 752, n. 32. Vulnerability “‘to the burden of a trial and to the inevitable danger of its outcome, would dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute.’” Id., at 752–753, n. 32 (quoting Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F. 2d 579, 581 (CA2 1949) (Hand, L., C. J.)). The Constitution does not tolerate such impediments to “the effective functioning of government.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 751.

We will know soon enough.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah; hated that argument when it was made, and still hate it. This is the same stupid argument for qualified immunity for cops, but worse, because cops aren't policymakers. I want presidents to be cautious (duly, not "unduly" so) about whether their actions violate the law. I want their ardor to be dampened. There is no call for presidents to aggressively go out and break the law. The constitution in fact not only "tolerates" such impediments, but mandates them, since the president's only authority is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

And as an empirical matter, it's stupid. Even w/o immunity, no president is ever going to be prosecuted for doing something that any juror would ever think might be necessary for the public good. The only prosecutions for official acts are going to be for extreme cases where there's no plausible argument for a legitimate motive to support it.

[Josh R]

Bragg has filed his brief. He mentions that interlocutory appeal is statutory and that New York is not bound by the federal rule. Additionally, he argues Trump has conceded the conduct being prosecuted isn't immune and that testimony that might be stricken under Trump v. United States does not trigger interlocutory appeal. And, this case is distinguished because the trial is complete and an unconditional discharge will be the sentence.

[Josh R]

And the winner is 1) testimony that might be stricken under Trump v. United States does not trigger interlocutory appeal. and 2) the unconditional discharge sentence is distinguished as being a relatively insubstantial burden on Trump's responsibilities as president.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link, Josh.

Four members of SCOTUS remain deeply in the tank for Donald Trump.

[David Nieporent]

The thing is, if this were a normal litigant rather than a political one that commands the allegiance of several members of the court, it would obvious how badly his lawyers handled this application. Claiming that a brief virtual hearing would somehow prevent Trump from doing his job — a job that he isn't able to do for another 11 days anyway — is the kind of stupid claim that prejudices normal judges against litigants.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, my first question....interlocutory appeal. You lawyers are going back and forth on it (which is really interesting reading), but what is it, and why is that status important?

The word (between + speaking = interlocutory) gives a clue to me. But I am missing why it is a requirement (state or constitutional).

[Josh R]

An interlocutory appeal is heard by an appellate court before a final order is issued by a trial court. Without it, Trump would have to wait until the trial is complete, including sentencing, until he can appeal.

In the case of an immunity claim, it is required because "questions of immunity are reviewable before trial because the essence of immunity is the entitlement not to be subject to suit." (Trump v. United States referencing Mitchell v. Forsyth).

However, Mitchell was a federal case heard in federal court (it involved Nixon AG John Mitchell). As NG noted, the right to interlocutory appeal was held to be granted by federal statute, not the Constitution. For a case in state court (again noted by NG), it is state statute that prevails in whether interlocutory appeal is required. New York courts may deny interlocutory appeal in immunity cases even though federal courts cannot.

But finally as Noscitur observed, SCOTUS in Trump v. United States strongly hinted at a constitutional right of interlocutory appeal for the president that New York courts would have to honor.

[not guilty]

An order or judgment of a trial court is final when it resolves every claim of every party before the court. Other orders are interlocutory in nature and may be revised prior to final judgment.

In federal court, Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:

When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.

By statute, (28 U.S.C. § 1291), the United States Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court. Some interlocutory orders (such as the district court's grant or denial of a preliminary injunction) are appealable as of right prior to final judgment pursuant to § 1292(a). As to other nonfinal orders, the district court in a civil action can certify an issue as being appropriate for interlocutory appeal, and the court of appeals in its discretion can permit the appeal to be taken under § 1929(b).

Federal appellate jurisdiction generally depends on the existence of a decision by the District Court that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. The federal courts, however, have created an exception, known as the collateral order doctrine, to the final decision requirement of § 1291. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546-547 (1949). To come within the "small class" of decisions excepted from the final-judgment rule by Cohen, the order must: (1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Coopers Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978).

Where a federal district court denies a defendant's claim that he is immune from standing trial, SCOTUS has held that, to the extent that such denial turns on an issue of law, it is an appealable "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985).

[MoreCurious]

Please point to where in their immunity decision the Supreme Court states that it applies to president-elects. We'll wait while you're looking it up. Thanks.

[Bob from Ohio]

There was testimony from Hope Hicks [perhaps others] regarding her talks with Trump when he was in office, that is the immunity issue.

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently not curious enough.

[MoreCurious]

Please point to where in their immunity decision the Supreme Court states that it applies to president-elects. We'll wait while you're looking it up. Thanks. I'm very curious.

[Bob from Ohio]

Again, but slowly for the non curious. the NY trial permitted testimony from a former advisor about conversations with Trump while he was President. SCOTUS said that "Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial."

Hicks' testimony arguable violated this restriction.

That is the issue, her testimony about what Trump said while he was in office, not the fact he is again president elect.

[David Nieporent]

That is the issue, her testimony about what Trump said while he was in office, not the fact he is again president elect.

Well, it's an issue. But you are mistaken: Trump is also making the (false) argument that SCOTUS said that a sitting president was immune from prosecution (that is, even for private acts), and the loony argument that this supposed immunity extends to presidents-elect.

[not guilty]

"So Pres Trump has appealed the sentencing hearing of Judge Merchan directly to SCOTUS. Do they take the appeal?"

Justice Sotomayor reportedly has ordered a response from the District Attorney's office by 10:00 a.m. Thursday.

There is no jurisdiction for SCOTUS to entertain the application -- not that that will stop the black robed ward heelers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Didn't SCOTUS once have a criminal contempt trial?

Isn't Trump arguing that Marshan is in contempt of SCOTUS?

And could the POTUS be considered a "Public Minister"?

[John F. Carr]

The questions presented are

I. Whether President Trump is entitled to an automatic stay of criminal proceedings against him in state court while his claims of Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution are addressed on interlocutory appeal to New York’s appellate courts and, if necessary, this Court.
II. Whether the trial court’s admission and use of evidence of President Trump’s official acts in a state-court jury trial on criminal charges violated the doctrine of Presidential immunity recognized in Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024).
III. Whether a sitting President’s complete immunity from criminal prosecution during his term in office extends to the President-Elect of the United States during the brief but crucial period between his election, his certification as the President-elect, which has now occurred, and his inauguration, as he conducts Presidential transition activities that are integral and preparatory to his imminent assumption of the Executive power of the United States.

The first question I would answer no. Question II can be addressed on direct appeal and should not be considered by the court. I think Question III is phrased dishonestly because nobody has granted the President immunity from all criminal prosecution.

