Midweek Midday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Ta Da!

[ThePublius]

So, midday recalibrated to the East Coast. 🙂

[Nelson]

As it should be.

[apedad]

I don't get the midday thing.

Is if for the (minor) alliteration?

And if so, then go full-bore and call it the Midweek Midday Menagerie of Madness.

[Mr. Bumble]

Never learned how to tell time?
Start your own blog and call it whatever you like.

[Magister]

Midweek Midday Midden of Middling Midgets might be more accurate.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yourself included?

[Noscitur a sociis]

No u!!!!!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Midday Midweek Musings.

[Mr. Bumble]

Alliterative and accurate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It all is based on Zulu time anyway.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, Zulu a great movie which introduced Michael Caine.

[SRG2]

It didn't. It made him a star, but he'd been in films before then. Zulu is a magnificent film, beloved by generations of British boys of all ages. It is saved from modern opprobrium because there's no evident racism nor condescension, the Zulus were not native to the area either - they were expanding their empire, the Zulus themselves approved - Cetshwayo's great-grandson Buthelezi played his great grandfather, they were happy to be extras, and they were well-treated (the British producers occasionally running afoul of South Africa's apartheid laws and customs.)

My mother was an actress in her youth, and was part of the Westminster repertory company when Michael Caine got his first job as ASM. He was painfully shy and had a terrible cockney accent. He only got the job because when the men in the company saw the headshots, they said, "We'll have him". He was harassed for a while by them until they accepted that he wasn't gay.

[Mr. Bumble]

My source for "introducing" was from memory of the opening credits.
Apparently this was his first major role.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You are correct - see 0:34 here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hTzQrhMuNy8

[Mr. Bumble]

Moved

[not guilty]

The Special Counsel's report regarding the charging decisions in regard to prosecution of Donald Trump in the District of Columbia is a powerful exposition of Trump's criminality. https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/76c2c1e8fe2e5ae7/d2d77a9c-full.pdf

The District Court order dismissing the indictment was without prejudice to the charges being brought at a later time. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.283.0_2.pdf I hope that if Trump is alive when he leaves office as President, the DOJ will revive all charges.

[Mr. Bumble]

DOJ under President Vance? Not likely.

[Martinned2]

So your theory is that Trumpists protect other Trumpists from criminal prosecution, and (implicitly) that that's a good thing? You're not a fan of the theory that criminals should get prosecuted?

[Bob from Ohio]

"DOJ will revive all charges"

Keep hope alive!

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t think anybody should be prosecuted in clear violation of a statute of limitations, and doing it to Trump doesn’t seem likely to serve the public interest.

[not guilty]

The revival of charges that were dismissed without prejudice would not be "in clear violation of a statute of limitations." The prosecution was initiated within the five year period specified in 18 U.S.C. § 3282. All of the conduct that Trump has been charged with is well within the limitation period applicable to commencement of the prosecution. Criminal statutes of limitations have a primary purpose of providing fairness to the accused, and are subject to tolling, suspension, and waiver. United States v. Levine, 658 F.2d 113, 119-21 (3d Cir 1981).

As the Supreme Court explained in Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 114-15 (1970):

The purpose of a statute of limitations is to limit exposure to criminal prosecution to a certain fixed period of time following the occurrence of those acts the legislature has decided to punish by criminal sanctions. Such a limitation is designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past. Such a time limit may also have the salutary effect of encouraging law enforcement officials promptly to investigate suspected criminal activity.

"The statute of limitations is a defense and must be asserted on the trial by the defendant in criminal cases." Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 U.S. 128, 135 (1917). Commission of the offense within the limitation period is not an element of the offense, and the statute is not a jurisdictional bar. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has treated the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. United States v. Wild, 551 F.2d 418 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 916 (1977).

Should the charges be reinstated, Trump would have the opportunity to move to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b). The Court in Wild approvingly cited United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168, 84 U.S. 168 (1872), wherein the Supreme Court found that the defendant had to raise the statute of limitations by special plea, or as an affirmative defense in today's terminology, in order that the government might have a chance to show that an exception tolling the statute applied to the particular defendant. 551 F.2d at 421-422.

As with many matters regarding the prosecution of Donald Trump, whether the applicable period of limitation should be tolled while the accused holds office as POTUS is a question of first impression. Since Trump is temporarily not amenable to prosecution, the public interest in punishing crime would be best served by tolling. Trump cannot truthfully claim that he was without notice until the allegations had become stale, and the delay works very much to his benefit. He should be unable to show even the slightest prejudice to his ability to mount his defense.

[Bob from Ohio]

Keep hope alive!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Dems in 2029: The walls are starting to close in!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's like an old-time revival meetin' in heah...

[Riva]

You clowns are the one's still obsessed with lawfare porn fantasies. You do understand that were President Trump as corrupt as Biden and the Democrats, you would be in shitload of trouble now? But you actually aren't afraid of that because you know President Trump is not going to abuse his power like the Democrats. Yet still you persist in your BS. Democrats are a stain on the honor of this country.

[Sarcastr0]

You should make a macro for the word lawfare. Save you a lot of typing.

[Riva]

You probably shouldn't be cheering on lawfare if you really don't like the word lawfare. Democrats do love their corruption though. And when the corruption involves the weaponization of the legal process to attack political opponents (that's lawfare by the way) well, apparently that's when the fun really starts. Ironically, your party was probably more honest when you started a civil war to protect your "peculiar institution."

And I thought you were going to mute me? You can't even be honest about that.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh I did. Started off the new year right.

You haven’t near made my permanent mute list, little bot.

You are repeating yourself more than you used to.

[Riva]

Uh huh, as you incessantly parrot the same trolling BS. Democrat trolls are not known for self-reflection, but they do really like to accuse others of the conduct they engage in. So do Marxists by the way. But of course, just because you like to ape Marxists doesn’t mean you’re a Marxist. Just a fan apparently.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah the old hits!

What do Marxists do that I'm aping, Riva?

[Riva]

Next time try reading a comment before reflexively responding with more of your trolling BS. I think we’re done here.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry, I didn't think you were truly arguing projection was Marxist.

I'll not overestimate you again.

[David Nieporent]

All of the above legal analysis notwithstanding, there is no chance that Trump is going to be prosecuted in 2029, at age 82.5, for events from 2021.

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed, it does seem rather unlikely, unless you get a Democratic administration, and they're vengeful beyond all sanity. Lawfare has demonstrably been a failure, they should probably move on to a new tactic.

[hobie]

So you don't like lawfare, eh? We're about to see how true you are to that statement

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, let's see if the Trump DOJ (And a list of state AG's.) starts inventing novel legal theories to attack his (Vance's, probably.) likely opponent in 2028. Who would that be? It's not exactly obvious.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Newsom would be the most obvious candidate at the moment.

[Frank Drackman]

His candidacy is on Fire!

[Mr. Bumble]

Newsom? Really? If he's the best the Dems have they're toast for sure in 2028.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Do we really want the whole country burning down?

[hobie]

Ah, so 'lawfare' turns on the nature of the charges. Got it

[tylertusta]

Well, part of their lawfare strategy was driven by a desire to drive Trump out of the public sphere. Now that lawfare clearly failed to prevent that, it has likely lost its practical usefulness.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The revival of charges that were dismissed without prejudice would not be "in clear violation of a statute of limitations." The prosecution was initiated within the five year period specified in 18 U.S.C. § 3282.

I agree that the initial indictment was brought within the limitations period. 18 U.S.C. § 3289 explains what happens when such an indictment is dismissed, and it doesn’t extend the limitations period in a way that would permit re-charging in 2029.

Criminal statutes of limitations have a primary purpose of providing fairness to the accused, and are subject to tolling, suspension, and waiver.

I’m aware that the Third Circuit has held that non-jurisdictional deadlines in criminal cases can be subject to equitable tolling in favor of a criminal defendant. I’m not aware of any circuit court holding (there is some dicta) that statutes of limitations can be equitably tolled to the disadvantage of a criminal defendant, and it seems to me that Congress has explicitly stated that they shouldn’t be. And given everything that’s happened, it’s difficult to see how the Supreme Court would hold otherwise. Nor is there any statutory tolling provision that would seem to apply.

I agree that it’s possible Trump could waive or forfeit the statute of limitations argument. Counting on that doesn’t seem like a very responsible prosecutorial strategy.

[Commenter_XY]

This equitable tolling thing seems ripe for abuse. How do you know when to 'stop the clock' (i.e. begin tolling period) and when not to. Seems subjective to me....but is it, really?

[not guilty]

The tolling period begins at noon next Monday and ends when Donald Trump leaves office as President. Nothing subjective about that.

[Martinned2]

Since Trump is temporarily not amenable to prosecution

As far as I know, that's the view of the OLC but not something that any (senior) court has expressed a view on. So it would be open to Trump to argue that he could have, and should have, been prosecuted while he was president. (And that the statute of limitations has expired as a result.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sounds right. There's no current legal bar to the government re-filing the charges on Jan 21. If they do and the case gets tossed, there might be an argument for SOL tolling.

But as things stand now, the Biden administration simply chose to drop the case.

[not guilty]

Criminal prosecution of a sitting president (for nonofficial acts) is not barred by law. No constitutional provision, statute or judicial decision prohibits it. The Department of Justice in 1973 took the position that a sitting vice-president can be prosecuted, but a sitting president cannot be. DOJ affirmed its position in October of 2000.

Jack Smith as Special Counsel was obliged to follow DOJ policies, so he moved the District Court to dismiss the D.C. indictment without prejudice.

[David Nieporent]

I'd have to refresh my memory to be sure, but I don't think OLC actually even said that prosecution of a sitting president was barred — only tht federal prosecution of a sitting president was. (I'm not saying that they endorsed state prosecution; I just don't think they addressed it. Which would make sense, because that would outside of OLC's purview; OLC issues opinions for the executive branch that are binding internally; it doesn't make rulings for the country.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

So what's the argument for the SOL tolling?

[Frank Drackman]

Like any white man would get a fair and impartial jury in the District of Colored Peoples

[Dr. Ed 2]

Regardless of everything else, Trump learned his lesson and will pardon himself in 2029.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not likely since that would be admitting he did something wrong, which he adamantly denies.

[Satchmo_Lives]

First, he can make a great argument that he could be prosecuted whether he did anything wrong or not (see 34 felonies from a bookkeeping violation--conceding that listing a payment to your lawyer as legal expenses is illegal).

Secondly, he can take a page out of Biden's book and pardon himself for the prior 12 years without detailing any crimes dems can make up.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It is not obvious that any President can pardon himself.

[TwelveInchPianist]

He can invoke the 25th amendment and have Vance do it.

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw - Ford pardoning Nixon was one of the major factors in Carter' election win, perhaps the single biggest factor.

[Noscitur a sociis]

He can do it after the election.

[DixieTune]

Biden is a terrorist and a traitor. It's that simple.

[not guilty]

Riddle me this, DixieTune. When, how and where did Joe Biden levy war on the United States?

If you claim that he adhered to and gave aid and comfort to enemies of the United States, which enemies? Where, when and in what specific manner did Biden give aid and comfort? As to each such enemy, when did Congress declare war upon it?

Who are the two witnesses who will testify to the same overt act?

[DixieTune]

His actions or inactions with respect to the border gave aid and comfort to enemies of the U.S.

[not guilty]

Which "enemies of the U.S."? When did Congress declare war on each such "enemy"?

As to each such "enemy", how in particular did anything that Biden did or failed to do give aid and comfort?

Who are the two witnesses who will testify to the same overt act?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, DixieTune. Suddenly not so voluble once you are challenged to put meat on your bare bones accusations?

Why am I unsurprised?

[Brett Bellmore]

Trivially, Iran, by funding them to the tune of $16B.

[bernard11]

So some asshole named "DixieTune" wants to talk about terrorists and traitors?

Historical ignoramus.

Go eat some buckwheat cakes and Injun batter. You'll feel better.

[Vryedni]

He's had so many screen names, I doubt he can keep straight which one's current and what it implies. Aktenberg's the only one which, for unknown reasons, sticks with me, but seriously, he's had a lot.

[Krayt]

Because you viscerally enjoy the misuse of the investigative and prosecutorial power of government to get a political opponent.

Here's a hint. The high power brokers did their best to use innumerable government initiatives to thwart democracy, and failed. They have other things to do, now.

Your emotional investment is not shared by them. It was a technique, a trick (and not unlike the Jan 6 theories of using alternate slates, also trying to thread the needle of a tortuous legal argument).

Some might pick up the ball in 4 years, but more to prove it wasn't hackery against an opponent all along. I believe we also crossed this bridge 4 years ago, when, after he lost, you hadda bear down on the various initiatives. To abandon them, mission accomplished, would admit it was about hurting a political opponent, and not disinterested concern for law.

[Josh R]

I'm opposed to prosecuting Trump in 2029 or beyond. But, Smith clearly established Trump tried to steal the election. Agree?

[RedheadedPharoh]

No, and you shouldn't either.

[Kazinski]

I will stipulate to that.

But as Smith himself said Trump was not an insurrectionist.

His attempt to stay in office was a political and legal maneuver that tried to exploit a supposed ambiguity in the 12th amendment first exploited in the 1876 election with combined with an untested theory of legislative supremacy in selecting Electors, with a legitimate precedent of choosing an alternate electors slate, when the results of an election is actually in doubt.

He did lose the 2020 election and he did try to stay in power, those are facts. It's also a fact he did not attempt an insurrection.

[Josh R]

Do you agree he should have been impeached by the House, and then convicted and disqualified by the Senate because of his conduct detailed in Smith's report?

[Kazinski]

I am not going to second guess either the House's decision on impeachment, or the Senate's verdict of acquittal.

Which as we both know is as much based on politics as facts on both sides of the question.

[Josh R]

I agree let's leave aside the politics. But, you stipulate the fact that Trump tried to steal the election. Why wouldn't that stipulation lead you to support conviction and disqualification by the Senate?

[Kazinski]

I personally thought Trump was disqualified from getting my vote in 2024, and voted that way in the primary.

But I also thought Biden and Harris disqualified themselves from serious consideration by incompetence, and a profound misunderstanding of the proper roles of government and the private sector, and individuals in America.

When anyone who has a serious chance of winning has disqualified themselves, your choice is not to vote or pick the one that is best suited to run the country.

If the Senate disqualified Trump we would probably have DeSantis, and I would be fine with that.

I think conviction on the Jan 6 impeachment might have had a better chance if the ridiculous Ukraine impeachment hadn't poisoned the well.

But it might also be better in the long term for the country to illustrate just how unlikely it is to get 67 votes in the Senate is and stop thinking impeachment has a chance except in the clearest instances.

[Josh R]

Doesn't this case fall into a clear instance?

[Kazinski]

That ultimate verdict was left to the American people.

Verdict: not a clear instance.

[Sarcastr0]

You switched from personal judgment to ad popularum.

Telling dodge, that.

[Commenter_XY]

Vox populi, vox deus.

[Josh R]

If the people said the Earth was flat, is that the word of God?

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's right there in Latin.

[Josh R]

Sorry Twelve, God would never say the Earth is flat no matter what the people say. And, that's why XY's claim is nonsense.

[not guilty]

I don't know. Several folks regard the Bible as the divinely inspired word of God. Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1 and Revelation 20:8 refer to the four corners of the earth. Ezekiel 7:2 refers to the four corners of the land.

[Josh R]

Sarcastr0 nailed it.

And the American people concluded it wasn't clear because they believed Trump's outright lies.

[David Nieporent]

But as Smith himself said Trump was not an insurrectionist.

Smith himself did not say any such thing.

[not guilty]

At page 65 the Special Counsel report said:

As to the second element under Section 2383, there does not appear to have ever been a prosecution under the statute for inciting, assisting, or giving aid or comfort to rebellion or insurrection. The few relevant cases that exist appear to be based on a defendant directly engaging in rebellion or insurrection, but the Office's proof did not include evidence that Mr. Trump directly engaged in insurrection himself.

The report does not specifically discuss Trump's potential culpability for insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2, which provides:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

[Michael Ejercito]

There has to have been insurrection to cause, and something done by Trump to cause an insurrection.

[Kazinski]

Did read what you quoted:
"the Office's proof did not include evidence that Mr. Trump directly engaged in insurrection himself."

So I will repeat myself: "It's also a fact he did not attempt an insurrection."