[not guilty]

I haven't researched it, but if memory serves me correctly, SCOTUS did once conduct a criminal contempt trial, appointing a master to hear evidence.

No, Trump is not arguing that "Marshan" [sic] is in contempt of SCOTUS.

[David Nieporent]

Isn't Trump arguing that Marshan is in contempt of SCOTUS?

No. (Even if we pretend you didn't misspell Merchan.) This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Noscitur a sociis]

There is no jurisdiction for SCOTUS to entertain the application -- not that that will stop the black robed ward heelers.

I would find it very surprising if the Supreme Court heard this application.

[David Nieporent]

In ordinary circumstances, I agree — but they heard Trump v. U.S. without any reason to.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But they still took the case on a writ of certiorari from an actual opinion issued by an appellate court. To be clear, I wouldn’t be especially surprised if they do end up hearing the case (and granting relief to Trump), I just don’t think it’s going to be in this application.

[tylertusta]

There is no jurisdiction for SCOTUS to entertain the application -- not that that will stop the black robed ward heelers.

What about Rule 23.3? Volkswagenwerk A.G. v. Falzon? Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart?

[not guilty]

Supreme Court rules cannot and do not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS is defined by Congress, and only by Congress.

In both Volkswagenwerk A. G. v. Falzon, 461 U.S. 1303 (1983), and Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), the applicants for the stay had sought and been denied relief by the state's court of last resort, such that state courts' judgments or decrees were final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) as to the issue(s) on which relief from SCOTUS was sought.

[tylertusta]

Your view only works if you see immunity rulings as not a final disposition. Sentencing is imminent and Merchan denied Trumps motions on immunity, so it looks pretty final to me.

Trump is relying on the same jurisdictional argument that he used to ride up the DC Circuit interlocutory path on immunity... one that the Supreme Court accepted previously.

Seems like you're being awfully aspirational on this.

[not guilty]

The absence from your comment from any enactment of Congress conferring jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to entertain this application is an omission that speaks loudly, tylertusta.

Team Trump's kvetch here is about the admission of evidence -- prior to the execrable SCOTUS decision that would arguably have excluded it -- that the judge who presided at trial has ruled (posttrial) was related to nonofficial conduct and, if it was erroneously admitted was harmless in light of the full record adduced at trial. The trial judge's evidentiary rulings are by no means "effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment," Coopers Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978).

The appellate courts of New York are fully capable of interpreting and applying the reasoning of Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), to the evidentiary record developed in this case. The collateral order exception to the final judgment or decree requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) accordingly has no application whatsoever here.

If legal analysis were easy, then top shelf lawyers wouldn't get paid big bucks.

[tylertusta]

Yeah, I'm going to mark your latest comment as aspirational as well.

You and I have butted heads on whether immunity determinations at the trial court are considered final before, and I thought your arguments were vapid back then. I see more of the same here.

The appellate courts of New York are fully capable...

We'll see if they're capable of anything of the sort when it comes to a Trump matter. I'm holding out hope that the brain rot hasn't infected them.

Far too many judges and lawyers are seemingly incapable of much when it comes to something involving Trump.

[Kazinski]

My guess is they don't take it.

I don't think the Supreme Court can or will GVR a state court proceeding, but that would be wild to GVR the verdict and tell Merchan to properly apply their immunity ruling, in 4 years.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has applied to the U. S. Supreme Court for a stay of his sentencing in Manhattan, which is scheduled for Friday morning. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000194-461f-d639-a395-7ebffd930000

Justice Sotomayor has reportedly the District Attorney’s office to respond by 10 a.m. Thursday.

Trump's filing does not identify what authority SCOTUS has to entertain the application regarding an ongoing state criminal proceeding in the absence of a final judgment or decree rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had.

[John F. Carr]

Follow along at https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a666.html

[Commenter_XY]

Several people in NYC will be burning midnight oil.

How do you 'divide and conquer' as lawyers when you need to write a legal brief quickly? Does each lawyer take a single section?

Or is it usually just one person writing it?

[John F. Carr]

New York's response has been filed along with an amicus brief by Ed Meese and Steven Calabresi.

[tylertusta]

Link to response:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A666/336904/20250109100100239_24A666%20Peoples%20Opposition%20to%20Stay.pdf

Meese-Calabresi brief:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A666/336901/20250109085515518_Brief%20of%20Amici%20Curiae-Trump%20v%20NY%201.9.25.pdf

[Roger S]

The NY judge has no authority to defy the Scotus immunity decision.

[David Nieporent]

The "SCOTUS immunity decision" did not, of course, order the NY judge to do anything, so it was impossible for him to "defy" it. But even reading your comment charitably to be more accurate, the NY judge did nothing that contradicted the decision. He applied the decision and ruled that it did not warrant overturning Trump's conviction.

[Roger S]

I think that higher courts will say otherwise.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s possible. But even if they do, that wouldn’t indicate that the judge was “ defying” anything.

[tylertusta]

Trump's filing does not identify what authority SCOTUS has to entertain the application regarding an ongoing state criminal proceeding in the absence of a final judgment or decree rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had.

Yes he did. Footnote 1:

"The shortness of time created by the trial court’s decision to schedule a criminal sentencing hearing five business days after denying President Trump’s claim of immunity constitutes “extraordinary circumstances” under this Court’s Rule 23.3. Though an applicant is ordinarily required to seek relief from the state appellate courts first, this Court has entertained simultaneous stay applications to this Court and the highest state appellate court when the circumstances warranted it."

[Kazinski]

Freshwater Strategy has released a poll showing Favorability ratings in the UK, Here are some of the top 7 on the list, in order:

name - fav. - unfav. - net
King Charles 49% -22% 27%
Jeremy Clarkson 43% 27% 16%
Nigel Farage 33% 45% -12%
Elon Musk 25% 47% -22%
Donald Trump 23% 58% -34%
Kier Starmer 22% 58% -36
Kemi Badenoch 21% 28% -7%

A few observations, first that's a tough audience, second the list the prime minister is less popular than Elon Musk, who has been criticising him profusely. Third he's lucky that there isn't going to be an election anytime soon because Farage is way ahead in popularity despite still being a net negative, but Kemi Badenoch has a lot more room to grow than either of them with a lot lower unfavorable.

[Mr. Bumble]

Will Martinned2 weigh in?

[John F. Carr]

Obviously Jeremy Clarkson should be promoted. The question is, should he be Prime Minister and use his wisdom to guide his country, or King and kept on a short leash with all his public statements approved by the Cabinet.

[Kazinski]

Clarkson is so popular because he isn't a politician, although he is conservative.

He is popular because he is obviously very forthcoming about what he thinks, which is precisely what would doom him as a politician.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Donald Trump 23% 58% -34%
Kier Starmer 22% 58% -36"

LOL

[Martinned2]

Favourability of politicians is weird in recent years. Basically anyone who actually holds office has catastrophic favourability ratings. Everyone else has favourability ratings that split wildly between different online tribes.

But if Musk wants to become unpopular in the UK, calling for Starmer to be locked up and Farage kicked out as leader of the Party he literally owns, so that Tommy Robinson can run the country is a great way to do it.

[Krayt]

It's long pointed out the winner of the US election is the second most hated person in America.

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

You must not own a TV or have Internet.

"It is crystal clear that President Trump's rally overshadowed Comrade Kamala's rally, which had to be draped off because of empty seats," .
https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1plkGn.img?w=768&h=512&m=6&x=1068&y=981&s=100&d=100

This has been true the whole campaign

[Martinned2]

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 25% (-1)
RFM: 25% (=)
CON: 20% (-3)
GRN: 11% (+2)
LDM: 11% (=)

Via @findoutnow.bsky.social, 8 Jan.
Changes w/ 11 Dec.

So in the last month the right of UK politics is losing votes (presumably to "would not vote"), and the left is losing votes to the Greens. Not much of a Musk effect so far...

[Kazinski]

That's still 45% between conservative and reform, they aren't that far apart on issues.

A big tent between Badenoch, Farage, Braverman, Robinson would be formidable, two of them women of color would make it hard to call them racist, but anti-muslim would not be far off the mark.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in Miss fanny news:
"Superior Court of Fulton County Judge Robert McBurney wrote in a January 3 order that Willis' office violated the open records request by identifying responsive documents and categorizing them as exempt, but earlier saying no such documents existed.

"Even if the records prove to be just that—exempt from disclosure for sound public policy reasons—this late revelation is a patent violation of the ORA. And for none of this is there any justification, substantial or otherwise: no one searched until prodded by civil litigation," he wrote.

He found Willis' office liable for paying Judicial Watch $19,360 in attorney's fees related to ther efforts to enforce compliace with the request, as well as $2,218 in other related litigation expenses.

Willis's probe against Trump focused on his call to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which Trump urged him to "find" enough votes to tilt the election in his favor, as well as an alleged plot to submit a false slate of pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College.
Read more U.S. Politics"
https://www.newsweek.com/fani-willis-two-weeks-pay-conservative-group-thousands-dollars-2011257

[Brett Bellmore]

"Willis's probe against Trump focused on his call to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which Trump urged him to "find" enough votes to tilt the election in his favor,"

Better re-read the transcript, he urged nothing of the sort. You're probably just recalling a fairly mendacious paraphrase that the media spread around.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, but you're just quoting Newsweek, aren't you? They're one of the outlets that published that paraphrase.

[Mr. Bumble]

? Who is this directed at? The above is directly from the article.

[not guilty]

Here is Judge McBurney's order. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25481964/judicial-watch-willis-costs-order.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

The Smasher's problems are only starting. Wait until they finish the financial audit of her office. 😉

[Bob from Ohio]

"Smasher's problems are only starting"

Yup, DOJ is going to turn her inside out.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"identifying responsive documents and categorizing them as exempt, but earlier saying no such documents existed."

So she lied again?

[tylertusta]

She's giving off the odor of mendacity again.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Right now, California is using water from last spring's record snowmelt -- not all of which they could use. It's January and there are three months of winter ahead, and maybe there will be an equal amount of snowmelt this spring, enabling them to refill the reservoirs.

Or maybe there won't be....

What they are doing is using next summer's water now -- the hydrant problem is the piping, not the reservoirs. The interesting question will be what they do NEXT SUMMER if there isn't a massive snowfall this winter.

Forget discretionary uses, they could well get into a deficit of necessary usage for sanitation and human consumption. Then what? Seriously -- then what???

[Dr. Ed 2]

The other question is if they should have firebreaks in neighborhoods?

[Absaroka]

How big of a firebreak do you think it takes to stop a fire in the face of 90 mph winds?

[Brett Bellmore]

Approximately from the fire to the Pacific, I'd think.

[Absaroka]

🙂

[Absaroka]

It turns out the answer is a few miles: "with embers flying an estimated two to three miles ahead of the established fire and in every direction".

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not as wide as you might think if it had proper plumbing to support a line of fire trucks spraying a fog pattern (small droplets) into said wind (which is not a sustained 90 MPH but I digress).

Current weather forecast as of 12:40 PST -- 70°F
Humidity 16%
Wind Speed SSE 3 MPH
Dewpoint 23°F (-5°C)

That's DRY -- compare it to Death Valley with a Humidity of 13% and a dewpoint of 15°F.

The problem is not the wind, per se, nor that it is blowing debris upwards of a mile downwind, but that these are "burning embers."

Now the firefighters would get soaked, but if you had a row of fire trucks spraying a fog pattern into said wind, most of these embers woiuldn't be burning anymore. Not just that you would put most of them out, but that you'd have a cloud of much higher humidity behind you. And that would be more effective than doing this on an ad hoc basis like they are trying to do now.

It's really the 16% humidity that is the problem.

And then you amend your building codes -- like Eastern cities did after 19th Century fires -- and prohibit the use of wood for exterior sheathing and flammable shingles for roofs. (There are fiberglass ones that are essentially identical but don't support a flame the way that the asphalt-soaked cardboard ones do.

[Absaroka]

Just curious how much time you have wildland firefighting? I've only done a little bit, but I remember losing my eyebrows one night when the wind came up. And what you are saying sounds implausible to me. But if you've spent a couple seasons on a Hotshot crew, I'll defer to your experience.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This isn't wildland firefighting.

It's firestorm firefighting, like in the 19th Century.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How much firestorm firefighting experience do you have, Dr. Ed?

[Absaroka]

He apparently knows about lining up a few miles of these to build his mist wall.

It's odd that the technique isn't mentioned in e.g. the histories of the post earthquake San Fran or Great Chicago fires - an oversight, no doubt.

[Don Nico]

The 405 is certainly not wide enough. The Oakland fire in 1991 showed that.

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

It doesn't have to STOP the fire. If you have the water and fighters (both disastrously low due to the Mayor and Governor) you can enlarge or water down the other side of the break.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This isn't going to end until it reaches the ocean.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And how did these fires start?

Did they have help???

Talk about terrorism....

[David Nieporent]

And how did these fires start?

When a mommy fire and a daddy fire love each other very much…

Did they have help???