And I will also note that nobody else was charged with insurrection either.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

EGGSONERADED!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Maybe you should learn to read first:

"(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal."

Do those statutes require him to have engaged in the insurrection directly? No.

You continue to be a lying idiot.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, they don't. They do, however, require him to have "aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, or procured" the insurrection, and you have no more proof of that than you do of him committing it directly.

[Kazinski]

And "aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, or procured" who?

Wouldn't someone else have been charged with insurrection for Trump to have actually done any of those overt acts?

Or a single statement or communication unambiguously doing any of those things?

I certainly haven't seen any.

Neither did Smith, which is why not a single person was charged with insurrection or fomenting an insurrection.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Brett - you can pretend like the evidence doesn't exist, and everyone who read the J6 report knows you're full of shit and a stain on this country.

"Neither did Smith, which is why not a single person was charged with insurrection or fomenting an insurrection."

Or, as not_guilty has pointed out ad nauseum to you idiots, there were other criminal charges with longer sentences that were easier to prove.

Whom to believe: noted liars/MAGAtards, or a respected, experienced lawyer?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Section 2 liability require a specific intent that the underlying crime be committed. Given Smith’s uncertainty as to whether an insurrection occurred at all, and his conclusion that “the Office did not develop direct evidence … of Mr. Trump’s subjective intent to cause the full scope of the violence that occurred on January 6”, I think forgoing this charging theory seems fairly logical.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I see. You admit there was a conspiracy, but it was a legal conspiracy.

[bernard11]

But as Smith himself said Trump was not an insurrectionist.

No more than OJ is a murderer.

[Krayt]

In a clownish show piece. Nothing would have happened. Do not be silly.

What is far more insidious, and dangerous, to lovers of democracy, which we all claim to be, was one faction turning the investigative and prosecutorial power of government against a political opponent qua opponent in initiative after initiative after initiative. I've repeated my list of evidences so many times I'm tired of it.

This was far and away the biggest threat to democracy the past 8 years, and it's not even close.

Here's another evidence I just thought of. "Your side", which was my side, as I weakly supported Harris, is now running around, oh noes! What if he does to us what we've been doing to him?????

Which is to say, investigate and harrass and prosecute political opponents qua opponents.

[Josh R]

Although characterizing Smith's report as clownish implies you may think Smith did not clearly establish Trump attempted to steal the 2020 election, you did not directly answer the question.

[hobie]

When a president and his cabal of lawyers tries to defraud an election, I expect justice to go after them regardless whether they are a politician or are running for office. Since when does being a politician automatically trigger a 'lawfare' accusation?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Careful! Only the MAGAright can define "lawfare"...and they know it when they see it.

[Kazinski]

Well do you expect justice to go after Senator Casey and the county election boards that attempted to count knowingly illegal votes because the disagreed with the courts decision upholding the clear intent of the legislature?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/elections/bob-casey-endorsed-illegal-ballot-counting-scheme-hours-before-state-high-court-smacked-it-down/ar-AA1uk6iE

I don't expect the Trump DOJ will, nor would I support them doing so.

[hobie]

I say go after them then. That sounds equally criminal

[JoeFromtheBronx]

So you are saying there is a chance?

[Swede425]

LOL!
Whatever gets you through the night.

[Roger S]

How is the report any more powerful than the indictment? They are both just the opinion of a hatchet-man prosecutor.

[not guilty]

The indictment is a statement of the government's contentions as to what it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The Special Counsel report details how the indictment came to be, including what charges were rejected and why.

[Riva]

I think it's very possible that the corrupt lawfare thugs involved in the raid of Mar-a-Lago and meritless prosecution of President Trump will have their own indictments to worry about.

[not guilty]

"I think it's very possible that the corrupt lawfare thugs involved in the raid of Mar-a-Lago and meritless prosecution of President Trump will have their own indictments to worry about."

Riva, pretend you are an Assistant United States Attorney drafting indictments of the unidentified folks you so nebulously refer to for presentation to a grand jury. Which persons would you charge?

As to each such person, what statute(s) would you allege that the accused had violated?

As to each such violation, where and when did the offending conduct occur?

You mention the "raid" of Mar-a-Lago. What statute(s) do you claim that obtaining and executing a search warrant issued by a United States Magistrate Judge upon a showing of probable cause violated?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Riva.

As Mark Twain (may have) said, “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”

[Michael P]

To update some past threads:

Someone quoted an advocate of shariah law as describing what it would mean for the US to be a "Christian nation". https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/10/27/45-of-americans-say-u-s-should-be-a-christian-nation/ makes it clear how far apart the understanding of what that means between people who do, versus do not, think the US should be a "Christian nation".

There was also lots of discussion about Tren de Aragua taking over apartment buildings, with many of the usual suspects claiming the problems were ackchually caused by a bad landlord (failing to jack up rents to pay for a private army?). Organized criminal activity has now finished the job, after kidnappings and assaults: https://justthenews.com/government/local/colorado-apartment-complex-was-taken-over-venezuelan-gang-will-be-closed
There is very little that motivates voters as strongly as being afraid in their own homes.

[SRG2]

There is very little that motivates voters as strongly as being afraid in their own homes.

Which highly motivates politicians to suggest that voters should be afraid in their own homes, regardless of actual risk.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean like Dem politicians suggesting voters should fear living in a facist dictatorship beginning next Monday?

[Michael P]

I think he means fear that keeping dudes with dicks out of women's locker rooms will "erase personhood", and that any constraints on action will immediately institute The Handmaid's Tale.

[SRG2]

As an aside, how many cases of sexual assaults on minors have been reported for TGs compared with pastors?

[Bob from Ohio]

How about compared to public school teachers?

[Nelson]

Both teachers and transgender people are far, far below religious figures in prevalence of pedophilia. And non-religious groups don’t protect, aid, and abet pedophiles like religious groups (Catholics, Mormons, Southern Baptists, and Jehova’s Witnesses, specifically).

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, breathless cries that fascism is assured are bad.
So are breathless cries that Muslim men are coming to rape your daughters.
So are cries that trans dickhavers are coming to violate your locker rooms.

All stupid shit. I notice that the second two are in this thread, and the first one appears only as a tu quoque deflection.

[apedad]

And they're always in a hurry to discuss male genitalia.

It's like that's all they think about - day and night.

[Mr. Bumble]

Calling you and Il Douche dickheads is not really discussing male genitalia.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And they're always in a hurry to discuss male genitalia."

Yeah, if you just refer to the "trans dickhavers" or "dudes with dicks" as "men" you don't have to say anything about genitalia.

[Sarcastr0]

Michael P is the dude in a hurry.
The rest just reacted to his from left field 'but the transes!!'

[Ed Grinberg]

So are breathless cries that Muslim men are coming to rape your daughters.

Just because the British establishment (and you, apparently) don't want to talk about it, doesn't make it any less real.

https://www.steynonline.com/14892/the-shame-of-england
https://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2025-01-03.html#05
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/01/08/leftist-labour-party-blocks-vote-for-inquiry-into-muslim-child-rape-grooming-gangs/

[Sarcastr0]

Steyn:
"As I say at the beginning, it is not just about the Pakistani men who enjoy raping children but also about the police, politicians and social workers so anxious to accommodate their proclivities."

I mean fair enough (though why is the race important?) Authorities did respond badly back in the day. But did you consider that Maybe it's not being talked about because it was over 10 years ago.

Linked: "I just found an opinion piece written by KEIR STARMER back in 2014 where he states another Rotherham scandal will happen unless “the systemic failings in Britain are rooted out”.

Seems like we have the right guy in charge!

[Sarcastr0]

Derbyshire:
"Britain has about 1.6 million [Muslims].

That 1.6 million come, as I said, from a radically different culture. With more than fifty percent of marriages consanguinous, Pakistan is Consanguinity Central, clannishness on steroids. The men in a Pakistani rape gang are all related; and they all share deep contempt for working-class white British people who let their young women walk out alone, unveiled and unchaperoned."

And yet there haven't been 1.6 million rapes. Almost as though this is bigoted trash generalizing based on an anecdote.

[David Nieporent]

That 1.6 million come, as I said, from a radically different culture.

By the way, something like 75% of those 1.6 million come from the UK. 1.6 million is the number of people of Pakistani descent, not the number of immigrants from Pakistan.

(To be clear, I know that the thing I'm responding to is a quote from Derbyshire, not you.)

[Sarcastr0]

Breitbart:
"The Labour Party blocked the Tories’ amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to establish a national public inquiry after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer reportedly whipped his MPs into voting against the measure"

Yeah, because this shit happened 10 years ago. And already had a study come out. With recommendations the Tories didn't implement.

This isn't about policy. Or secrecy. This is Comer but British.

"Campaigners, such as Reform leader Nigel Farage, have also noted recent reporting from Charlie Peters of GB News, which has found that over 50 towns and cities in England may have seen Muslim grooming gangs target young girls. "

May have seen! No timeline!

"For example, a 2020 report found that officers at the Greater Manchester Police were told to focus on “other ethnicities” in the early 2000s"
Yet another study that's already been done. On the way things were 20 years ago.

Just a shambles of throwing a bunch of shit at the wall and hoping that makes people impute a conspiracy.
As expected from Breitbart.

[tylertusta]

Just a shambles of throwing a bunch of shit at the wall and hoping that makes people impute a conspiracy.

If it helps brings down the Labour government then it would have been worth it, at least in the eyes of Breitbart.

[Sarcastr0]

Intentionally and stoking fallacious racial fears to bring down a party you don't like is real bad!

[tylertusta]

It's a travesty only if it happens to my team. If I do it to your team then it's business as usual.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't take refuge in handwaving cynicism, that's a lame dodge.

If you're trying to charge me with hypocricy, I point you to this from 5 hours ago: "Yes, breathless cries that fascism is assured are bad."

[tylertusta]

I can and will take refuge in cynicism since it also happens to be true.

Politics is a dirty sport, and if you aren't capable of admitting that shit gets thrown around then you clearly haven't been hit by enough shit yet.

[Sarcastr0]

We are not here to discuss whether both sides are bad.

Bringing it up is changing the subject.

[bernard11]

This also applies, BTW, to false accusations against Haitians.

[SRG2]

If I had specifically meant Democratic politicians I would have said so. Are you so blind you're unaware of GOP politicians "worrying" the citizenry with tales of drunkenness and cruelty very high crime rates?

[MoreCurious]

Good to see you back, Michael. This is just a reminder that there's some unfinished business from a couple of days ago. You felt it was important to note that three of the people who lead the Los Angeles Fire Department are lesbians. Why did you say that? And why does the gender and sexual orientation of these individuals matter? Looking forward to your response.

[Michael P]

I was merely correcting the record: A news outlet claimed they were all named Kirsten, but they were all named variations on Kristin. Why do you hate fact checking?

[MoreCurious]

Are you afraid to answer my questions? Let me try again: why do you believe it was important for you to point out that the three people are lesbians? Does that matter to you? Why? Should it matter to the fire department? Why?

[Michael P]

When did you stop beating your neighbors?

[MoreCurious]

Poor Michael. Must be hard for you to be a homophobic bigot but too cowardly to defend yourself.

[Michael P]

Why won't you answer my question? Do you still beat your neighbors?

[MoreCurious]

Coward. Time to crawl back in your hole.

[santamonica811]

His cowardly (non-)response is disappointing. I sort of thought Michael P would have the ball, and the integrity, to answer a pretty straightforward question. I'll try:

Seriously, Michael. Why did you think it important to discuss the sexual orientation in that context? When I first read it, it felt really off. As though a front-page sports story about the college football playoff game started out, "Athough the gay State U. quarterback played well, he could not overcome the skill of the bisexual wide receiver of Team Z, nor the accuracy of the heterosexual field goal kicker on Z."

I think people would scratch their heads and ask, "Um, why mention the sexual orientation of those football players? Seems irrelevant."

You're being asked why you went to great pains to talk about a person's sexuality, in a situation totally divorced from sex or love or relationships. That's weird. I'm not calling you homophobic. But your comment is exactly the sort of thing a homophobe would say or write.

At least you should man up and explain why you thought it was relevant. Please don't pussy out and deflect with that 3-graders "Have you stopped beating your wife?" bullshit. You've gotta be better than that.

[Michael P]

That's a lot of words to say that you are just as stupid and opposed to fact checks as the guy whose entire argument is falsely crying homophobia.

[Absaroka]

That's pretty non-responsive.

I took your argument to be that if half of the upper management is gay, or Portuguese, or red-headed, that is statistically unlikely unless some criteria unrelated to merit is being used. If you can make that case, make it. If not, admit you were wrong.

[Michael P]

As I said, I was correcting an incorrect assertion I saw in the media.

And pointing out the obvious imbalance in having a bunch of lesbian paramedics running a fire department, especially where one of them had just made both a blatantly identitarian defense of her position and a terrible joke about being unable to carry victims of a fire.

Would you like me to explain 2+2 for you next?

[MoreCurious]

Still won't explain why you made the sexual orientation comment? Still don't have the guts to explain why you thought it was relevant? Santamonica suggests that "you've got to be better than that." Thanks for confirming for all of us that he was wrong.

P.S. Keep digging that hole, Michael.

[Michael P]

The headline and article I fact-checked brought up their sexual orientation. I could not fact-check the claim without addressing it in its entirety.
Again, why do you hate fact checking? And have you stopped beating your neighbors yet?

[Michael P]

I mean, it says a lot about your priorities that you're projecting your feelings onto me rather than dealing with what she actually said. https://www.newsweek.com/lafd-deputy-chief-faces-backlash-past-remarks-fire-victims-2013351

Go on and tell us how she got that job based on merit.

[Absaroka]

"obvious imbalance in having a bunch of lesbian paramedics"

I'm recalling something along the lines of the chief and 3 deputy chiefs, plus or minus. To make a statistical argument, you'd need to know how many deputy chiefs there are. If you're talking 3 of 5, yup, that's statistically unlikely. 3 out of 30, not so much (and n.b. the reference population - firefighters - might have different demographics than the general population).

You may have a point about medics vs firefighters, or not. ISTR that many departments answer a lot more medical calls than fires, so having the top dog be a medic might be smart. Or not. Frank Jack Fletcher was the US commander at the decisive battles of Coral Sea and Midway, but wasn't an aviator, for example.

[Life of Brian]

I took your argument to be that if half of the upper management is gay, or Portuguese, or red-headed, that is statistically unlikely unless some criteria unrelated to merit is being used.

I took it that way too, but didn't have time earlier to dig up this exchange with Grok I saw last week. It uses some assumptions that I'm sure could be sharpened, but it appears to round them all in the conservative direction in reaching its back-of-the-napkin estimate of 1 chance out of 64 million.

Though a more rigorous answer might end up with a greater chance than that, I'd be surprised if it would pick up even one order of magnitude given the undisputed paucity of women firefighters at all, much less lesbians, much less in leadership roles.

[Michael P]

The Grok computation is wrong because, as the article I fact-checked pointed out and I mentioned in that original comment, there are actually at least four lesbians running LAFD (three of whom were paramedics).

3 out of 30 would still be very unlikely because it strains credibility that 10% of fire department employees would be lesbians.

[Michael P]

But let's take the hypothesis of 30 deputy chiefs or higher and 1/400 probability of a FD employee being a lesbian. Then we want to take the complimentary CDF of a Poisson distribution with lambda=30/400 at k=3. That's the probability of more than 3 lesbians in that group of 30 leaders. In Excel and similar spreadsheets, that's =1-POISSON(3, 30/400, 1). And it's just about 1 in a million.

Shall I explain 2+2 next?

[Michael P]

Correction: it should be the complimentary CDF of the binomial distribution, 1-BINOM.DIST(3, 30, 1/400, 1), which is less than the Poisson version (and even closer to 1 in a million).

[Absaroka]

LoB: from your link I see, for example:

"The post claims fewer than 2% of female firefighters are lesbians. However, there's limited public data specifically on the sexual orientation demographics within the firefighting community."

That's precisely what I was referring to when I said "the reference population - firefighters - might have different demographics than the general population". I'm too lazy to google, but ISTR there are some women's sports with a much higher proportion of lesbians that the population at large. Maybe that's true of firefighters as well? A quick google says 11% of elementary school teachers are male. If you were doing some analysis and assumed that 50% was the right number, because the genpop is 50% male, your analysis would be ... not high quality.