Don't make me release yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions in the same day.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's really hard in California to deal with a fire once it's started, the key is really preventing the accumulation of fuel in the first place.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Gianni Muschetto, staff chief of law enforcement at Cal Fire, said about 10-15% of wildfires in the last five years were the result of arson.
Pointing to published data from 2022 as an example, he said there were 358 arson fires in the state that year, amounting to about 12,000 burned acres. Each time, firefighters and members of the public were put at risk."
More at the link:
https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/arson-wildfires-california-los-angeles

[David Nieporent]

So, in other words, there's an 85-90% chance that Dr. Ed's insinuation is wrong?

[SRG2]

Yeah, but there's a 95% chance that Dr Ed doesn't "get" probability.

[Mr. Bumble]

Dr. Ed never mentioned "probability" and unlike pompous ass David is not: David Notimportant Rule
1. David is NEVER wrong.
2. If David is wrong see rule #1.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No David, not if they have (a) turned off the electricity, (b) posted red flag warnings (banning all fires) and (c) there was no lightning.

David, this is like when an empty building without electric or gas service catches fire -- other than human beings, what exactly is going to start the fire?

Seriously -- other than Martians or Zombies, exactly what do you think could have started the fires?

[Kazinski]

Nope, that's not what it says.

Cal fire assigns a cause to almost every fire, so its not just assigning probability to a basket of fires.

Generally the most common cause of fires in California is lightning, mainly because one lighting storm can cause hundreds of fires.

[Don Nico]

Downed powerlines in wooded areas are also frequent causes

[Kazinski]

Absolutely. The Camp fire which leveled Paradise, CA and killed 85 people in 2018 was caused by downed powerlines.

But the 2020, but the 2020 Northern Complex Fire, which was in the same area and killed 12 people in Berry creek was caused by lightning. That fire was caused by lightning, it was only 6 or 7 miles from me and under control when the wind shifted and the fire line moved Southeast 35 miles overnight and wiped out Berry Creek.

The Dixie Fire in 2021 was also caused by powerlines, that wiped out Greenville CA, but the evacuated the town first, and the only casualty was one firefighter in another part of the blaze.

All three of those fires were in the Feather River watershed, and at least partially in my county.

[Dr. Ed 2]

However, if (a) there was no lightning and (b) the power was turned off BEFORE the fires started (wasn't it) then neither started these fires.

Hence what did???

[David Nieporent]

The power was not turned off before the fires started. I don't know if there was any lightning, but if you say there wasn't, I assume there was. Any number of other things can cause a fire to start, from a discarded cigarette to a car crash to a spark from some equipment.

[SRG2]

It was Jewish Space Lasers again!

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the Attorney General can seek an injunction requiring a town to allow multifamily housing near transit stops. This is based on a recent state law requiring towns to rezone for multifamily zoning or else lose certain state aid. Milton voters chose not to change zoning. The court ruled that the explicit financial consequences did not prevent the Attorney General from asking for more relief. However, voters of the Town of Milton will not be jailed yet. The regulations implementing the housing law were invalidated. The executive branch thought it could avoid following the Administrative Procedure Act by calling its legally binding regulations mere guidelines. After the regulations are properly enacted and the legal dust settles, then the Attorney General can get an injunction telling Milton residents how to vote at Town Meeting.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/attorney-general-v-town-of-milton-executive-office-of-housing-and-livable-communities-sjc-13580/download

[Commenter_XY]

So much for home rule.

[Krayt]

We love democracy. Until we don't.

Also, the federal principle of states can make a clear choice: dance to get congressional money, or refuse it. Why not a city? Apparently that was deliberately allowed though. So fall back on point 1.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A rather disturbing report of what is happening in the illegal alien hotels. https://www.bostonherald.com/2025/01/07/massachusetts-migrant-family-shelter-program-serious-incident-reports-reveal-physical-sexual-assaults-since-2022/

[Jerry B.]

“In November, the Healey administration announced that it will be phasing out the use of hotels and moving people more quickly out of the shelter system and into stable housing.”

Who speaks for the displaced horses?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and per EV's latest post it's Open Thread Mon., Wed. and Fri.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Episcopalian priest in Alexandria, Virginia will no longer lead communion services because he's protesting the white supremacist blah blah.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2025/01/reparations-should-not-trump-communion

[Michael P]

I think we need to put a hold on Greek immigration until we can figure out what the hell is going on.

https://apnews.com/article/fraternity-san-diego-state-fire-pledge-party-140f97800826c4e08f586f37f60c778c

[Roger S]

"The fraternity was already on probation". Where have I heard that before?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's time to put ADMINISTRATORS in prison for this.

Do it once and there won't be any more of this happening.

[John F. Carr]

A total and complete shutdown on frat bros entering the United States!

Wait... it's coming from inside the house!

[Dr. Ed 2]

You know, the more I think about this, I am really wondering if the Cali fires are terrorism.

Think about what the direct economic impact alone of this will be.
There is going to be a major insurance payout, there is going to be major losses not paid for by insurance, and I wonder how much of it will get rebuilt.

And then the indirect impact -- these people had jobs, doing stuff, and are now homeless. How many trailers does FEMA have, and how much infrastructure remains to hitch them to? There is no electric, and I doubt that the water & sewer is usable without major work. (At the least, you would have to cap all the old lines to the houses.)

California is visibly "America" and if this wasn't terrorism, they ought to have known that such a liability existed. But I still ask that without electric lines or burn permits, how did the fires start?

[John F. Carr]

What does terrorism mean to you? To me terrorism is about intimidation. It doesn't work if nobody in particular is blamed. Then it's just anonymous arson.

[Frank Drackman]

So Parkinsonian Joe's a Great Grandfather,
I lose track, is it the Granddaughter or Great Granddaughter he doesn't accept as his?

Frank

[Kazinski]

Great explanation about inflation by Pierre Poileivre.

And it also totally explains why the excuse that "everywhere had inflation post covid" doesn't wash.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1876503555739415034

The reason everyone had inflation post vivid is everyone printed shitloads of money at the same time production collapsed. And while some money printing to get through civic was probably the right thing to do governments kept up the money printing long after it was needed and the economy was reopened.

[Mr. Bumble]

+1 but the usual suspects won't bother to hear it.

[Kazinski]

-10 for spellchecker still not recognizing vivid civic covid, when I type it.

[bernard11]

Poileivre is widely respected for his deep understanding of macroeconomics. (chuckle)

[Kazinski]

He seems to know that Milton Friedman lives on forever, at least in monetary policy.

That's actually pretty humorous considering Poileivre is likely to become PM soon because Trudeau's Finance Minister resigned rather than tell Parliament that Trudeau blew out the budget. She basically told Trudeau 'its your mess, I'm not taking the fall for you'.