If your input data is bad, doing the math to 3 decimal places doesn't help.

Now, if you asked me to bet real money on whether there was bias in favor of women or lesbians or whatever in those hiring decisions, yup, that would be my bet. But that's a hunch, no more. To be highly confident in that, you'd need a lot harder look, and a lot less assuming.

[Absaroka]

"But let's take the hypothesis of 30 deputy chiefs or higher and 1/400 probability of a FD employee being a lesbian."

Alternatively, let's don't make assumptions about the data.

[Michael P]

I gave you a formula that you can play with if you want to explore other numbers. For example, https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2025/01/fact-check-photo-of-leadership-team-at-the-los-angeles-fire-department-only-shows-3-of-14-people-in-leadership.html says the actual leadership team is 14 people, not 30.

If we stick with the 1/400 number that gives us odds of 1 in 26 million. To have a 10% chance of it happening without bias, you would need 2 out of every 15 employees to be lesbians. To get a 50% chance, you would need more than a quarter to be lesbians.

Calculating those precise odds takes some knowledge of statistics, but having a good sense of the magnitude only requires one to not be a denialist moron.

[Sarcastr0]

The 'assume a spherical lesbian firefighting cabal' digging continues.

This one gonna leave a mark.

[Michael P]

Hey, denialist moron #1 returns to the scene of the crime with an even worse than usual form of denialism!

I mean, Absaroka got upset because he assumed a leadership team twice as big as reality and it still showed an incredibly unlikely chance of that happening without bias. I gave a formula for people to plug other numbers into, and found the actual size of the leadership team, and showed what the prevalence would have to be in order to get to "maybe by chance" levels. And the best the leftoids here can come up with is apparently a spectacularly stupid strawman, because they are denialist morons.

[Sarcastr0]

Michael, you are making 2 elementary statistical fails, and your continued confident engagement does you no favors.

1. You are also taking a single observed data point and insisting if it isn't on statistical beam that's evidence of something. That's not how statistics work.

2. You derivation of the baseline you're comparing to is flawed because it has no real-world inputs other than group size. Everything else is assumption.
Pure theory with no phenomenological input is never going to give you any real-world relevant output.

Finally, disagreeing with you isn't denialism. Giving your personal beliefs that much weight is kind of ridiculous.

[Absaroka]

'Exploring other numbers' isn't the right approach. You want to be exploring the correct numbers.

I drilled down through your links to find this photo. If I'm guessing gender correctly from names and photos, there are 3 women and 9 men. The linked bio of one woman - the chief - mention she is gay. The other two don't. Also, someone on this thread keeps saying various female leaders were paramedics, not, ahem, firemen. The bios disagree. One is the DEI head; it doesn't sound like she has dragged a lot of hose, but the chief:

"served as a Firefighter, Paramedic, Engineer, Fire Inspector, Captain I, Captain II, Battalion Chief, Assistant Chief, Deputy Chief, Chief Deputy, and Fire Chief." and the other:

"she has held various positions, including Firefighter, Paramedic, Emergency Incident Technician, Engineer, Captain I, Captain II, and Battalion Chief"

In contrast, one of the dudes picked at random sez "Departmental experience includes: Deputy Chief of Operations Central Bureau, Battalion Chief, Captain II, Captain I, Engineer, and Firefighter/Paramedic".

I'm not seeing a problematic difference there. There may be one, but those writeups don't show it.

I get that you see a smoking gun right there in plain sight, that happens to align with your political prior of not being a DEI fan. And I also am not a fan of DEI - but I'm not going to say there is iron clad evidence for it *in this particular instance* until I see the smoking gun for myself. I appreciate your pointing and saying 'it's right over there', but I have to see it for myself.

[Michael P]

1. This is not an arbitrary "observed data point". It's extremely common to take an exemplar from some case and ask "what is the likelihood that this other attribute occurred by chance". That's basic scientific method, and your ignorance or distortion of "how statistics works" doesn't change that.

2. My analysis explicitly depended on more than group size. To make it easier, I varied the other relevant variable to show how far that variable would have to change in order to make this plausibly a random occurrence. Maybe you think there is some other relevant variable, but I'm just showing statistics for the null hypothesis -- would you like me to show the numbers for p<0.05? If you want to explain the observed distribution with some other trait, that's your burden to prove.

(I'll further note that the last article I linked indicates an extreme paucity of straight women among the leadership team.)

[Absaroka]

"Absaroka got upset because he assumed a leadership team twice as big as reality"

Just to be clear, I am not making any assumptions about the size of any numbers. I was making the rather anodyne point that you can't compute a ratio without knowing the denominator.

[Brett Bellmore]

So few women are actually interested in going into firefighting, or physically qualified to do the work, that we may be looking at sex discrimination in hiring, not discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

It's possible that almost the only women interested in going into fire fighting are lesbians. I don't think you can rule that out. But either way, the composition of their leadership almost certainly didn't come about by chance.

[Sarcastr0]

Michael - low probability exemplars occur all the time; are you thinking about math or something purely theoretical?
And Absaroka has also noted your use of assumptions to stand in for data.

Brett skips the statistical wankery and goes straight for the hardcore speculation.
Two ways to rationalize an unsupported thesis; different styles.

[Michael P]

Do you have any support for your hypothesis that these promotions were due to something other than DEI? At least the chief was very explicitly an intersectional DEI hire. The DEI head looks like one as well. I haven't looked for particular evidence about Assistant Chief Kepner or Training Commander Brown.

Your arm-waving denialism will continue to not cut it as science.

[Absaroka]

"Do you have any support for your hypothesis that these promotions were due to something other than DEI?"

So, as I have said repeatedly, I don't have a hypotheses here[1] - I was asking for the evidence you have for yours.

Assertion: X is true.
Q:Do you have evidence that X is true?
A:Do you have any evidence it isn't!

[1]in fact, you might have seen this above: "Now, if you asked me to bet real money on whether there was bias in favor of women or lesbians or whatever in those hiring decisions, yup, that would be my bet."

[Michael P]

That question was directed at Sarcastr0, typically refuses to be explicit about his theory because he only knows how to nitpick straw men.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, same objection as Absroka - you're shifting the burden.

[Life of Brian]

Ugh, gotta love these Reason terminal-thread strings. Responding to Absaroka way upstream:

I'm too lazy to google, but ISTR there are some women's sports with a much higher proportion of lesbians that the population at large. Maybe that's true of firefighters as well?

The proportion of lesbian firefighters could well be higher than the background population rate, and I did say in so many words there likely would be some ways to sharpen the inputs. But I doubt that particular envelope of uncertainty is large enough to make back-of-the-napkin directional exercises lose any value.

It's super-easy to verify the notion that some sports have much higher proportions, as well as a pretty good sense of that those proportions are (e.g., WNBA at 30ish%), because it's regularly discussed/lauded by people and groups who are... erm, proud of that.

Here, there seems to be precious little out there about generalized statistics (that I could come up with in 15-20 minutes -- if you happen to unearth anything please do send around). There was, on the other hand, a huge media splash in 20-freaking-22 about finally having the first lesbian fire chief, which seems like it would have been a natural place to discuss overrepresentation in the ranks to drive the point home of how overdue that achievement was, but I don't see that at all. (In fact, in this interview with the chief, she says pretty much the opposite right at the end when she talks about reaching out to the LBGTQ population, who she characterized as thinking "wow, I never thought that was an opportunity for me!")

So to me, the overall silence on the subject seems to point a different direction than "oh well, could be anything!" And the proportion would have be much higher indeed to really change the odds enough to matter in the real world -- whether Grok's math or Michael's, assuming 2x or even 4x the background rate still leaves you in the ridiculously improbable range.

[Absaroka]

LoB: that all sounds pretty reasonable to me.

The bone I was picking here is that 'I suspect X is true' is easy to justify; we all have hunches, and mine are largely in line with yours.

But 'I suspect X is true' is different from 'I am 100% sure X is true'. That claim, IMHO, requires evidence. We all know lots of things - we know X with 63% likelihood, Y with 96% likelihood, Z with 27.645% likelihood and so on. It's careless thinking to just go set all those probabilities to 100% without finding the evidence. If I want to upgrade my certainty for X from 63 to 97%, I need to do the work to justify it. Partisans of all stripes, IMHE, have an unfortunate tendency to just set all their probabilities to 100% without evidence. That is what I was pushing back about.

Who was it that said 'trust **but verify**' 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

"Math keeps us honest—it prevents us from lying to ourselves and to each other. You can be wrong with math, but you can't lie. "
-Sabine Hossenfelder, Lost in Math.

I would also caution against providing quantitative probabilities for things one suspects, or doing calculations based on a assumptions about the model and real-world values.

That's just dressing up your gut as math so it looks more honest to yourself and others.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because it was wildly unlikely unless they are discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, something Democrats purport to think improper.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Did you go to the same high school as Joe_dipshit. The two of you make wildly unsupported claims based on no first-hand knowledge as easily as most other people breathe.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why does the fire department need to point out that the chief is a lesbian?

[MoreCurious]

And why does Michael P. continue to refuse to explain to us why his comments and "computations" about lesbians are relevant? Could it be because he's a coward?

[Michael P]

No, it's because I assume most readers can put 2 and 2 together. You can't, but my offer to walk you through 2+2 stands.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So the fact-check had nothing to do with their alleged sexual orientation, yet you included that in your remark.

Which gives away the game that you're just a fucking bigot, and now we all see that you're too much of a cuck to even admit it.

[hobie]

So far this little thread here has merely glossed over the tip of the fear iceberg that motivates our dear hayseeds: brown gangs, muslims, trans, teachers. I get exhausted just thinking about the constant state of fear you poor bastards live in.

[Absaroka]

If recipes are OK, I guess this is: photo (video?) essay of the ten biggest roadless areas in the lower 48:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iswLvQKSmxY

Just gorgeous photography, really hardcore wilderness porn :-). We've visited all but a couple, and spent in aggregate a few years in a few of them. Near the end is my namesake wilderness 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

It's an open thread, so why not OK? I don't think a great many people know how large and open much of this country is.

[Sarcastr0]

Last open thread we had a number of commenters advocating for a ban on immigration of Muslims.
And one person talking about expelling Muslims currently in the US.

Musk-amplified stories picked for maximum shock value from a time span of decades? That's not generalizable. It is, in fact, propaganda-via-confirmation-bias.

Just ask Breitbart and their 'black crime' tag they had for a bit. Same shit, different outgroup.

[Frank Drackman]

The shit is that some ethnic/religious groups commit crimes at a much higher rate than other ethnic/religious groups, the Blacks I understand, their ancestors were brought here centuries ago, and they're needed to keep the Prison/Legal Defense Complex going, but why Moose-lums? not like they have great Cuisine, clean a mean hotel room, or have mad landscaping skills, How many 9-11's 10-7's, Beirut Barracks Bombings, Pan Am 103's does it take? I don't care how well Mahmoud did in Organic Chemistry, he can use in skills in Terror-Anne or Kabul.

[Krayt]

Shawarma and hummous plate, with fresh hot discs of dipping bread, is one of the wonders of the world. Beef is nice, lamb a phenom, if you can find it.

Tabouli and baba ganoush is also nice. And their pastry shops, an explosion of flakey filo dough and honey, shines like a sunbeam of joy.

[Krayt]

Here's northern European cuisine, rampant through America:

"What's with all the potatoes?"

"You know you aren't supposed to boil vegetables until they're mushy and olive green, right?"

[shawn_dude]

Nothing says "European cuisine rampant through America" like foods native to the Americas!

Potatoes
Tomatoes
Chili peppers
Chocolate
Squashes
Beans
Corn

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like the influence of Hellenic Byzantium.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yeah, calling those dishes "Muslim" is not very accurate.

[Also, hummus is vomit inducing]

[Brett Bellmore]

You're confused, there's only one "m" in humus.

[bernard11]

Nice, Brett.

[Bwaaah]

Good one.

[Don Nico]

The stuff with honey is Greek. Greeks also make eggplant caviar and gyros. The Arab versions of baklava use sugar syrup flavored with rosewater.

[hobie]

Next to Vietnamese, Persian is my next-favorite cuisine. Also best rice in the world too.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Last open thread we had a number of commenters advocating for a ban on immigration of Muslims.

We did? I see one (ThePublius) and it was only after you kind of tricked him into it.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's why he is Il Douche.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett: "If we stop deliberately swelling their numbers, we might hope that they'll eventually adopt American values."

I suppose that could be read as allow fewer to immigrate, but his logic doesn't seem so limited.

Kaz doesn't say it, you're right. But he seems to be arguing Muslims are bad, if cagey about the upshot of that.

It's coming by way of Europe, but it's the same old song.

[Mr. Bumble]

Muslims fleeing Muslim dominated countries seeking asylum in the West.?
See Sweden's new outlook.

[Kazinski]

I am not saying Muslims are bad, in fact I have had a couple of Muslim girlfriends who were very nice, and fairly devout, at least they observed Ramadan, didn't eat pork, or drink and at least occasionally wore a chador.

But there are Muslim scholars and imams that do justify rape against infidels, and say its condoned by the Koran.

Here are just two examples

A professor of Islamic studies in Egypt:

https://www.lumenfidei.ie/islamic-scholar-rape-of-non-muslims-ok/

And the most senior Muslim cleric in Australia:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-412697/Outrage-Muslim-cleric-likens-women-uncovered-meat.html

You are welcome to argue with people who know far more about Islamic doctrine than you or I do what the Koran actually says on the subject, but I don't think you can argue that many Muslims actually believe that.

[Sarcastr0]

So you're just saying SOME Muslims are bad.

Well, stop the presses.

[Absaroka]

Criticizing Catholic priests who abuse little boys isn't criticizing all Catholics.

[Sarcastr0]

People don't criticize the individual priests, though; that'd be a nonstory. They criticize the institution.

The parallel to the Catholic church would be like criticizing the Taliban or Wahhabism. That is not what Kaz et al are doing.

[Frank Drackman]

Who wouldn't love to see Nancy Mace Bee-otch Slap the (redacted) out of that Jizz-man Crocket who looks like she should be doing someones Dreadlocks. And is it just me or does Tim Caine look more and more like Doc Brown from "Back to the Future"??

[hobie]

After Nancy Grace tried to drag Elizabeth Smart through the mud, I had hopes she would disappear forever. Is Nancy Mace any better?

[Mr. Bumble]

Part of Joe Biden's welcome to the Whitehouse package for DJT:
https://x.com/RealEJAntoni/status/1879338424693637350

[Sarcastr0]

What does that have to do with Biden?

[Bob from Ohio]

"What does that have to do with Biden?"

He has been president [nominally at least] for last 4 years so bears responsibility

[hobie]

Make up your mind, Bob. Is Biden a feeble puppet or is he making the decisions. You can't even get your fantasies straight

[Satchmo_Lives]

Why do you think they are mutually exclusive? It is still his responsibility even if he sits in a corner all day shaking hands with dead people.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Is Biden a feeble puppet or is he making the decisions."

Yes

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yesterday, Code Pink activists attempted to prevent the peaceful transfer of power -- the confirmation hearing for the new Sec Defense.

Jan 6th was a formality that could (and was) conducted that night.
Confirmation hearings are NOT pro forma and an actual confirmation is needed for the new Secretary to take office.

And the behavior is essentially identical -- walking into a building without permission, shouting without permission.

So why no talk of insurrection? Why no Code Pinkers in jail looking at serious Fed Time?

[SRG2]

Verily thou art a Fuckwitte.

[tylertusta]

I was told this sort of behavior constituted a major felony.

I'm sure they will agree with me that the Code Pink protestors should be charged with 1512(c)(2) charges and (k)(2) conspiracy charges. I'm also sure that they will agree that we should get the FBI to seize their phone and internet records as well.

[Noscitur a sociis]

While liberals certainly exaggerate how bad January 6 was, it was still worse than this, which should nevertheless result in prosecution (but, I agree, probably won’t).

[tylertusta]

You won't find me disagreeing (in principle) with the verdicts for assault and destruction of government property charges for J6 rioters. Assaulting cops is bad, and people who did it are bad.

But 8 months + 2 years probation for a non-violent offender walking around the capital building? Give me a break.

I'll bet that the protestors were given money to pay for their fines as well.

Just imagine how much bigger the J6 shitstorm would have gotten if someone offered to do that for the J6 rioters.

[David Nieporent]

But 8 months + 2 years probation for a non-violent offender walking around the capital building? Give me a break.

…after coming in as part of a mob.

If 20 violent people try to smash their way into a building, it's easy for security to stop them. And if they do manage to get in anyway, it's easy for security to contain them and round them up. But if 20 violent people at the head of a mob try to smash their way in, with 100s of people behind them, then it's much harder for security to stop, contain, or round them up, even if many of the 100s of people behind them aren't themselves engaging in violence.

[tylertusta]

And here I was thinking we judged people based on their own actions and not on the actions of others around them.

Code Pink and other leftist protestors in the past have had more far more coordination and intent behind their actions than the vast majority of the J6 defendants who often were unaware of what was happening due to the number of people blocking their view ahead of them.

[David Nieporent]

And here I was thinking we judged people based on their own actions and not on the actions of others around them.

You were thinking incorrectly; we judge people on both. There are many crimes that involve the interaction between two or more people. Just as one example, let's take NY law.

Suppose that you engage in violent, tumultuous conduct with the intent to cause public alarm. That is disorderly conduct, which is classified as a violation, the lowest level offense (other than traffic infractions); it isn't even categorized as criminal.

Now suppose you do the same thing, simultaneously with at least 4 other people. (I'm not talking about any agreement between you and the others, not conspiracy, nothing like that. The statute merely says "simultaneously.") That is second degree riot, a misdemeanor.

Now suppose you do the same thing, simultaneously with at least ten other people, and a third party is injured or significant property damage occurs, caused by any of the 11+ people. That is first degree riot, a felony.

That's right: what you are guilty of can turn solely on what other people were doing, other people who you were not conspiring with.

than the vast majority of the J6 defendants who often were unaware of what was happening due to the number of people blocking their view ahead of them.

One can always argue that what an accused criminal did wasn't so bad if one just invents mitigating facts, sure. If they can convince a prosecutor, judge, and/or jury of the truth of some of those facts, it could serve as a defense or at least a reason for leniency. And guess what! Some did! Some people got very short sentences, sometimes even just probation. A few were even acquitted or had charges dropped.

[tylertusta]

Some fine words, David. But you still don't understand what is happening in those DC courtrooms.

Or maybe you do, but your partisanship prevents you from caring.

[David Nieporent]

Some fine words, David. But you still don't understand what is happening in those DC courtrooms.

I'm pretty sure you admitted the other day that you're not a lawyer, so maybe you should consider the possibility that it's you who doesn't understand what is happening in courtrooms.

[Nelson]

Sure, why would anyone who stepped over the overturned barriers, across the broken glass of smashed windows, and through the splintered doors have known that the Capitol wasn’t legitamately open for unguided tours?

[hobie]

Why Dr. Ed, I'm delighted you've come around! These pink hoodlums have indeed criminally interfered with the process of government just like MAGA did. Welcome to the team

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's called equal justice -- jail everyone OR NO ONE!

[Martinned2]

Don't let me stop you.

[Estragon]

The GOP’s very own DEI hire!

[Noscitur a sociis]

the peaceful transfer of power -- the confirmation hearing for the new Sec Defense.

This is a big enough stretch to warrant inclusion as an effect in the next Fantastic Four movie.

[Nelson]

In Dr. Ed’s world, smashing windows to gain entry and walking into a hearing chamber are exactly the same thing.

[Commenter_XY]

Reportedly, there is a deal between Israel and Hamas to begin releasing the hostages. Hope it comes through.

Bring our people home, POTUS Biden. Bring them home.

[Josh R]

What do you think of Blinken's speech at the Atlantic Council yesterday (the audience disruptions are people accusing Blinken of genocide in Gaza). I can find little I disagree with.

[Don Nico]

But you would be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

[Josh R]

Do go on ...

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R....What do I say?

Blinken is a naif (not audacious) if he believes there will be a palestinian state anywhere near Israel. That will not happen. There is no viable pathway. I am not wrong. So I start there.

BTW, Judea and Samaria have simmering tensions right now. With the impending release of terrorists, it is like adding accelerant to a burning fire.

Next, the Abraham Accords remain in place despite the Biden Admin, not because of them. They expanded nothing.

[Josh R]

Blinken stated the consequences of not having a Palestinian state:

Israelis must abandon the myth that they can carry out de-facto annexation without cost and consequence to Israel’s democracy, to its standing, to its security.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think it’s fairly unlikely that Israel will find that Sec. Blinken has much insight into what’s best for its security.

[Josh R]

How is ignoring Blinken working out so far?

[Brett Bellmore]

They've killed a lot of Hamas, so pretty well.

[Josh R]

As Blinken said:

We’ve long made the point to the Israeli government that Hamas cannot be defeated by a military campaign alone—that without a clear alternative, a post-conflict plan, and a credible political horizon for the Palestinians, Hamas, or something just as abhorrent and dangerous, will grow back.

That’s exactly what’s happened in northern Gaza since October 7th. Each time Israel completes its military operations and pulls back, Hamas militants regroup and reemerge, because there’s nothing else to fill the void. Indeed, we assess that Hamas has recruited almost as many new militants as it has lost. That is a recipe for an enduring insurgency and perpetual war.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

After all this is over, Israel will find itself in the exact same dire situation it has been in since 1948. "Killing a lot of Hamas" might feel good, and even be justice, but changes nothing.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure how drastically weakening one's enemy "changes nothing." Not only is Hamas decimated, but it has run out of allies, too.

[Commenter_XY]

Nice job stepping on a rake, Josh R. LOL. 🙂

[Josh R]

Do go on ...

[Noscitur a sociis]

I mean, they won one existential war and seem to be on the verge of winning a second, so… pretty good?

[Josh R]

Reread my second Blinken quote.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, that would be a good example of why they should and will ignore him.

[Josh R]

What's your recipe for post-war Gaza and the West Bank?

[Commenter_XY]

Voluntary, incentivized emigration for palestinians to countries in the region, using the Abraham Accords as the facilitation mechanism.

You are delusional if you think Israel will ever agree to a Judeocidal pali state next to Israel, post Simchat Torah pogrom. It will not happen until the palis lose their dreams of exterminating all Jews.

I don't think the ceasefire holds, so hunting down and killing every hamas member alive (wherever they are) is a perfectly acceptable alternative.

[David Nieporent]

You are delusional if you think that there will be any large scale voluntary, incentivized emigration for Palestinians to countries in the region.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the countries in the region are too familiar with Palestinians to ever permit that.

[bernard11]

Judea and Samaria have simmering tensions right now. With the impending release of terrorists, it is like adding accelerant to a burning fire.

The West Bank has had simmering, sometimes boiling, tensions for quite some time. Israel is of course blameless in the matter. Right, XY?

[Commenter_XY]

There is plenty to criticize Israel for, bernard11. Israel is not blameless.

[Sarcastr0]

Like what?

[Martinned2]

Blinken is a naif (not audacious) if he believes there will be a palestinian state anywhere near Israel. That will not happen. There is no viable pathway. I am not wrong. So I start there.

I agree. What will happen is that the Israelis will illegally annex the occupied territories, and will then, after a couple of decades as a pariah state, give full citizenship rights to the Palestinians who live there. South Africa 2.0

[ThePublius]

Credit Trump for this, not Biden.

[MoreCurious]

This calls for an explanation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

But crediting Biden doesn't call for an explanation?

Trump gets credit because the told Hamas that all hell will break loose if the hostages aren't freed before he takes office.

What's the argument for crediting Biden?

[Sarcastr0]

You know, he didn't exclude Biden from his comment either. Maybe not every little event happening a world away doesn't revolve around the US.

I don't think Hamas is deterred by death or hell, do you?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You know, he didn't exclude Biden from his comment either."

No, but he responded to a comment crediting Trump in in response to a comment crediting Biden, instead of responding to the comment crediting Biden. It's reasonable to infer that he thinks that crediting Trump requires an explanation, but not Biden.

"I don't think Hamas is deterred by death or hell, do you?"

Based on the timing, it would appear that they are.

[Sarcastr0]

The comment he replied to made 2 assertions:
Credit was due to Trump
No credit was due to Biden.

Neither had an associated explanation.

You jumped right in and made it only about Trump. And then attacked him for NOT making it also about Biden.

Quite a telling read, TiP!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, and the comment he didn't reply to gave credit to Biden.

[MoreCurious]

I know this is difficult for you to follow, but try to keep up. The comment was "Credit Trump for this, not Biden." When I asked for an explanation, it should be plain to anyone with fundamental reading skills to understand that I was asking Publius to explain why Biden should not be given credit but Trump should. Interestingly, he did not provide an explanation. You, on the other hand, made a pretty weak attempt to pretend that my question was something more than what I wrote. Try harder next time.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Hell? Yes (no virgins). Death? No.

Council of Elvira (306 AD) cautioned against seeking out martyrdom. One of these days Islam will learn the lessons of the 4th century.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Biden gets some credit for standing by Israel in their darkest hour and helping Israel devastate hamas. I don't care for POTUS Biden, or his politics; but, he will always have a special place in my heart for standing by Israel.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not consistent with your past statements re: Biden and Israel.

[Commenter_XY]

It is completely consistent, nitwit.

[Bwaaah]

Nitwit: "Commenter_XY against, not for. Commenter_XY wrong."

[TwelveInchPianist]

And wasn't Biden leaning on Netanyahu to accept a cease-fire right before he delivered the coup-de-grace to Hezbollah?

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Biden stood up for Israel, alone, in the face of significant international disagreement, and domestic dissention (mostly from the progressive Left). For this, I will never, ever forget him and thank him for hearing the small, still voice in his heart. He did the right thing.

As for tactical war management and strategic policy more generally in the ME, POTUS Biden and his team suck ass.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Let's see:

Biden is President.
It's his Secretary of State and his administration.
You and Publius are both idiot cultists.

Three valid explanations. Take your pick.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You get that this is a deal between Isreal and Hamas, right?

[ThePublius]

In case you missed it:

"A “tense” weekend meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and incoming Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff led to a breakthrough in the hostage negotiations, with the top aide to US President-elect Donald Trump doing more to sway the premier in a single sit-down than outgoing President Joe Biden did all year, two Arab officials told The Times of Israel on Tuesday."

https://www.timesofisrael.com/arab-official-trump-envoy-swayed-netanyahu-more-in-one-meeting-than-biden-did-all-year/

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I did not miss it, thank you.

The problem is that it's a convenient piece of bullshit to inflate the ego of someone who is purely transactional and can be manipulated like putty, who might become President in less than a week.

If you weren't objectively a moron, you might have read that article and found several signs that your belief is misplaced, and that you are exactly as gullible and stupid as everyone else in the MAGA cult.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

But everyone in the world now recognizes that Trump is a bullshitter without equal--why would they be quaking in their sandals now?

In any case, he hasn't even taken office and he's already walking back his campaign promises. This one is no different.

[bernard11]

This brings up an interesting point.

On the one hand, we are not supposed to worry about all the ridiculous shit Trump says, because he just like to mouth off.

On the other, his threats are powerful, and cause governments and individuals to cower, and yield to his demands.

[ThePublius]

"A “tense” weekend meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and incoming Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff led to a breakthrough in the hostage negotiations, with the top aide to US President-elect Donald Trump doing more to sway the premier in a single sit-down than outgoing President Joe Biden did all year, two Arab officials told The Times of Israel on Tuesday."

https://www.timesofisrael.com/arab-official-trump-envoy-swayed-netanyahu-more-in-one-meeting-than-biden-did-all-year/

[Josh R]

Trump pressured Netanyahu to take something he wouldn't accept from Biden? Was that "holy hell" threat directed at Israel?

It will take some time and very good, independent, non-partisan reporting to reveal 1) why the agreement was reached now, 2) how the agreement is different from earlier proposals, and 3) what if anything Hamas or Israel gained by not agreeing earlier.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm very sad that you pointed out one of the obvious things Publius missed because he's gullible, stupid, and eager to believe what he already believes.

I was hoping to throw that in his face with some other clues after he came back with the 'nuh-uh!' I expected.

[Commenter_XY]

hamas was not going to get a better deal under The Donald, not with them holding American hostages. It remains to be seen if the agreement holds, as hamas is already trying to change what they agreed to.

[David Nieporent]

hamas was not going to get a better deal under The Donald, not with them holding American hostages.

Well, that's true, since Trump doesn't care about American hostages.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trading hostages for convicted criminals only ensures more hostages will be taken. Israel ought to have gone into Gaza and taken hostages too.

[Longtobefree]

Or at least execute 10 of the prisoners, so the body counts would be equal.

[Michael Ejercito]

Which is why I support the death penalty.

I know from history that people serving life sentences will eventually be freed in exchange for hostages, and that innocents will due in the taking of those hostages.

[DixieTune]

Or some piece of shit liberal Democrat releases them on "humanity" or "compassionate" grounds.

Biden is just a disgusting, evil person. He's a traitor, and a savage. He's lower than low. He's pond scum, excrement, vermin

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yet he's still a more worthwhile human being than you ever have been or will be, BCD/Lennyk78/Dumbfuck.

[santamonica811]

Jason, be nicer. Lenny is probably doing the best he can. Mental retardation is no joking matter. I cut him some slack...it's can't be easy going through life both intellectually-disabled and angry-&-alone. Poor guy.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That's fair.

By the way, I appreciate your presence here as an example that not all Republicans have gone bat-shit insane with the MAGA cult.

[Krayt]

"Who wants to be an Israeli hostage?" A million Palestinian hands go up.

"Keep in mind we'll have to give you back in a trade."

The hands all go back down.

[Brett Bellmore]

As usual, the hostage ratio is rather one-sided, with Hamas releasing 33 in return for "hundreds" of Palestinians.

[Don Nico]

"releasing 33" not all of whom are alive.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a bad deal but sometimes you just have to eat sh*t. Its likely the only way to get whomever is left back.

[Michael Ejercito]

What about spraying cesium-137 salts all over the place?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Seven magic words would work: "Donald Trump really is crazy enough to..."

It'd work...

[John F. Carr]

I often think of Donald Trump as Bugs Bunny offering to let a criminal hide in the oven. The Internet tells me the episode is "Bugs and Thugs".

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSNTjX_g9a4

[Commenter_XY]

As long as the Americans are released in the first batch of repatriations, I don't have a lot to say, other than hamas cannot be trusted to keep any agreement.

[Don Nico]

It is worse than a bad deal. But both Joe and Donald wanted it.

[Commenter_XY]

To the surprise of no one, hamas is trying to kill the deal by adding last minute conditions after the fact. Neither hamas nor the PA can be trusted to uphold their agreements.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who will still claim credit for it if it falls apart?

[Don Nico]

It is a bad deal for Israel. However, I have great sympathies for the families that want their loved one back.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Carole Lombard was in several classic films in the 1930s and early 1940s until dying in a plane crash. I saw two of her films recently.

The more obscure is "Supernatural," an early version of the idea that a person's essence can transfer from their body after death. This time involving a woman executed for her crimes. Randolph Scott (fans of Blazing Saddles know him) is a love interest.

The film is silly but enjoyable. The more famous -- and Mel Brooks was in but did not direct the remake -- is To Be Or Not To Be, involving Polish actors who deal with Nazis.

The film was released in 1942 so had some particularly serious overtones among its comedy. The usage of Shylock's speech included. Jack Benny as that great actor Joseph Tura.

Benny alleged his father at first was horrified when the film began with Benny in a Nazi uniform but later saw it a whole lot of times.

[bernard11]

Two interesting (to me, anyway) items:

There is a scene in the original where Lombard, playing Jack Benny's wife, is taking a flight with Lieutenant Sobinski, played by Robert Stack(!!!, thanks IMDB). This makes Benny a bit jealous, but he finally says, "What can happen in a plane?" The plane crash occurred before the film was released, and the line had to be scrubbed.

Jack Benny was born Benny Kubelski. In Mel Brooks' remake there is a scene where, in the background, one can see a street sign saying "Kubelski Street." A small hommage.

Yes, I'm a big Brooks fan. What was your first clue?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Robert Stack was later in Airplane!.

[bernard11]

Don't forget The Untouchables.

[Dr. Ed 2]

An article of mine published today:
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2025/01/15/clean-out-ed-office-for-civil-rights/

Two questions for the lawyers:

(A) what are the legal implications of taking regulations out of the CFR and instead burying them in the internal field manuals?
(B) If a university complies with these secret regs, violating a student's civil rights (e.g. free speech), is "we had to do it" a defense?