And of course we have same problem, the Fed has cut interest rates a few times since September, but mortgage rates are near there July highs, they aren't going to go down untill there are budget cuts, or we have a recession.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz...The inflation fight is not over. Rates may go up, not down. We are still running ~3%. We need to reduce that by 33%, which is a big lift.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is four years of inflation still transitory?

[David Nieporent]

What are you talking about? There was about a year and a half of inflation.

[tylertusta]

What do you consider as high inflation?

[Mr. Bumble]

What are YOU talking about? The last time there was NO inflation was August 1955 when the rate was measured at - 0.37%.
Inflation above the Fed's goal of 2% started in March 2021 when it was 2.61% climbing each month until it reached a high of 9.06% in June of 2022. It then declined slowly until it finally went below 3% in June of 2024.
https://www.multpl.com/inflation/table/by-month

[Mr. Bumble]

US Inflation Rate by Month

Chart Table
Share

Show:

By Year By Month

Date Value
Nov 1, 2024   2.75%
Oct 1, 2024   2.60%
Sep 1, 2024   2.44%
Aug 1, 2024   2.53%
Jul 1, 2024   2.89%
Jun 1, 2024   2.97%
May 1, 2024   3.27%
Apr 1, 2024   3.36%
Mar 1, 2024   3.48%
Feb 1, 2024   3.15%
Jan 1, 2024   3.09%
Dec 1, 2023   3.35%
Nov 1, 2023   3.14%
Oct 1, 2023   3.24%
Sep 1, 2023   3.70%
Aug 1, 2023   3.67%
Jul 1, 2023   3.18%
Jun 1, 2023   2.97%
May 1, 2023   4.05%
Apr 1, 2023   4.93%
Mar 1, 2023   4.98%
Feb 1, 2023   6.04%
Jan 1, 2023   6.41%
Dec 1, 2022   6.45%
Nov 1, 2022   7.11%
Oct 1, 2022   7.75%
Sep 1, 2022   8.20%
Aug 1, 2022   8.26%
Jul 1, 2022   8.52%
Jun 1, 2022   9.06%
May 1, 2022   8.58%
Apr 1, 2022   8.26%
Mar 1, 2022   8.54%
Feb 1, 2022   7.87%
Jan 1, 2022   7.48%
Dec 1, 2021   7.04%
Nov 1, 2021   6.81%
Oct 1, 2021   6.22%
Sep 1, 2021   5.39%
Aug 1, 2021   5.25%
Jul 1, 2021   5.37%
Jun 1, 2021   5.39%
May 1, 2021   4.99%
Apr 1, 2021   4.16%
Mar 1, 2021   2.62%

[David Nieporent]

Exactly. Okay, so mid-2021 to mid-2023 is closer to 2 years than a year and a half. But it obviously isn't 4 years.

[David Nieporent]

What are YOU talking about? The last time there was NO inflation was August 1955 when the rate was measured at - 0.37%.

I'm talking about the fact that nobody considers a 0% inflation rate to be either an achievable or sane objective. Normal historical inflation rates is what the desired situation was; it's inflation above that that's considered inflation. It went on longer, perhaps, than the word "transitory" conveyed, but it's over.

Some people stupidly think that the end of inflation means that prices return to the levels they were before inflation began, but that's ignorance (and not the rational kind!)

[Brett Bellmore]

"I'm talking about the fact that nobody considers a 0% inflation rate to be either an achievable or sane objective."

You are really casual about announcing that nobody holds views that are actually mainstream and often majority views. In fact, a lot of people think that a zero inflation rate is both achievable and a worthy goal, they just tend not to be in government.

[Mr. Bumble]

1. David is always right.
2. If David is wrong see rule #1.
Because of this David can speak for everyone.

[David Nieporent]

they just tend not to be in government.

…or have graduated from high school.

[Kazinski]

In 2015 inflation was .1%, in 2009 inflation was -.4%.

So it is achievable.

But I agree 2% is probably desirable, mainly because it makes our national debt more manageable. 2% inflation, 2% real growth compounded reduces the debt burden by almost 50% in 10 years.

However we are racking up new debt at a higher rate.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe we should just live within our means as a country.

[Brett Bellmore]

What the hell are YOU talking about? Except for momentary blips, we've had continuous inflation for a good 70 years now. The last time we didn't have inflation, for just one month, was April 2015, one of those 'blips'.

Where did you get a year and a half from?

[David Nieporent]

I am talking about the fact that one has to be retarded to think we're talking about a 0% inflation rate.

[Life of Brian]

Whereas it's no doubt crystal clear to readers of all mental acuities that you've come up with your own definition of the threshold for actual "inflation," but aren't going to say what it actually is.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and just who was talking about 0% inflation. As a practitioner you should be more careful with language or maybe I should.
Maybe it's my fault for neglecting to say "high" inflation.

[David Nieporent]

I interpreted what you said as referring to high inflation, and I responded accordingly. It was several people responding to me who decided that we were talking about 0% inflation, and tried to gotcha me because inflation is above 0% now.

[Life of Brian]

It was several people responding to me who decided that we were talking about 0% inflation, and tried to gotcha me because inflation is above 0% now.

The astute reader will note that you're clinging to the 0% straw man rather than revealing (and thus actually having to defend) your secret threshold for what [implicitly "high"] inflation is.

[Life of Brian]

There was about a year and a half of inflation.

Where "inflation" is redefined to just mean more than 6%? The data is here -- feel free to provide another source if you think their repackaging of BLS monthly statistics is way off.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The reason everyone had inflation post vivid is everyone printed shitloads of money at the same time"

Yeah, one of the interesting things today, and historians will probably comment on it eventually, (But not before the present generation of them is dead, probably.) is the way the world's governing class has become one international class, that tends to make the same mistakes everywhere at the same time.

The diversity of nations is no longer accompanied by a corresponding diversity of policies, in a lot of regards. The labs all agree to run exactly the same experiments.

[Estragon]

“Experimenting with a new time for an open thread; hope you folks enjoy it!”

I guess the mask is off. Lathering the rubes (and tubes— thanks autocorrect!). Somewhere RAK is feeling vindicated; a legal blog— it ain’t.

[ThePublius]

What is it about "open thread" do you not understand? The Volokh Conspiracy is a legal blog. Contributors post things, and commenters comment on the topic. This, where we are now, is an "open thread" - meaning people are welcome to comment on whatever they like, anything.

[Kazinski]

Do you think Volokh every would have lasted 20 years, gone from independent, WaPo, Reason, gotten the visibility from SC justices, clerks, reporters, publishers, and helped allowing EV to get his Heritage foundation gig if it was only a stodgy legal blog only for the anointed?