[David Nieporent]

Two questions for you:
1) How dumb are you that you think this is how it works?
2) How dumb are you that you think anyone believes that you called up someone and they said, "Oh, yeah, we hide our regulations so nobody can find them"?

[Dr. Ed 2]

1: It IS. See, for example, https://www.bazelon.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/7.18.08-Mount-Holyoke-OCR-Letter.pdf
(HINT: The 617 area code is Boston.)

2: Nearly 30 years later, I'm still shocked he told me that. But in order to get down to 888 words, I had to leave out some details.
ED had just set up a website (the web was only four years old at the time) and this individual did not know that his direct line was listed on it. I properly identified myself as a graduate student at the UM Amherst School of Education -- it wasn't my fault he presumed I was in favor of hate speech codes. And I am a very good at getting people to volunteer information they ought no to.

More recently I called the Boston OCR office, I can't remember why but do remember being shocked by the candor. "Well, we'd never rule against a RAD program", I was told. Compare that to what Pam Bondi said today about Jack Smith...

And as to me being a janitor, I wish I was. They're union, they get good money for reading the newspaper... No, I have a work ethic, but they do get good money...

[David Nieporent]

I'm almost scared to ask, but in what way do you think the OCR letter that you linked to constitutes "taking regulations out of the CFR and instead burying them in the internal field manuals"?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"OCR decisions aren’t made in Washington, DC.

They are instead made in places like Boston, Atlanta, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Seattle, Dallas, San Francisco, Denver, and New York City. And as best I can tell, the President can’t appoint anyone in these regional offices—they’re all in the union and pretty much free to do whatever they damn well please."

[hobie]

Heh...what sort of legitimate scholarly publication allows their authors to publish as monikers? I see your mission statement proclaims:

"...fostering a new climate of opinion that favors civil and honest engagement of all ideas"

Your peers might be surprised you promulgate hate, murder and racism. Unless they think the same way

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Federalist Papers were published under monikers.

As to why I do, thank you for reminding me.
"Hate, murder, and racism." Is that ALL you could think of?

[hobie]

I'm sure you have more hatreds and fears. Not interested in exploring them

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court recently flagged but did not resolve the question of whether receipt of federal funds allows a private business to violate state law. This was in the Idaho EMTALA case. Can a hospital perform a state-criminal abortion in the ER and hide behind federal funding rules when prosecutors come calling?

[Mr. Bumble]

So, what will happen regarding Tik Tok?
Will the SC speak? Will Biden extend the deadline?
Will Tik Tok shut down on Sunday as it is claiming they will do (if so will Frank survive no Charlie D'Amelio)?

[hobie]

Freedom of speech for China to publish a social site as they please...amirite? I mean, Telegram, Yandex and Kapersky are all Russian assets but they've had free reign here for years. In fact Kapersky was the one who detected our Stuxnet worm for Iran. So what's the difference?

[Michael P]

From not very long ago:

The White House has made the ban official by banning the sale, resale, and licensing of any Kaspersky security products or services within the US or by US persons.

You tell us, what's the difference?

[hobie]

Michael P. You've been flooding us with citations that have nearly always been trash. Why should I believe your un-attributed quote this time?

[Michael P]

I assumed, apparently incorrectly, you knew how to use a web search engine. I will revise my estimation of your competence accordingly.

[not guilty]

One of Donald Trump's lawyers, Mike Davis, has gone on a vulgar rant about how he will seek prosecution by the Trump DOJ of Justice Juan Merchan for violating 18 U.S.C. § 241, which prohibits conspiracy against the free exercise or enjoyment of any federal right or privilege. https://theamericantribune.com/lawyer-up-trump-readies-another-major-legal-manuever-against-judge-merchan-on-january-20th-at-noon-theyre-going-to-become-the-hunted-watch/ He provided no particulars to back up his claim that the statute had been violated.

As I stated on the Monday open thread, I have several questions (which to date no one has answered), to-wit:

Who are the conspirators? What was/is the object of conspiracy? When was the conspiracy formed? Whose federal rights did the conspirators propose to violate? As to each such person, what federal rights were at issue? What was the manner and means of the conspiracy?

For purposes of United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997), what precedent(s) would have given Justice Merchan and any co-conspirators fair warning that their conduct violated "clearly established" federal law?

[Bob from Ohio]

"(which to date no one has answered)"

Because nobody cares.

[Martinned2]

That's what worries us.

[Mr. Bumble]

Jesus only had to endure 40 days in the wilderness; you're looking at four years.
Poor you.

[Martinned2]

The Jews had 40 years, what's your point?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I have several questions..."

No need to worry, your questions will have to be answered before any successful prosecution can take place.

[not guilty]

It is reprehensible for a member of the bar to accuse someone of committing a crime without having any substance to back up the accusation.

Not that it will happen, but Justice Merchan could bring a slam dunk libel action against Mike Davis.

[Michael Ejercito]

Whar if you relied on a creative interpretation of criminal statutes?

[TwelveInchPianist]

1. Lawyers love to make this nitpick, so I will: He was speaking, so that would make it slander, not libel, right?

2. Can you quote the statements that you think were defamatory?

[not guilty]

I surmise that the broadcast was close captioned, so that would make it libel as well.

Mr. Davis specifically accused Justice Merchan of violating 18 U.S.C. § 241:

“And let me tell you what it is. It’s 18 USC, section 241, conspiracy against rights, a very serious federal civil rights felony, and when you politicize and weaponize Intel agencies and law enforcement to go after your political enemies for non crimes, which is exactly what happens here you have you have committed that very serious federal Civil Rights felony.”

A false accusation of commission of a crime in many jurisdictions is libel per se.

Mr. Davis further said of Justice Merchan: “You are corrupt, you are partisan, you are dangerous.” While Davis might say that he was merely offering his opinion, that would be incorrect. A statement that implies a false assertion of fact may be actionable even if it is couched as a statement of opinion. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal, 497 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1990).

[TwelveInchPianist]

1 sounds like an opinion based on disclosed facts.

2 doesn't seem like he could establish actual malice.

[not guilty]

"1 sounds like an opinion based on disclosed facts."

Uh, Mike Davis disclosed no facts supporting his scurrilous allegations of criminal conduct and corruption.

"2 doesn't seem like he could establish actual malice."

Davis claimed familiarity with the requirements of § 241. The statute does not even remotely relate to anything that Merchan has cone. If Davis had parsed the statute, that would evince knowing falsehood on his part. If he had not parsed the statute, that would evince reckless disregard for truth or falsity.

[DixieTune]

Yes, it does. He allowed a prosecution he knew to be bullshit, purely to punish a private an unpopular person. Merchan is a traitor and a currently unconvicted criminal.

[not guilty]

Ah, but Mike Davis said none of that.

Conspiracy is not an offense that one person can commit. Davis identified no co-conspirators.

For purposes of United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997), what precedent(s) would have given Justice Merchan and any co-conspirators fair warning that a state court judge merely presiding at the trial of an indictment regularly found by a grand jury violated "clearly established" federal law?

[DixieTune]

He conspired with the prosecutors by not allowing the defense to raise legitimate defenses and arguments, and he as such conspired with the jurors, who should be prosecuted as well.

[not guilty]

Sorry, but ipse dixit assertions don't feed the bulldog.

You conspicuously haven't identified any statute, but I surmise you are claiming that Justice Merchan and the prosecutors violated 18 U.S.C. § 241. Since the gravamen of the offense is conspiracy, the statute requires that the offender must act with a specific intent to interfere with the federal rights in question. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 753-754 (1966). What specific facts do you claim evince any conspiratorial agreement among the prosecutors, the jurors and Justice Merchan to violate anyone's federal rights? Which particular rights do you claim that these "conspirators" intended to interfere with?

United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 271-272 (1997), teaches that, in order to provide the fair warning that conduct is illegal required by Due Process, criminal liability under § 241 may be imposed for deprivation of a constitutional right if, but only if, in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness under the Constitution is apparent. In the world according to DixieTune, what judicial precedent holds that a state court judge making evidentiary rulings in a criminal trial violates anyone's federal constitutional rights? Please cite specifically to any such authorities.

[not guilty]

Still waiting once again, DixieTune.

If you don't know something, there is no shame in admitting that.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, my prediction is nothing comes of the kerfuffle in the short term. Judge Merchan can file suit. Is there discovery for such a suit, from the defendant?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One of Trump's lawyers, Pamela Jo Bondi, has her confirmation hearing today. Going about as expected.

[bernard11]

She can't bring herself to say Trump lost in 2020.

I'm sure she will run a nonpartisan DOJ.

[hobie]

She appears to have trouble understanding the rulings of 62 federal courts on the matter. Bodes well. Should have just nominated Cannon. At least she's open about her impartiality

[Bob from Ohio]

"Should have just nominated Cannon."

11th Circuit then SCOTUS for her

[DixieTune]

Every one of those rulings was basically "Yeah, it's possible the Democrats created fake ballots, and they changed the rules so that there would be no way to prove it, but because there's no way to know, the plaintiffs lose."

[David Nieporent]

Literally none of those rulings said that. When a plaintiff produces no evidence of a defendant's wrongdoing, judges do not say, "It's possible that defendants did what plaintiffs claimed." They just say, "Plaintiffs have produced no evidence to support their claims, so judgment for the defendants." And that's what the judges said.

[DixieTune]

He "lost" according to the votes that were counted. The problem is that the vote counts were fictitious, because the Democrats cheated.

[bernard11]

No. The problem is that too many people are idiots like you, who believe any kind of crap the Trumpists throw out there.

In short, you're full of shit and not worth paying attention to.

[David Nieporent]

I haven't paid attention to her hearing, but since she's not the worst of the worst — on paper she's qualified, unlike Gaetz or Hegseth or Gabbard, and she's not batshit crazy, unlike RFKJ — so she's going to be confirmed. Unless she says something totally off the wall.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The fact that she's too afraid to answer honestly about the 2020 election because of King Idiot's porcelain ego is enough that she shouldn't be confirmed.

She's a coward who is not going to stand up for the rule of law when it conflicts with Trump's ego and retribution.

[hobie]

She's going to have to perform so much gymnastics to make the law conform to Trump's interpretation of law/reality that DOJ output may be, charitably, uneven

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The US is becoming Russia.

We'll just have to develop a Russian sense of humor about these things...

[hobie]

I study Russia and the Russian language. All this kind of shit just turns the entire population into criminals. They have little choice: commit crime or get steamrolled.

[DixieTune]

Since when do you pansies care about the rule of law?

[David Nieporent]

The fact that she's too afraid to answer honestly about the 2020 election because of King Idiot's porcelain ego is enough that she shouldn't be confirmed.

She only needs the votes of Republican senators to be confirmed. Pretty much all of them are also too afraid to answer that honestly, so they're not going to hold that against her.

[Don Nico]

As she said to Blumenthal (or was it Whitehouse), she did not to have to say anything in the hearing. She has the 53 votes and Team-D doesn't

[shawn_dude]

Well, yes. That's entirely why she was nominated. That's why his new cabinet is all swamp creatures; he learned his lesson from his first failed term.

FAFO

[Dr. Ed 2]

As I understand it, his daughter is involved.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Involved in what?

[Noscitur a sociis]

One of Donald Trump's lawyers, Mike Davis,

When did that happen?

[John F. Carr]

The recent Ninth Circuit decision U.S. v. Patnaik reminds me of one of the Hunter Biden controversies. Officers of a staffing company filed false I-129 applications for H-1B visas. The applications said the employees would be working on site when in reality they would be placed at offsite clients. But USCIS is not supposed to base its decision on specific projects the employees would be working on. So the false statements were immaterial and the District Court dismissed. The Ninth Circuit reinstated charges:

The principle that the government may punish untruthful responses to unlawful questions as fraud goes back to the Supreme Court’s 1937 Kapp decision. Since then, the Court’s cases “have consistently—indeed without exception—allowed sanctions for false statements or perjury; they have done so even in instances where the perjurer complained that the Government exceeded its constitutional powers in making the inquiry.” United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 577 (1976) (collecting cases).

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/01/14/23-10043.pdf

[David Nieporent]

Basically, the Ninth Circuit's opinion is that one cannot collaterally attack the questions in the course of defending against a prosecution for lying in response. It's like violating a court order: one generally can't collaterally attack the validity of the order if one is being prosecuted for doing so. One has to challenge the order itself, and secure a ruling that it's invalid, before 'violating' it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Curious, isn't it, how the courts are much more hard core about enforcing the prerogatives of the courts, than of the legislature or executive.

Whose decisions you CAN legally challenge despite having violated.

[Sarcastr0]

Cutting off a venue of collateral attack does not render court orders unassailable. It means each thing in it's time.

Justiciability is, among other things, about being unable to legally challenge legislative or executive action unless it's at the right time. Exhaustion is all about that specifically with respect to the executive.

It looks a lot less like your thesis is true, and a lot more like judges are professionals and not motivated purely by institutional bias.

[David Nieporent]

Um, the topic of this comment was a decision by the legislature/executive, with the court ruling that you CAN'T legally challenge because you violated it. In other words, literally the opposite of what you just said.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yesterday I got to pick the family movie. I picked "Houseboat" with Cary Grant and Sophia Loren.

The wife loved it, my son was less impressed, though he did allow as it might be interesting to live in one.

I'm planning on building a houseboat once I retire, but the one in that movie would perhaps be a bit ambitious, it's too large to trailer.

[Brett Bellmore]

Still, I wouldn't mind a look at the floor plan.

[Swede425]

If I was British and single, I'd seriously consider living on a narrow boat, possibly a wide beam. YouTube has a lot of great channels of folks living on them, free range in the canal system.

[Brett Bellmore]

The one I'm looking at building is a slightly stretched version of the Diane's Rose. It's small enough to be trailerable, while being big enough for a couple to live aboard for several days at a time.

[Longtobefree]

Can you legally use the term "wide beam" in Great Britain anymore?

[Martinned2]

It seems like a massive hassle. I used to walk by the Limehouse Marina almost every day, which is full of those things. Some of the narrow boats look nice, some are in urgent need of maintenance. (Which is more of a problem for a boat than for a house.) Either way, your neighbours are really, really close and you have to spend a six-figure sum to buy a permanent mooring place, or travel around all the time from one mooring place to another.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Rent Cape Fear -- houseboats don't do well in rough weather. A thunderstorm can and does create rough weather.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg5ZMozSTp8

[shawn_dude]

Or a trailer that is too large?

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047191/

[Kazinski]

As the planet goes thru its current episode of modest warming receding ice reveals artifacts and objects buried in the ice for thousands of years.

The Smithsonian has an article about almost 6000 year old trees and 10,000 year old human artifacts uncovered by melting ice in Wyoming.

"They found the previously hidden stand of trees on the Beartooth Plateau in northwest Wyoming, which is part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The whitebark pines were lying flat but had been preserved in good condition, suggesting they were rapidly enveloped by ice.

The trees were recently exposed when the ice patch began melting due to hotter temperatures related to human-caused climate change, reports New Scientist’s Taylor Mitchell Brown. In the same area, receding ice patches have also revealed fragments of wooden hunting weapons, including one that was more than 10,000 years old"

The area is still below the current tree line which is the elevation above which trees can't grow because of cold temperatures and too short of a growing season. Which of course means 5900-10,000 years ago Wyoming at least had a climate several degrees warmer than our current climate, which is well within the range of natural variability.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/melting-ice-reveals-remains-of-5900-year-old-trees-in-wyoming-uncovering-a-long-lost-forest/ar-BB1rob3c?ocid=BingNewsSerp

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd take the trees having been ABOVE the current tree line as better evidence of that. The trees having grown in an area until recently covered with glacier could be due to precipitation patterns, not temperature.

[Kazinski]

That's true, this bit explores that point a little more:

"The trees are located 10,140 feet above sea level, which is roughly 590 feet higher than the region’s current tree line. (The tree line, also known as timberline, marks the edge of a high-elevation habitat that can support trees. Above this invisible marker, the conditions are too harsh for trees to grow.) This suggests the region’s climate was once warmer than it is today."