Lament it all you want, but I will bet 3/4 of the posts in this thread are from non-lawyers, and if we were not here, I'll bet a lot of the lawyers would be gone too.

EV did not pick Reason because he thought it was a law-only ghetto, or the WaPo before it either.

I'm afraid you are going to have to distinguish yourself here by the strength of your argument, not by the diploma on your wall.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Do you think Volokh every would have lasted 20 years, gone from independent, WaPo, Reason, gotten the visibility from SC justices, clerks, reporters, publishers, and helped allowing EV to get his Heritage foundation gig if it was only a stodgy legal blog only for the anointed

The Volokh Conspiracy took off precisely because it catered to an unusually legally-well informed set of commentators, pitched at an unusually high level of sophistication.

[Kazinski]

No actually it took off because it was frequently linked by Instapundit.

Another libertarian law professor, and they are both on the NCLA board together, so certainly that's another tie.

[Bob from Ohio]

"No actually it took off because it was frequently linked by Instapundit."

We forget how big Instapundit was in the early stages of blogs post 9/11

[TwelveInchPianist]

Because everybody knows that true legal blogs have their open threads on Monday and Thursday?

[Bob from Ohio]

Open threads can best be seen as a way to keep off topic comments away from serious posts.

[Kazinski]

Good luck with that.

[Kazinski]

Mark Zuckerberg has thrown in the towel and embraced Muskian free speech and using community notes instead of heavy handed censorship.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/zuckerbergs-fact-checking-rollback-ushers-chaotic-online-era-rcna186561

"Zuckerberg, who once touted the importance of the company’s moderation efforts, echoed that worldview Tuesday when he said that times had changed and the new shift would reduce “censorship” and “restore free expression” — a message that was quickly embraced by some Republican pundits and politicians. "

This is a little humorous:
"A close reading of Meta’s updated policy guidelines reveals that Meta now explicitly allows users to call each other mentally ill based on their gender identity or sexual orientation, among other changes."

As opposed to labeling people Nazis or white supremicists based on being 'cis-normative', 'white male', or a Trump voter.

And this is the sweetest part:

"In his announcement, Zuckerberg laid blame on the legacy media, fact-checkers and Meta’s own employees, calling them politically biased. To remedy the perception of that bias, Zuckerberg said he was moving Meta’s trust and safety and content moderation teams from California to Texas.

Hopefully Lubbock not Austin.

[Life of Brian]

"A close reading of Meta’s updated policy guidelines reveals that Meta now explicitly allows users to call each other mentally ill based on their gender identity or sexual orientation, among other changes."

As opposed to labeling people Nazis or white supremicists based on being 'cis-normative', 'white male', or a Trump voter.

I have to say that takes the recent preference cascade to a whole new level. Maybe there's hope for humanity yet.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Muskian free speech

So, blocking people from sharing unflattering news articles?

[Martinned2]

Let's see how big the EU fines get before he changes his mind.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think he's counting on the incoming administration having his back in that regard, rather than cheering the EU on.

[John F. Carr]

There is some risk that the people imposing the fines in Europe are willing to go down with the ship when Trump threatens to blockade the Continent in retaliation. Cue George W. Bush saying "bring 'em on!"

[DixieTune]

I'd settle for making Europe pay for its share of defense. They've become a half continent of girly men

[Brett Bellmore]

We should stop humoring their pretense to live on a separate continent from Asia, too.

[Kazinski]

Lets see how large the retaliatory tariffs get, I think the era of gigantic EU fines against American tech companies just for existing is over.

[Michael P]

So, https://barthsnotes.com/2018/10/24/a-note-on-a-1975-grooming-case-from-rotherham/
Which seems like a long time ago but on the other hand this guy pleaded guilty to that kind of crime at the same time and place: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-59607283

I wonder if Sarcastr0, DMN and so on feel vindicated in some way that maybe there really have been second-generation Muslim immigrant rape gangs in Rotherham and similar cities.

[F.D. Wolf]

ANCHOR: “Despite what you have heard from Caruso, no firefighters have told us that they are running out of water”

*cuts to reporter*

REPORTER: “Firefighters have told me they have no water to put on this fire”

https://x.com/GrageDustin/status/1877214013651558498

Where's Jake Gittes when you need him?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Over at reddit the Left is blaming climate change and billionaires for the devastation caused by the wildfires in CA.

Not the governor and his stupid Democrat water mismanagement or the DEI mayor and DEI fire chief and fire leadership with their DEI priorities. Not wanting to hold authority accountable must be some pathological disease component of Leftism.

Liberals are sick and twisted people. Dear Hollywood, you get what you vote for and to steal a line from the Joker, you also get what you fucking deserve.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Not wanting to hold authority accountable must be some pathological disease component of Leftism."

Nah, they'd be perfectly willing to hold them responsible for a failure to prioritize DEI.

The cause is everything, and every institution is supposed to advance the cause first and foremost, with its nominal purpose just being a side activity to be accomplished only to the degree it doesn't interfere with the cause.

That's why every institution the left takes over sucks; We're measuring the suckage by the institution's nominal purpose, and they're measuring it by how well it advances leftism.

That's why leftism advances, after all: They put ALL their effort into advancing leftism, while competing ideologies are handicapped by caring if the institutions they run are working.

[Martinned2]

You're projecting.

[Martinned2]

I agree with David Allen Green that this one is amusing:

Truss sends Starmer cease and desist letter over claim she ‘crashed the economy’

Liz Truss has sent a cease and desist letter to Sir Keir Starmer demanding that he stops claiming she crashed the economy, it can be revealed.

In the letter, a copy of which has been seen by The Telegraph, lawyers acting on behalf of the former prime minister argue the statement is “false and defamatory”.

The lawyers even suggest that the assertions from Sir Keir before the July general election contributed towards Ms Truss losing her battle to be re-elected as the MP for South West Norfolk.

At the core of the row are the weeks after Ms Truss’s so-called mini-Budget in September 2022, when financial markets reacted negatively to its major tax cuts funded by borrowing.

The legal letter argues that the financial movements did not amount to an economic crash, since there was no fall in economic output or rise in unemployment – the usual signifiers of such an event.

To back up their claim, Ms Truss’s lawyers cite a report from Andrew Lilico, a fellow of the Institute of Economic Affairs, a Right-leaning think tank. His report was written in his capacity as managing director of the consultancy Europe Economics.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/09/truss-starmer-cease-and-desist-letter-crashed-economy-claim/

I'm not a fan of how quick US courts are to describe something as an opinion rather than a statement of fact, but "crashed the economy" doesn't seem like the sort of statement that is susceptible to review by the courts under the law of defamation. (Though it might be if Truss brings in additional statements that shift the whole thing in the factual direction.)