There are also other sites showing the remains of ancient forests above the Arctic tree line. Here's an article about an ancient tree stump 600km north of the current arctic tree line, its undated but its likely the same age as the Beartooth plateau trees (which are actually in Montana, but near Yellowstone).

https://macleans.ca/news/this-mysterious-arctic-tree-stump-could-reveal-ancient-secrets/

[Absaroka]

I drilled down to the underlying paper, and their claims about temperature changes are certainly plausible to my amateur eye, but I dunno how much weight to give to a 600 ft difference in treeline. There isn't a specific treeline altitude in the Beartooths; low down there are lots of trees, higher up there are less, but it's not a sharp transition. There will be large bare patches with large islands of trees high above them. You can wander around in the Montana Cadastral site to see for yourself.

I may well be missing something.

[Kazinski]

Sure there are a lot of bare places on mountains, my summer home is on the flank of a 7400ft mountain with large sections of brush where you would think there would be trees, and forests higher up.

But it has nothing to do with the tree line, those sections upon closer examination are remnants of a glacial moraine, and the lack of organic material and the rocky soil doesn't retain enough moisture or provide enough nutrients to support anything but a few stunted pines because of the long dry season there. The last extensive glaciation in that part of the Sierra Nevada likely ended about 15000 years ago.

I expect that's what you are seeing in Montana too.

[Absaroka]

What I was trying to convey is that, for example, a shoreline defines a pretty constant line of elevation. The lake level may go up and down a few feet with the seasons, and the upwind/downwind sides may be a few inches different or whatever, but at any given time there will be a pretty sharp elevation line of water/not-water. But that's just not true of trees across a mountain range. You can say the elevation of the lake is 10273 feet, and the summit is 12958, but all you can say about the treeline is 10500 to 11500 or whatever; saying the treeline is 11037 feet is using way more significant digits than there are. You could point to one patch where the highest tree is 10641, but across the valley there will be a patch where the highest tree is 11422. What's the elevation of the treeline in that valley?

Saying it's the single highest tree within XX miles doesn't work, because you'll find a seedling trying hard behind a boulder right on the summit, and next year an avalanche will take out that highest stand, and .... It's just not a concept you can measure to better than maybe 1000 ft or so. At least not in the Beartooths 🙂

[Kazinski]

Sure the tree line varies and there are micro-climate factors like southern exposure, rain shadow, prevailing winds that change the exact tree line on flanks of the same mountain or adjacent peaks. But its going to be reasonably about the same in the same region

Which is why the researchers in the article phrased it: "roughly 590 feet higher than the region’s current tree line."

The tree line is a thing and there is even a tree line map, which is probably the average or median tree line for that region or range.

https://sl.bing.net/NaW8wHMmlg

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Tree lines across the Rocky Mountains and the northern Cascades show patterns which vary more with precipitation than with temperature. In some inland areas, mountain flanks show two tree lines, one above, and one below forested areas which typically band the mid-flanks of taller peaks. The upper line signifies a boundary where cold, snow, and ice prohibit trees, the lower line signifies a boundary below which summer droughts last too long for trees to make it through.

In typically dry central Idaho, where brutally cold winter temperatures are the norm, upper tree lines are higher than in the warmer northern Cascade region, where precipitation is so abundant that deep snowfields last much longer into the spring and summer. The northern Cascades remain notably glaciated. The last tiny glacier in much-colder Idaho is nearly gone by now. In those cases, the difference is mostly precipitation, not temperature.

More generally, land areas remain more seasonally variable than ocean temperatures. Wherever average temperatures remain below freezing, relative cold is less indicative of snow- and ice-related phenomena than relative precipitation is.

Thus, it is not preposterous to suppose that a warming spell could trigger an ice age. If you start with average land temperatures well below freezing, and warmer but still-freezing ocean temperatures—the situation presently typical during arctic winters—then increased warmth could melt the arctic ocean icecap, and thus make the surrounding land region more humid, without raising the average land temperature above freezing.

That could be a process to put continental glaciation back on the march. Folks should be cautious about equating the extent of ice and snow coverage with relative coldness or warmness.

[Martinned2]

modest warming

I can see how you might be relaxed, but here in Europe we're rather attached to our gulf stream.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system#Atlantic_Meridional_Overturning_Circulation_(AMOC)

[shawn_dude]

It was an earnest if lackluster trolling attempt over climate change.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Mazie asked Pam if she's ever made sexual advances towards someone. I don't think Pam swings that way, but I don't know.
Mazie thinks she's got a chance but I think Pam's dance card is full.
The flirt! The minx!
Keep hope alive, Mazie!

[Noscitur a sociis]

She asks that to every nominee for anything (starting after Kavanaugh, if I remember correctly). I’m not sure it accomplishes much, but it has nothing to do with Bondi.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not sure? Cements her place as on of the biggest idiots in the Senate where there is plenty of competition.

[Longtobefree]

Well, in the senate, maybe.
But if you include the entire congress, the competition is for second place after Nancy.

[David Nieporent]

Nancy Mace does not strike me as overly intelligent, but that seems a bit uncharitable. She's not Paul Gosar or anything.

[Michael P]

We don't have Jamaal Bowman to kick around any more! Or Hank "Guam" Johnson, or "Zebra Spots" Al Gore, or several others.

[Sarcastr0]

Didja notice how DMN noted 2 current politicians, and you went back 2 decades with your tu quoque?

[Michael P]

Why yes, I think pointing out that we don't have them to kick around any more recognizes that they are no longer in office and/or alive! Did you notice that nothing Mace or Gosar has said comes close to expecting Guam to capsize or commenting on the prospects of zebras changing their spots?

[Absaroka]

OMG! I thought Hank Johnson must have retired! Who was I going to mock? But his official bio says: "Elected to his 10th term in 2024...".

Bowman was primaried in 2024, so he is out, or will be shortly.

[Michael P]

Huh, thanks for the correction. He was the one I thought had passed away.

Bowman exited on the 3rd.

[MoreCurious]

If it's true that the war in Gaza is finally getting resolved, does this open the door for his billionaire friends -- like Musk, Kushner, Wynn, Palmer, Zuckerberg, Adelson, etc. -- to make a lot of money by rebuilding Gaza?

[Swede425]

Why rebuild?
They can live in rubble huts.

[MoreCurious]

It will be rebuilt so that rich people can become even richer. I seriously doubt that I am the only person who suspects that Bibi, Don, Jr., Jared, and a cast of billionaires are already preparing development plans.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure. The plan is to turn it into the Las Vegas of the Mediterranean.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and Musk's Boring Company will get the contract to build new tunnels for Hamas.

[ThePublius]

If Hamas was smart they'd just build a subway system, out in the open, including underground malls, hotels, parking garages, etc. And, build one or more nuclear powerplants along the coast.

[MoreCurious]

Some say the cost to rebuild could be $80 billion. That's nothing for the top 10 or 20 Trump contributors to invest to rebuild Gaza into a place for the residents to live, work, and farm. The bonus for the billionaires is the coast, where it's easy to imagine casinos, high-rise condos, restaurants, and entertainment. I'm not sure about building new Trump golf courses -- probably too arid -- but if there's a way to do it someone could find a way to make it happen.

[Mr. Bumble]

They'll have plenty to do in California.

[MoreCurious]

Good point, but in Gaza they'll be starting with a blank slate. Much different scenario than California.

[Brett Bellmore]

But without taking Hamas' control away, most of the money will be diverted to terrorism purposes.

And I can't quite figure out who would want to do that stuff in Gaza, specifically, vs someplace less dangerous.

[MoreCurious]

As someone once told me, everyone has a price. I wonder if that rule applies to Hamas.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, it's just that the cheif currency they're interested in is dead Jews.

[Commenter_XY]

You are correct.

[Roger S]

Why would anyone want to rebuild Gaza?

[MoreCurious]

To make money.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, really. Why?

[MoreCurious]

It's hard to avoid the fact that people will need places to live. And as long as that need is going to be filled, it's pretty much a sure thing that someone will try to profit from it.

[Careless]

Because NGOs will pay you to do it. Good, solid, effectively government contracts

[Martinned2]

At some point foreign donors are going to wonder why they're constantly donating money on for the Israelis to destroy everything again shortly after.

[RedheadedPharoh]

The manhandling Pam Bondi has done to those Democrat clowns should be a crime.

[hobie]

Have the mean LIbs been saying she's a whore with her heals in the air?Making sport of her looks and ethnicity? I'm certainly on the same page as you if they went there

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Have the mean LIbs been saying she's a whore with her heals in the air?"

No, but they've been saying that about Hegseth.

[Estragon]

Seven children with three women, multiple affairs

[MoreCurious]

And apparently all the affairs overlapped each other. How the hell did he keep things straight?

[Frank Drackman]

Same way JFK/Bill Clinton did

[TwelveInchPianist]

Too slutty to be Secretary of Defense?

[Estragon]

No. Although I’ll note for the record that you used the term slutty— not me! I just remember hearing so much about “heels up” but also “childless cat lady”
. I guess you can have it both ways when shamelessness is your superpower?

Pop quiz footlong: can you name a member of ASEAN?

[Frank Drackman]

Can you name the charter members of the AFL? Just as irreverent. Just admit that you're jealous that Pete Hedge-sex is a rich, smart, good looking guy, who got more pussy in one weekend than you've had in your entire miserable life, and I'm just pulling this from memory,
NY Titans, Boston Patriots, Dallas Texans, Los Angeles Chargers, Oakland Raiders, Denver Broncos, Houston Oilers, Dammit, there's another one....
I'm walkin here.....!

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Buffalo Bills, see I could have just edited my comment, but I'm honest, now for a real trick question, name the members of the AFL when they merged with the NFL

[Estragon]

“Rich, smart, good looking guy”

Oh Lordy, here we go again.

[Estragon]

“irreverent”

Oopsies!

[not guilty]

I was thinking that the Kansas City Chiefs were a charter member of the AFL. A quick check of Wikipedia shows that they were, but were then known as the Dallas Texans.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Since we're reviving interesting comments, I'm curious if C_XY has any explanation other than cowardice for running away from this comment:

POTUS Biden pardoned his son because it became clear that he himself (and Jim, his brother) would be implicated in other crimes arising from the laptop from hell.

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/14/special-counsel-david-weiss-responds-to-president-bidens-attacks-on-hunter-biden-prosecution/?comments=true#comment-10868568

Multiple people asked for clarification on your legal analysis, and you returned to the thread several hours later to respond to other remarks, yet failed to ever come back to that one, for some reason.

[Life of Brian]

any explanation other than cowardice

Some interesting projection from the dude who scurries for the mute button any time someone pushes back on his blowhard bullying routine.

[Estragon]

Clothed and enthusiastic!

[Commenter_XY]

For the Jason's of the world, Joe Biden is pure as the driven snow.

Joe Biden is a soulless grifter, and used his drug addicted son as his personal bagman, while the family cashed in on the Biden 'brand', no doubt aided by the classified records Joe Biden knowingly retained from his time in the senate and vice presidency.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

1) I've never said that.
2) You misspelled "Trump."
3) Your claims of Biden corruption have not been borne out by evidence.
4) You're still a craven lying shit who can't backup his own words or acknowledge his own stupidity. Even now when called out on your cowardice in running away from your comment, you still can't say that you were a fool to have made it and that you were wrong.

[Frank Drackman]

“Not born out by Evidence”??
That’s why we need a Special Prosecutor, someone Fair and Open Minded, like Steve Banyons

Frank

[Jerry B.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/01/15/israel-war-gaza-ceasefire-hostages-news-hamas/

[ThePublius]

"Steve Witkoff, President-elect Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, has also played an instrumental role, meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the weekend to express Trump’s interest in attaining a deal before his inauguration on Monday."

[Sarcastr0]

Do you have a disease where you can only see Trump people and are blind to everyone else in the world?

[ThePublius]

No.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Evidence proves otherwise.

[Krayt]

So I was listening to CNN while driving around. They were talking about Musk and X, and the change of fact checking to be more like some other company with "community notes", which is a lesser thing apparently.

She continues, "Musk is just doing what the people in power want, he blows that way to ensure profits. If Harris had won, he'd be all they them pronouns and so on."

Why in God's name would that be? Why would he feel he needs to speak in ways those with a $600 billion sword of Damoclese over those companies want???

Remember, these are the people spouting "those companies do that of their own free will!" I've been complaining for almost 10 damned years the goverment has threatened section 230 unless they censor harrassment the way politicians want.

She just cavalierly, offhandedly admitted the companies alter speech and messages to the way people in power want!

You fundamentally lying, censorious asses.

The big three internet leaders are now arraying against you. This includes Zuckerberg, who, in 2016, declined to censor politicians accused of "harrassing tweetz", stating, "The People need to know exactly what their politicians are saying." His reward?

Come stand tall before Congress and explain yourself.

Assholes, they are not "blowing with the wind". They shouldn't have to.

Unless your claims they are freely exercing speech are just fraudulent hot air.

[Careless]

Community notes are great. Pretty balanced (people try to write biased ones, but they rarely get through), and generally informative or funny. A vast improvement over fact checkers, although Facebook's implementation remains to be seen. By the 6 humans still there

[hobie]

So tired of large breasts. Just a symptom of our profligacy. I like small breasts and the women that have them. They're more real and humble

[Michael P]

"The President responded that the harassment allegation was ludicrous, because he would never approach a small-breasted woman," Ms. Lewinsky told prosecutors.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And Argentinians don't confuse them with mountains.

[Kazinski]

All things in moderation and proportion. I do like smaller more athletic women, and smaller breasts do seem more proportionate on slimmer women.

But Sydney Sweeney isn't exactly a large woman but she certainly seems to wear large breasts well.

Many years ago I worked for a breast implant manufacturer, and every woman that's ever asked me about it, I've said i wouldn't recommend implants, of course most women who ask seem to have perfectly adequate breasts, at least from outward observation.

[hobie]

For centuries we've been selectively breeding women like turkeys for our own amusement. I feel bad for my wife. Every day she can't wait to get home and remove her bra because her breasts and back hurt too much. It's unnatural how big women's breasts have become...and it hurts them

[Kazinski]

No.

While humans are almost the only species where the female has prominent mammaries when they aren't lactating, I am not aware of any evidence that small breasted women have ever had any problem finding a sufficient number of partners to breed with.

Breast size is probably much more related to body fat than anything else, Bing tells me:

"The relationship between breast size and body fat is complex and multifaceted. Recent studies have shown that a high breast volume predicts visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and risk for type 2 diabetes independently of body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC)"

Probably a large cohort of women store body fat more readily in their breasts, as well as hips and butt, than other regions.

[Martinned2]

I am reliably informed that humans are going to evolve bigger brains because we now use c-sections, so this hobie's story sounds plausible to me.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1742409933411299706?lang=en

[Brett Bellmore]

The Obstetrical dilemma theory vs the marching morons.

If evolutionary pressure for higher intelligence were still extreme, c-sections probably would lead to a significant rise in human intelligence. The problem is that the development of technology in general has drastically lowered the evolutionary advantage of intelligence in humans, since only a fairly small fraction of the population have to be really smart, and welfare allows the particularly stupid to freely reproduce.

So we're probably evolving backwards in that regard at the moment. Or perhaps, when you take into account assortive mating, bifurcating.

Thankfully, we're at the dawn of germ line genetic engineering, and genetic engineering vs evolution is like a race car vs tectonic drift. So the Marching Morons is now an unlikely future.

Setting that aside, what you'd actually see in the short to medium run is an increase on the upper end in intelligence, as one of the constraints is removed, and children with gene combinations leading to larger head size survive instead of dying and taking Mom with them. Prior to C sections becoming common, there was a pretty hard wall on head size.

A side issue is that "genius" really IS "close to madness", and the same assortive mating that is probably going to increase the number of geniuses is going to increase the incidence of mental illness. Getting that combination of genius and sanity is a tough evolutionary nut to crack.

[Sarcastr0]

welfare allows the particularly stupid to freely reproduce.

So we're probably evolving backwards in that regard at the moment.

Brett, you aristocratic fool, this is not how evolution works.

It is also not how intelligence works.
Did you assume bigger head=bigger brain=more smart?

assortive mating that is probably going to increase the number of geniuses is going to increase the incidence of mental illness
ANOTHER fallacy based on dorm-room level hot takes.

Incredible combo of lack of rigor and unshakeable confidence.