[Krayt]

Also, in a case like this, government as arbiter of truth spoken against it.

[Kazinski]

Starmer is throwing people in jail for Facebook posts, he's got Tommy Robinson in jail now for his speech:

"In February 2023, Yaxley-Lennon, who founded the long-defunct English Defence League (EDL), began repeating the claims and went on to post online a film claiming he had been “silenced” by the state.

That film may have been viewed at least 47 million times.

Eventually, this July, the anti-Islam activist showed the film to thousands of his supporters in London's Trafalgar Square, saying he would not be silenced. The following day he left the country.

Aidan Eardley KC, for Solicitor General Sarah Sackman, told the court that Yaxley-Lennon had intended to repeat the false allegations, despite the injunction, and then take “evasive” measures."

“This is a high culpability case because of the high number of breaches,” said Mr Eardley.

“It is a continuing breach, the material is still out there and some of it is under the defendant's control.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c704eedkqkvo

You would think Starmer would be very careful of his own speech.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe someone should remind him of how things worked out for Robespierre.

[Martinned2]

The evil anti-Israel New York Times has picked a fight with the [checks notes] Quakers because they wanted to use the word "genocide".

Quaker group pulls NYT ad over paper’s refusal to let it call Israel’s Gaza bombing ‘genocide’

The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), a Quaker organization that advocates for peace, said on Monday the group cancelled a planned advertisement in the New York Times in response to the paper refusing to allow it to refer to Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide.

“The refusal of The New York Times to run paid digital ads that call for an end to Israel’s genocide in Gaza is an outrageous attempt to sidestep the truth,” said Joyce Ajlouny, general secretary for the AFSC, in a press release. “Palestinians and allies have been silenced and marginalized in the media for decades as these institutions choose silence over accountability. It is only by challenging this reality that we can hope to forge a path toward a more just and equitable world.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/jan/08/new-york-times-ad-cancel-gaza-genocide

[John F. Carr]

It is very important in America to properly classify people as villains or victims.

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

So you are a fan of Disinformation Governance Board (DGB)

[Don Nico]

Very true. Palestinianism is just a fancy mask for people who want to drive Jews into the sea.

[Martinned2]

I assume Elon Musk will demand an inquiry into the Walsall child abuse scandal any day now...

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-65189785

[Mr. Bumble]

What's to inquire about? People responsible have been tried and convicted. Did it take too long?

[Martinned2]

Ah, suddenly you're asking the questions you should have been asking about Elon Musk's racist rants before. Must be a coincidence that these questions suddenly come to mind when I shared an example of child abuse committed by white people.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Here's a question. Why did the Leftist police arrest fathers who were trying to protect their daughter from Moslem Grooming Gangs?

[David Nieporent]

Here's a question: why don't you know how to spell Muslim?

[Mr. Bumble]

Why do you think you know everything?
Is it Muslim or Moslem?

"When Baby Boomers were children it was Moslem. The American Heritage Dictionary (1992) noted,"Moslem is the form predominantly preferred in journalism and popular usage. Muslim is preferred by scholars and by English-speaking adherents of Islam."
"According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,"Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word."
https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/why-do-people-say-muslim-now-instead-of-moslem

[Michael P]

So how long did the West Midlands councils and police sit on the reports before investigating? Did the pattern of abuse in those cases stretch back to the 1970s?

[Martinned2]

White people have been abusing children much longer than that.

[Mr. Bumble]

You are destroying any credibility you might have had.

[Martinned2]

Says the guy who just got caught only caring about due process when white people are involved.

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

Wow what a stupid statement, and racist...so in the 1, 100, 000 interracial marriages the non-white is the stupid weak duped one
Yeah, you're racist. No doubt

In 2015, there were approximately 11 million interracial couples in the United States

[Brett Bellmore]

I can believe that, they're all over here around Greenville, SC, to the point where nobody even blinks at it. Not like the fuss when my sister-in-law's brother married a black girl back in the 80's.

That's how racism is finally going to stop being a thing: When we've interbred to the point where race makes about as much difference as hair color.

[Don Nico]

So have black and brown people.
Next irrelevant comment?

[RedheadedPharoh]

This is direct election interference and harming our sacred democracy.

[Martinned2]

There's something you don't see everyday: Sir Keir's Labour government is to the right of the Trump administration on a race-related issue.

UK rejects Trump team’s call to repatriate ‘ISIS bride’
Foreign Secretary David Lammy says ISIS supporter Shamima Begum will remain in Syrian camp — despite protests from Trump pick Seb Gorka.

Shamima Begum, who left the U.K. to join ISIS while at school, will not be allowed to leave Syria and return to Britain, the government’s top diplomat confirmed Thursday — despite urging from Donald Trump’s incoming team.

Foreign Secretary David Lammy was asked about Begum’s future after the U.S. president-elect’s pick for Senior Director for Counterterrorism Sebastian Gorka said the U.K. should repatriate British members of the Islamist terror group currently held in Syrian detention camps.

“Any nation which wishes to be seen as a serious ally and friend of the most powerful nation in the world should act in a fashion that reflects that serious commitment,” Gorka told the Times newspaper, stressing that this applied “doubly so for the U.K.”

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-david-lammy-reject-us-trump-gorka-call-repatriate-isis-bride-shamima-begum-syria/

[Martinned2]

Who could have seen this coming?

Elon Musk says DOGE probably won’t find $2 trillion in federal budget cuts

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, not $2T in cuts Congress would remotely consider. I'm sure he could come up with more than that in cuts, but it would all be stuff Congress would flatly refuse to permit.

That's basically the problem, after all: Congress is on an out of control spending binge, has been for years.

We're never going to get spending under control until the entire budget is viewed as "discretionary".

[Martinned2]

That's basically the problem, after all: Congress is on an out of control spending binge, has been for years.

So what you're saying is that Congress's control of the purse is an inconvenience, and that Donald Trump should get to decide how much money the US government spends on what?

[ThePublius]

"So what you're saying is that Congress's control of the purse is an inconvenience, and that Donald Trump should get to decide how much money the US government spends on what?"

He didn't say that. Stop being such a troll.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, what I'm saying is that Congress' control of the purse is about equivalent to a crackhead's restraint in taking drugs. They've literally been on an out of control spending binge for a couple decades now.

[John F. Carr]

In the city where I used to live the City Council was not allowed to exceed the Mayor's budget request. Until 50 years ago the President could decline to spend appropriated funds.

[Don Nico]

No, what Trump has correctly said that the debt ceiling sword is not going to lead to responsible budget policy in the short run. That has been showed to be true for two decades.