[Brett Bellmore]

A few centuries wouldn't be enough to accomplish such breeding, and its a weird way to describe it; It's not like we're harvesting eggs from big breasted women and using the small breasted ones as surrogate mothers. It's not a breeding program. It's just evolution.

What we have here is a failure to understand evolutionary biology.

Because men and women are genetically different, we constitute two semi-independently evolving groups. Women are evolving larger breasts, to the limited extent they are, because it improves THEIR evolutionary fitness, not for the benefit of the men.

To be specific, breast size is influenced by health and nutrition during puberty, making it into a proxy for health and fertility. So men evolved to prefer women with conspicuous breasts.

Women responded to this trait in men by spoofing the signal, inflating the size of their actual breasts by concentrating whatever fat they had in them.

Then you enter an era where food is not in short supply, and medical care practically guarantees good health during puberty, and, wham: The spoofed signal is over-expressed.

But this was not a product of a deliberate breeding program by men, it was a product of women evolving to deceive men concerning their fertility, thus enhancing their personal reproductive fitness at the expense of the men.

None of this was actually deliberate, and you might as well feel bad about male peacocks having to carry around all those feathers; Doing so has enormous costs, but they evolved to do it to convince the peahens that they were highly fit mates.

There's a flip side of this, of course: Why do men live shorter lives on average than women?

Because our biology is 'overclocked' to make us better protectors and providers for women when we're younger, of course. But women didn't engage in a selective breeding program to make men big, strong, fast, and die young. We evolved those traits to convince women we were good prospects as mates.

I guess the real difference is that we're not spoofing them, yet.

[Sarcastr0]

Evopsyche has always been a pretty fraught field. It's full of 'just-so' story science, where you come up with a story and then try and support it. Not a hypothesis - a whole-ass story.

Add in the evolutionary drive towards variation in behavior, and it's already in tension with itself.

It's everything the right claims to hate about social science, but it tends to align with their priors, so they're into it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I agree that it's somewhat of a "just so" story, but at least its a more sensible one than that "we've been selectively breeding women like turkeys for our own amusement."

[Sarcastr0]

Fair enough.

[DrCoke]

The secret breeding program has been in effect for over 7oo years. It's a group of men who appear to be middle management, but are actually controlling society. This shadow group are called the Breastie. Gesseret. Now that AI is booming, and eliminating a lot of middle managers, we can anticipate a planetary jihad against the thinking machines.

The cultural spice must flow, by which I mean: the boobs must grow.

[Frank Drackman]

Tell us about "Her" Dick

[Estragon]

Boy, after all the “heels up Harris” talk around here there’s an awful lot of silence and mumbling about pocket square Pete. Seven kids with three women and multiple affairs! Oh and he ran the only org he ever headed into the ground! Had to be carried out of work events?

And please raise your hand if you believe that a boastfully heavy drinker will completely quit once he gets a very important job!

It’s almost as if these pearl clutching, morality based criticisms aren’t exactly being made in good faith.

Vice is a moat.

[Estragon]

The party of Eddie Gallagher!

[Careless]

I have no clue about Hesgeth's personal life, but bringing up Harris here is just stupid and counterproductive. You supported her and think this is disqualifying for him? He's either bad or not on his own merits.

[Sarcastr0]

Estragon was making a purely hypocricy argument. Dunno how you managed to read it another way.

[Michael P]

Because the hypocrisy angle was incoherent? Hegseth allegedly was wildly attractive to lots of women because of his looks and success. Harris used her wiles to land a sugar daddy and thereby gain advantage in a bureaucracy. It's trivial to distinguish the two.

[Estragon]

“wildly attractive”

Were you touching yourself when you said that?

He’s a womanizing drug addict. Just ask his mom! Classic DEI hire

[Estragon]

Don’t worry— I’m an enthusiastic heavy drinker but I’ll quit cold turkey when I get my very important job! You people are beyond belief.

[Michael P]

It’s critically important that, to the extent you can find anything that gives you an ability to be patient in this extremely dangerous and unprecedented crisis, that you ... focus on what can be, unburdened by what has been.

[Estragon]

Again. Beyond belief. Between this and LOB minimizing groomer Gaetz’s conduct by describing the victims as “clothed” and “enthusiastic” I think we can confirm what we all knew all along about your moral compass…. Wandering!

[Michael P]

Go home, Estrogen, you're drunk.

[Estragon]

No. That’s Hegseth.

[Michael P]

Is that you, Jen Rubin?
https://twitter.com/BlueskyLibs/status/1879538397942845891

[Estragon]

Pathetic

[hobie]

Estragon, we've seen this before. Animal Farm. They've no moral compass to agree when you've made a point. Ignore-Attack. Ignore-Attack. I've made my peace with this. The best you can do is hold your ground. But in the end...I think this ends up like Donald Southerland in the Body Snatchers. Luckily, they've encouraged us all to get armed to the teeth (probably because of the fear of themselves). So we wait...

[Don Nico]

"Ignore-Attack. Ignore-Attack. "
That certainly was today's script for Team-D

[Estragon]

“Oh lay off the personal attacks! What about China???”

-Don Nico

“Name a member of ASEAN”

-Tammy Duckworth

“Uhhhh… South Korea?”

-Pete Hesgeth

“I can’t believe Dems attacking this guy on character instead of substance.”

-Don Nico

[Don Nico]

Yup, Gotcha questions. How about substance. Whine on, RE. Team_D blew its chance to sink this nomination.

Estrogen, you cannot stand any criticism. Wow. This guy was the weakest standing nominees and Schumer's playbook was a bust. Sad really.
In the end, Hegseth survived even Sunday school teacher,
Kaine.
But don't take it personally.

[Estragon]

Gotcha questions?? Dude. He talked about the South China Sea in his opening statement! Is it too much to ask that he knows the counties surrounding it? He’s going to be in charge of literally the most powerful military force on the planet Earth. You will excuse anything. I imagine you will go far in Trump’s America, and I fervently hope you will live long enough to regret it.

[Estragon]

Schumer playbook? What are you talking about?

Are you seriously saying that this guy— manifestly unfit, and a drug addict— wouldn’t have been confirmed if the questioning had been different???? You are delulu. We had people excusing Matt Gaetz fucking underage girls on this page last week! Vice is a moat.

[Don Nico]

Estrogen,
I started my post saying Hegseth should Not be confirmed. But you have learned from others just to lie and mind read.
The guys is a disaster and Team-D let him slide by with bullshit questions.
They could have showed he is not competent. But badgering the witness is more fun. These guys would rather fight than win. I guess that's your gamme also.

[Estragon]

“Lie”

What lie?

[Estragon]

What lie, Don Pussy?

(I don’t love using “pussy” as a pejorative— because pussies are powerful… but I read in my FT today that top NY bankers are feeling free to deploy it so why be left behind?)

Don pussy “the lugubrious and chin stroking”… admit it—there is a certain ring to it

[shawn_dude]

Gotcha questions?! It's a job interview. You're supposed to ask basic questions to test a person's understanding of the area they're applying for. He appears to not even know the difference between "Asian" and "ASEAN," which is a huge problem for someone in that role.

Note that we all understand these nominations are more about loyalty above anything else and Hegseth certainly meets that qualification in spades. It's hard to prevent the incoming president from breaking the law if you don't even understand the basic aspects of the role in the first place.

[Life of Brian]

You're supposed to ask basic questions to test a person's understanding of the area they're applying for.

Uh huh. If they were such "basic questions," Duckworth wouldn't have had to read nearly every word of her preplanned diatribe from the pile of papers in front of her. If you watch the footage, you can see her flipping around from one "gotcha module" to another.

[Sarcastr0]

You..,defending Michael P in this thread?

That is a choice.

[Estragon]

Does Pete get this job, given his manifest lack of experience and checkered personal past, if he wasn’t a revanchist white Christian male? DEUS VULT!

For all the howling about DEI it seems like it wasn’t about “qualifications”…

[Careless]

You think he was hired (well, nominated) because of his skin color? Well, I guess we can toss out all the conspiracy-mongering about Christofascism and such.

[Estragon]

He’s not getting hired for his sterling CV. Or maybe you believe the audit talk? DEI crit, around here, focuses around hiring for criteria other than merit. So what boxes does Pete check, after all? Sobriety and taking oaths seriously are evidently not two. So, what, then?

[Careless]

No, you're making DEI claims. I want to follow this down the rabbit hole. How is he whiter than other people? Or more male? Or what's your DEI category?

[Estragon]

Again— the howling about DEI is not specifically (although it is often) racial. See, for example, the discussions about leadership of the LAFD and associated agencies, passim. It’s about hiring people— otherwise unqualified— for positions beyond their capabilities and expertise for other reasons. And now we have this womanizing drug addict being nominated for DOD… why? Because of reasons other than capabilities and expertise! The guy is manifestly unfit to lead DOD. In your most private moments you must admit this to yourself. His own mom was willing to call him out publicly. This is not a good person.

[Careless]

It's not specifically to hire the unqualified. It's, well, you know what DEI stands for. So you must think he satisfies one of those categories, but are refusing to say which.

Either that, or it's a rather inept attempt at bothsidsing. But I'm hopeful you'll surprise me.

[David Nieporent]

Sobriety and taking oaths seriously are evidently not two.

That's not fair; Hegseth promised to stop drinking if he was confirmed.

[Estragon]

Marital oaths David! You know— I do and all that. LOL. And a gin drinker to boot! They’re always angry, in my extensive experience

[Careless]

ok. Was Hesgeth visibly drunk at the hearing, because otherwise that doesn't make sense

[Careless]

He won't admit that (see below).

Although I think the hypocrisy argument falls flat. Have any of us seen Hesgeth drunk off his ass or otherwise badly impaired by substances? We've all seen it with Kamala

[hobie]

Careless, I think you must be new here. Give yourself a couple of days to observe how the MAGA bros and the others characterize women and other people. You might hone your outrage

[Estragon]

“no clue about Hesgeth's personal life”

Oh so you want to talk about his qualifications to run a huge government department? Please, do, go on. The mic is yours

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Hey now - Hegseth said that the military would be a pure meritocracy several times!

Like adultery being a violation of the UCMJ however, that is not a standard he can meet himself.

[Frank Drackman]

Like in the Civilian world, Military Prosecutors have "Discretion" and "Rank has it's privileges" which is why Colonel Jodi Ernst wasn't charged.

[Careless]

No, why? You brought it up. You seem to have an opinion about him

[Estragon]

Yeah, that’s right. I sure do.

[Estragon]

AND he lied to Trump! Don’t you huckleberries care about that— at least?!?

[shawn_dude]

Not sure why anyone who voted for Trump would find Hegseth's shortcomings a barrier to confirmation. When you run through his personal faults and failures, they align well with the things Trump voters value most.
- Adultery? check.
- Substance abuse? check.
- Incompetence? check.
- Moral depravity? double-check.

[Don Nico]

Why is that an issue?
I can name many issues to fault Hegseth on: no major executive or management experience. No background in military strategy, military technology, no understanding of how deterrence will play in a multi-polar world, no explanation of how the US should address significant nuclear build-ups in Russia and China. I could go on.
Were there any questions on these questions? No.

Team-D did a poor job. Rather than exposing this nominee's gross deficiencies, they acted like self-righteous scolds. And as a result, he is going to be confirmed

[Estragon]

He couldn’t even name a member of ASEAN! This is the most galaxy-brained dumb take possible.

[Don Nico]

Keep complaining.
Thanks to poor questioning he will be confirmed.

[Estragon]

Again. If you think a different series of questions before the senate armed services committee would have led to a different result you are… not in touch with the current reality.

[Don Nico]

Keep on bitching. Schumer's playbook (did you know that he is the minority leader and he does set the caucus strategy?) laost any chance of convincing Joni Ernest, who was on the fence, or any other member of Team-R who had his/her doubts (and there were some.)
As I said you would rather fight than win. It is going to be a long 4 years for you, buster.

[David Nieporent]

Remember murc's law: only Democrats have any agency. If Ernst chooses to vote for an unqualified person, that's not Ernst's fault for voting for an unqualified person. It's not the GOP's fault for nominating an unqualified person. It's Chuck Schumer's fault for not asking the right questions.

[Estragon]

“ It is going to be a long 4 years for you”

Boy, are you ever right about that.

I want you to reflect on what you’re saying for a second. Ignore the fact that this guy is a rapey drug addict? Pointing this out just makes the GOP more likely to confirm him, you say.

Have you given any thought as to why that is? No, you’d rather dump on… Chuck Schumer— who according to you wrote all the questions himself? Does that make any kind of sense to you?

[Sarcastr0]

I’d have taken a different tact myself, but he was gonna get confirmed no matter what.

[Estragon]

I’m going to say this as tactfully as I can: it’s tack. It’s a sailing thing.

[Sarcastr0]

I think I can remember that, just don’t make me do Capitol/al or principal/le.

[Estragon]

Affect effect always got me. English can be dumb

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I'd say that's one place we could simplify our spelling.

Besides, I grew up thinking of 'affect' as a term in psychology, took a long time to realize what its chief meaning was. I suppose because my parents left too many psychology books lying around the house when I was a child.

Note to parents of odd kids: Keep the psychology texts up on a high shelf, lest your children read the child psychology books before you do.

[Don Nico]

Finally you are correct about something.

[Don Nico]

That is not clear, S_0.
So why not take a more constructive tack. For example, compare with Amy Klobouchar's questioning of Bondi or Duckworth's questioning of Rubio. Both were substantive and elicited substantive responses.
All I can say is that in the six years that I work for a Team-D senator, I would never had advised him of questions that would assure Team-R votes for the nominee.

[Sarcastr0]

You and I disagree about the dynamic in the Senate at the moment re: Trump's nominees. I don't think these Senators you think were wavering were actually gettable. Especially for such a flagship nominee.

I would have gone more with foreign military relations myself, but that's deckchairs on the Titanic. It's all a matter of taste that would not change the upshot.

Maybe one could argue the accrual of negatives across the candidates creates a narrative. If so, gambling on setting a narrative fed by character-based scandals might be better politics than one based on being strategically shallow, given the main strategy will be to instantiate Trump's whims.

[Frank Drackman]

Did he claim to know all 57 State Capitols? Played Foo-bawl at the Naval Academy??

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Did you listen to the challenges posed by the Republican sycophants?

"How many pushups can you do."

Get back to me when you think Republicans give a fuck what any of his answers would've been to anything. He couldn't even say yes to whether he'd refuse an illegal order because he's a craven piece of shit who knows that truth and integrity would cost him the job.

[Frank Drackman]

Sounds like you might have a little of the Sleepy Joe Disease, because it was He (Him?) who bragged about how his pushup prowess. And the "Ill-Legal Order" is such Bullshit I can tell you never served (and don't give me the "Homo" excuse) Did Colonel Tibbets obey an Ill-legal order when he dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima? Robert McNamara for bombing North Vietnamese hospitals? Any of the Officers who followed Barry Osama's orders to attack Civilians in Afghanistan? My only complaint is Hedge-Sex didn't tell Senator Doc Brown from Virginia to suck his cock.

Frank

[Riva]

That was ol’Joe, insulting a voter, just so you know.

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico, I am not sure the 'NO background in military strategy, military technology' holds water. He deployed with military tech, and as an officer, you participate in implementing strategy.

Agree the questions did not elicit any meaningful information. Maybe the constituents of those Senators ought to say something?

[shawn_dude]

"And as a result, he is going to be confirmed"

MAGA owns both houses of Congress and the presidency. Short of embarrassing Trump directly, he's getting confirmed.

Pretending that Trump's terrible cabinet picks are the fault of the Democrats is just another "look what you made me do" gaslighting moment.

[John F. Carr]

I understand she slept with somebody for business and he slept with somebody for pleasure. Which is worse?

Cue Tom Petty:
My sister got lucky, married a yuppie.
Took him for all he was worth.
Now she's a swinger, dating a singer.
I can't decide which is worse.

[Mr. Bumble]

Another one gone too soon.

[Super Scary]

Were any of those women his boss? Did any of those women reward him with political positions and favors? What a flimsy attempt to equate the two people.

[Careless]

So mark Lemley fired Meta/Zuck as a client because of his/their descent into "neo-Nazi madness". That really didn't get mentioned in this thread yet?