[David Nieporent]

it would all be stuff Congress would flatly refuse to permit.

No, Brett; the problem is that the public would flatly refuse to permit it. Everyone supports cuts in the abstract, or cuts to programs that only benefit other people. But basically nobody¹ wants to see the government out of the business of regulation, law enforcement, national defense, and benefits.
​
​
¹Evidence: basically nobody votes for libertarians.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's all fighting at the margins so long as deficit spending is permitted; The public by a large margin supports a balanced budget amendment. Once we got such, it would be spending proposal vs spending proposal, and Congress would have to set priorities and pick what got funded, instead of just funding anything that looks like it might yield votes.

Until we have one, it's hopeless. Congress will just keep borrowing money to buy votes until something breaks, and anyone who refuses to play that game will end up on the outside looking in.

[DixieTune]

They might support a balanced budget amendment in theory, but they don't support either the cost reductions or the tax increases needed to make that a reality.

[David Nieporent]

What DT said.

But also, a balanced budget amendment is stupid. Spending is far too high, I agree. But a BBA is no way to run a country.

[DixieTune]

I think there's an argument that the budget has to be balanced over a 10 or 20 year period or something like that. But on a year by year basis, I agree it doesn't work.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that when you haven't actually balanced the budget in decades, (No, Clinton didn't balance the budget.) and are borrowing a quarter of everything you spend year after year, you're so far from fiscal rectitude that talk about the merits of judicious borrowing is silly. You're not CAPABLE of judicious borrowing!

It's like the neighborhood drunk objecting to drying out because he's read that an occasional glass of red wine can have health benefits.

[Mr. Bumble]

Balanced a budget? How about never even voting on a real budget?

[Kazinski]

Ill settle for them to get to the first Trillion, then make up the next trillion or even more in deregulation cutting costs in the economy.

Deregulation is the real low hanging fruit.

[Mr. Bumble]

Poor Jimmy Carter has already been forgotten, what with Trump Law and the LA fires sucking all of the oxygen out of the story.
Tomorrows new Friday open thread should be interesting with Judge Juan Javert due to sentence Trump and the SC hearing Tik-Tok arguments.

[SRG2]

Tomorrows new Friday open thread should be interesting with...

Bagsy Trump taking over Canada

[SRG2]

Bragg's SC response to Trump's absurd request for a stay: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A666/336904/20250109100100239_24A666%20Peoples%20Opposition%20to%20Stay.pdf

The SC does not have jurisfiction at this juncture and Trump is still a private citizen. so he can fuck right off.

[Kazinski]

I don't think he's too worried, he's safe in the Whitehouse for the next four years while it sorts itself out.

[David Nieporent]

I think he's incredibly worried, since he keeps desperately filing even more and more absurd appeals in an attempt to head it off.

[Riva]

This may come as quite a shock to you, but it’s not really Bragg’s decision. President Trump has raised some compelling arguments and there isn’t a corrupt, conflicted state judge to rubber stamp things for the fat slob here.

[John F. Carr]

Judge Reeves of the Eastern District of Kentucky has ruled against the Biden Administration's Title IX rules. A preliminary injunction against the rule has been in place since last year. There will not be a permanent injunction. "Vacatur of the Final Rule effectively moots the plaintiffs’ request for permanent injunctive
relief." A declaratory judgment is will be entered in addition to an order of vacatur.

Presumably this is the final word because the Trump administration will not pursue an appeal. There are no non-government defendants to argue in favor of the rule.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68487552/state-of-tennessee-v-cardona/

[M L]

Obama and Trump just chilling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH8r-d3TGW4&ab_channel=FOX5WashingtonDC

[Mr. Bumble]

Noticeably missing; Michelle my Belle.
Couldn't catch a flight from an "extended vacation" in Hawaii.

[ThePublius]

I need a good meatloaf recipe.

Pretty simple, not too spicy, not too garlicky, bacon on top is nice, and a nice gravy to go with it.

Anybody?

[Mr. Bumble]

Wing it. Unless you go overly heavy on a spice you almost can't go too wrong.

[ThePublius]

Thank you for the reply. What do you think about the meat mix? I'm looking at Bill Blass's recipe on NYTimes Cooking; he used 2 lb. sirloin beef, 1/2 lb. veal, 1/2 lb. pork.

https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/7681-bill-blasss-meatloaf?unlocked_article_code=1.n04.5Mji.oOz4THaRofBi&smid=share-url

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm really not the guy you want to ask, but the meat mixture sounds pretty standard for what is sometimes sold as meatloaf or meatball mix.
Maybe CX-Y will see this and weigh in.

[ThePublius]

Would you put bread in it? Some recipes do.

[Mr. Bumble]

I've always used Italian seasoned bread crumbs but I also use uncooked oatmeal too. About 1/2 to 3/4 of a cup depending on how much meat I'm using. It may sound weird but that is how my mother and grandmothers made it; maybe as a way to stretch it left over from the Great Depression.
For what it's worth, my mother would use stale Italian bread in her meatball. Soaked in water and then squeezed out.

[Mr. Bumble]

A few more thought:
I always make my meatloaf shaped like a football and bake in a Pyrex dish, so no bacon, but when I was in the service a buddy would make his in a loaf pan completely line with bacon. Hmmm bacon!
Also, my mom would embed her meatloaf with a hard boiled egg or two. I think this comes Eastern Europe and from her mother who was of Hungarian decent.

[not guilty]

When I was on a low carb diet, I used spicy crushed pork rinds in place of bread crumbs. I'm no longer on that diet, but I still make meat loaf that way.

[ThePublius]

Thanks, Bumble - read all of your replies, very interesting. I might try the oatmeal thing. I have some nice Scottish oatmeal.

[jdgalt1]

The recipe used to be on the back of the box of Quaker Oats.

[ThePublius]

Oh, interesting. I'd like to see that!

[jdgalt1]

Eugene has renamed the thread, but it still posted on Thursday. Either this made no difference or he intended to post on Friday but made a tech mistake.

[Absaroka]

If you look at the top, it was posted on '1.8.2025 10:02 PM'. Jan 8th is a Wednesday.

[Don Nico]

Back in the U.K. Kier Starmer has called deployed his Counter-Extremism Unit (bureauthugs) to monitor Elon Musk's activities.
He should be paying more attention to the thousands of girls who have been raped.

[Kazinski]

Kill the messenger has a lot more appeal than address the problem, or find out who should be accountable.

Farage in Parliament saying if Starmer doesn't greenlight an inquiry, then Reform will bankroll it and issue it.

And if its only victims and advocates that will talk to them then so be it.

https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1877023338905624770?t=ETDJgg6LQMhYbrwwP2UqlA&s=19