Libelous? I mean, I know you can get away with a lot with public figures (Illinois had a radio ad in 2012, I think where one candidate called a Senator a "de facto pedophile", which there was no evidence for, and no one seemed to blink at that), but jebus

https://bsky.app/profile/marklemley.bsky.social/post/3lfnpjquzks2r

[Kazinski]

When Mark Zuckerberg is a Nazi then we all are.

Suddenly I feel free.

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

another Biden mega-foolisness.
I see WaPo loves the Trump cabinet nominees and the hearings are showing a surprising number of Senators to be assholes. My point: all the forward march away from the Democrats is being caused by the Democrats.
If Biden cared about the norrors of war he wouldn't have said anything different then his own staff: without Trump there would have been no Gaza agreement.,
Those of us who remember Reagain and the Carter hostages, see it again: A weak stupid vain ineffective President does nothing for the suffering and along comes someone to say "Do this NOW or your in big shit"
Hunter is claiming his lost paintings are worth millions --- There's a scam for you to pursue, Joe. You know the insurance folks"

[Frank Drackman]

Sleepy Joe, going out by Plagiarizing an Eisenhower speech from 64 years ago.

[Frank Drackman]

Like most Atlantan's not a big Hockey fan (went to a Flames game at the Omni in 1974), explains why Atlanta has lost 2 NHL teams to the potential 51st State, but I checked the standings the other day,
"Eastern Conference, Western Conference, Metropolitan, Atlantic, Central, Pacific Divisions??"
When did they ditch the Clarence Campbell and Prince of Wales Conference names? (I was always a Clarence man)
and for you real Nerds, who can name the Divisions that were in each conference

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Governor Newsom issues order to protect fire victims from predatory real estate speculators

"The Governor’s executive order:

Makes unsolicited undervalued offers to purchase property from property owners in specified zip codes of Los Angeles County unlawful for a period of three months from the date of this Order. "

"A copy of the executive order can be found here."

It strikes me that this is about as clear a 1st amendment violation as I have seen in my entire adult life. I am just completely floored by the fact they'd think they could get away with it.

[ThePublius]

I thought it was odd, but 1st Amendment didn't come to mind. It seems like a corollary to the anti price gouging laws, which I do not support.

[Brett Bellmore]

As an economic regulation, I could see the state prohibiting the sale from going through; Though that would be tyrannical, it wouldn't violate any judicially recognized right.

But prohibiting the offer, itself? That's pure speech regulation.

[ThePublius]

I know many would disagree with this, but I think anti price gouging laws and regulations, and now this law against low offers, and also rent control, eviction moratoria, etc., all fall within the realm of a taking; essentially the government telling you what you can do with your property.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts sales of interests in lottery ticket and lawsuit proceeds sometimes need judicial approval. There are predators. A young person wins a net present value of $100,000 and would sell it for $10,000 because she wants cash right now. That's more money than she has ever heard of.

If the governor put a freeze on property sales the prohibition on offers would be a valid prohibition on speech that is integral to illegal conduct.

[Brett Bellmore]

But, again, that's a regulation of the transaction, not the offer.

[Sarcastr0]

Commercial speech, under current precedent, can be regulated more freely than political, ideological, or artistic speech.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, that has never sat well with me. More anti-Lochnerism.

[TwelveInchPianist]

A regulation like this still seems unconstitutional. Especially if John Carr is correct that it prohibits an offer to buy a burned lot for its fair market value.

[Absaroka]

"prohibits an offer"

Just FWIW, if prohibits unsolicited offers. If you have decided to sell the lot, take the insurance money, and move to Tucson, nothing is stopping you from calling up a realtor and listing the burned over lot ("house needs some TLC!"). I doubt there is a lot of interest from buyers at the moment, though.

(the 'unsolicited offer' business is curious to me. Last year we were getting one a week for our Montana place, usually offering 10 to 20% of FMV. At that profit margin, I suppose you only need a very occasional sucker to pay for lots of postage. It's dropped off to one every couple of months. It seems like a pretty sleazy business)

(Almost all the offers were from out of state ... dunno if CA can go after them??)

(Kinda agree on the 1A angle ... but not fueling a lot of burning anger in me ... sleazy business)

[shawn_dude]

I'm reading "offer" here as a possible term of art. If I make an unsolicited, verbal offer to buy a house that's one kind of offer. The other is the formal, signed offer that comes as part of the legal and financial process to purchase a home. I'm not a realtor or a lawyer but I've bought several homes over the years and in each case I had to fill out a form and sign it as part of the formal offer process.

What this does is give people, especially the elderly, some additional legal cover should someone try to scam them out of their property after this disaster.

[DrCoke]

It's "gauging".

Seriously though, it seems like a really hard thing to prosecute. Real estate is highly volatile due to so many factors. Not like bottled water that is a plentiful commodity.

Homeowner education and assistance with the insurance processes, help with the immediate survival issues, and perhaps even mercy compensation while insurance payouts are distant..those seem like where the government should be focused.

Maybe they are (although I doubt to anywhere the level needed), and the anti-ripoff EO is just. an imaginary threat to warn some bad actors away. (And let your constituents know that you are "doing things to protect them" since the waterworks weren't maintained.)

[John F. Carr]

Undervalued means under the fair market value of the property the day before the fire. It is illegal to make an unsolicited offer to buy a burned lot at the fair market value of a burned lot.

[Don Nico]

However, the owner can solicit an offer to sell the propety at whatever price s/he thinks s/he can get. Or the owner can wait for 3 months and wonder where the money is going to come from.
As for fair market value, that cannot mean the value of the land plus structure, but only the value of the land perhaps minus the cost of debris removal as a separate item in the purchase agreement.

[shawn_dude]

You're making some assumptions here. For starters, you're reading "offer" as simple speech--hey, can I buy your house for pennies on the dollar--and not as a purchase contract that is part of the normal sale of a property. You're also assuming what "fair value" means here. Do you have any evidence that your reading is even reasonable, let alone accurate?

To me, I'd read "fair market" as some combination of assessed land value plus the value of the insurance payout from the loss of the residence and potentially something to account for the frustrations and additional expenses associated with building a new home on that lot.

The Palisades haven't always been ritzy and a goodly number of current owners bought when things were relatively cheap there. They may not even know the market value of their property. There is a high risk that scumbags will descend on the place and try scam vulnerable homeowners. (Which seems to be the theme for 2025 so far...)

[John F. Carr]

This is the context: "an amount less than the fair market value of the property or interest in the property on January 6, 2025"

How can that mean anything other than the value of an intact house and land in a fire-prone area? Fair market value is a standard term. It can be uncertain by a few percent, or ten or twenty percent, but not by the difference between a small lot with a decent house and a small lot with no house.

In my area an offer is fairly informal. It is memorialized in an offer to purchase which is later expanded into a purchase and sale agreement. The offer to purchase is sometimes a binding contract, the state Supreme Court ruled to many lawyers' surprise about 25 years ago, if it contains the essential terms leaving only details to be set down later.

[DrCoke]

... lot with no house...
And no forest or ornamental trees there or anywhere nearby, anymore.

Insurance isn't going to grow trees back. The property is not temporarily damaged. It's been magically relocated to a much less desirable area.
And insurance is going to take years to pay you.
"I have a burned out lot no home, and I need cash now!" Call Jay Gee Buyout, 87742!

[Brett Bellmore]

Borderless Welfare State: The Consequences of Immigration for Public Finances

A rigorous study of the net economic contribution of immigrants from different countries to the economies of Denmark and the Netherlands. This graph really sums it up. Immigrants from poorer countries were all net economic drains. The wealthier the source country, the more likely they were to be net contributors.

I doubt Somin will care, though.

[Commenter_XY]

martinned2 hardest hit...

[Martinned2]

Whenever I've had immigrants from poorer countries clean my flat, they did a much better job than I ever would have. And despite the fact that I spent most of my time in London living in Tower Hamlets, where 43% of the population is born outside the UK and 69% of the population is from an ethnic minority group, I can't say that I've ever found that to be a net negative.

But of course I enjoy living in culturally diverse communities. Given that I'm from a long line of (the Dutch version of) redneck peasant stock, I understand better than most that that's not a view shared by all.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Whenever I've had immigrants from poorer countries clean my flat, they did a much better job than I ever would have."
We aren't discussing your shortcomings.
"And despite the fact that I spent most of my time in London living in Tower Hamlets, where 43% of the population is born outside the UK and 69% of the population is from an ethnic minority group, I can't say that I've ever found that to be a net negative."
Of course. It's very convenient to have cheap help so close.

[Martinned2]

Of course. It's very convenient to have cheap help so close.

So we're back to Schrödinger's immigrant, who steals our jobs and sits idle on welfare at the same time?

[Mr. Bumble]

Does the UK have the equivalent of a 1099 where you report payments in excess of $600 or are you paying under the table in cash so as to avoid reporting and still qualify for the dole?

[David Nieporent]

Do Denmark and the Netherlands have welfare policies similar to American ones? If not, then of what relevance would that be to the U.S.?

[ThePublius]

I take it the Netherlands is stricter than the U.S. in that regard, e.g., no welfare for illegal immigrants, limited social benefits for immigrants' first six months, etc. So, I expect the economic impact of immigrants in the U.S. will be worse.

[David Nieporent]

You've been watching too much Fox. The U.S. does not have welfare for legal or illegal immigrants. Even most lawful permanent residents (green card holders) can't get welfare. The exception is some programs for children, who are eligible even if illegal because most Americans aren't sociopaths.

[Mr. Bumble]

So the billions blue cities were being forced to spend on illegal aliens flown and bused to their cities doesn't count as welfare?

[ThePublius]

David, perhaps we should define "welfare."

Massachusetts, where I live, is going broke caring for illegal|undocumented|paroled immigrants. They get housing, food, cash, and even laundry service - I'm not kidding.

"Benefits available regardless of immigration status:
Emergency rental assistance
Programs like the Residential Assistance for Families in Transition (RAFT), Emergency Rental and Mortgage Assistance (ERMA), and Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) help pay for rent
WIC
The Massachusetts WIC program provides free nutrition education, counseling, and benefits for nutritious foods for low-income women, infants, and children under five
Food pantries
Food pantries and community feeding programs distribute free food to community members
Other benefits
TAFDC, EAEDC, and SNAP: These programs may provide cash and food assistance
CommonHealth: This state-funded program may provide expanded coverage for certain non-citizens."

Here's how bad it's gotten here:
Lefty Mass. Gov. Maura Healy to phase out hotel rooms for illegal immigrants to address massive $1B migrant crisis costs

So, your statement is incorrect. The U.S. does have 'welfare' for legal and illegal immigrants.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Not about the US generally.

2. WIC = "The exception is some programs for children, who are eligible even if illegal because most Americans aren't sociopaths"

3. Food pantries are *community* programs, not state-funded.

4. Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC) and Emergency Aid to the Elderly, Disabled and Children (EAEDC). See DMN's 'most Americans aren't psychopaths' above.

5. SNAP is not available to illegal immigrants.

6. Commonhealth as applied to illegals looks to be specifically emergency health services. See the psychopath discussion above.

[ThePublius]

I may well be mistaken on SNAP. I got that from a google AI generated response.

But let me ask, if you cross the border illegally and are caught; claim asylum status; are given a hearing date and paroled into the U.S. - are you now here legally and eligible for SNAP?

[Sarcastr0]

Only U.S. citizens and certain lawfully present non-citizens may receive SNAP benefits. This includes individuals granted asylum, so presumably not individuals still seeking it.
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility/non-citizen

[ThePublius]

"3. Food pantries are *community* programs, not state-funded."

Not so.

"For Fiscal Year 2021, the most recent year for which data is available, the four regional food banks collectively distributed over 143 million pounds of food, about 35 million pounds, (a 25.4% increase over FY20) which was purchased through MEFAP. Total funding provided through the Department of Agricultural Resources for MEFAP was $30,000,000.00, an increase of $10M, or 50% over FY20."

From mass.gov

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-emergency-food-assistance-program-mefap

[Sarcastr0]

I stand corrected.

[ThePublius]

No prob. The food banks are abused, though. i know multiple people with plenty of money who make their every other week trips to the food bank, and also pick up the "specials" like turkeys at Thanksgiving and Christmas, and so forth. One of these people owns three private houses, one on the water with a dock and a boat, multiple cars, and so on. It's shameful. They should police and enforce this better, don't you think?

[Sarcastr0]

I volunteer at a food bank with my church once a month. It gets all of it's food via community donations.

I don't check if the folks that come in have houses or boats, but I'm fine with a few folks getting away with a free meal over the background of people who need it not being hassled with background checks or something.

[ThePublius]

That's good of you to volunteer. I've been thinking of volunteering lately, now that I'm retired.

[ThePublius]

"6. Commonhealth as applied to illegals looks to be specifically emergency health services. See the psychopath discussion above."

It's more than that:

"MassHealth CommonHealth
MassHealth CommonHealth offers health care benefits similar to MassHealth Standard to certain disabled adults and disabled children who cannot get MassHealth Standard.

Covered services
For MassHealth CommonHealth, covered services include the ones listed below. There may be some limits.

Inpatient hospital services
Outpatient services: hospitals, clinics, doctors, dentists, family planning, vision care
Medical services: lab tests, X rays, therapies, pharmacy services, eyeglasses, hearing aids, medical equipment and supplies
Adult day health and adult foster care
Mental health and addiction services
Well-child screenings (for children under 21): medical, vision, dental, hearing, mental health and addiction services, developmental screens, shots
Long-term services and supports at home or in a long-term-care facility, including home health services
Transportation services
Services to help you quit smoking"

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/masshealth-coverage-types-for-individuals-and-families-including-people-with-disabilities#masshealth-commonhealth-

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I looked it up too. Did you miss this:

"MassHealth Limited
MassHealth Limited provides emergency health services to people who have an immigration status that keeps them from getting more services"

[ThePublius]

I didn't miss it, I just didn't report it.

[Sarcastr0]

By it's nature, it seems like that's what illegal immigrants have access to, not the stuff you highlight just above.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, and Barry Hussein Osama said "If you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor!" people think I'm a Doofus, but Grover from Sesame Street has more Domestic Policy chops than you.

[David Nieporent]

1. I was not precise enough in what I said. The federal government has virtually no benefits for immigrants. That does not mean that some states can't choose to be more generous; as long as they're using their own funds rather than federal funds, they can give free Teslas to every immigrant if they so choose. And some do. (Well, not Teslas. But other benefits.)

2. That NYP headline is lying. First it treats a program that is primarily for homeless people as if it's for immigrants alone, and then it also treats people here legally as if they were illegal.

[ThePublius]

"2. That NYP headline is lying. First it treats a program that is primarily for homeless people as if it's for immigrants alone, and then it also treats people here legally as if they were illegal."

I don't know where you got that, David. I read the same article, and it says "Gov. Maura Healy said Friday the state will be phasing out the use of hotels and motels for emergency shelter for illegal migrants over the next 19 months, ...."

Where do you think this sudden surge of 'immigrants' are coming from? Are all of these people Massachusetts citizens and residents who suddenly became homeless? Or, could they have arrived in buses and planes from border states?

[David Nieporent]

The article does say that. But the "according to multiple reports" links to this Boston Globe story, which doesn't say that. Indeed, the word "illegal" does not appear in the Boston Globe story at all. (Nor, to head off the obvious retort, do the words "undocumented" or "unauthorized." The word "migrant" does appear in the Globe story, but the NYP seems to have merely assumed that 'migrants' are illegal.)

Always beware newspaper stories that paraphrase rather than actually quoting. We saw another example of this problem with the Jack Smith report, where numerous media outlets reported that Smith said that Trump "would've been convicted." But he didn't say that; he said that the evidence was legally sufficient for a conviction. The reporters probably weren't deliberately lying about that, but their reporting was false nonetheless.

[ThePublius]

See the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report I linked, below.

[ThePublius]

Also this, bearing in mind it's from WBUR, a decidedly progressive, liberal outlet:

"As demand for shelter beds surged between 2022 and 2023, the state struck lease deals to use dozens of hotels and motels across Massachusetts. Currently 56 hotels are being used as shelters, officials said.

The new limits are aimed at sharply reducing costs for the Emergency Assistance shelter system. The price tag has ballooned to a nearly $1.1 billion annually — nearly three times what the program cost prior to the surge in demand. The price increase is due largely to the expanded use of hotels."

State to end use of hotels as shelters

[David Nieporent]

That article also doesn't say anything about illegal immigrants!

[Absaroka]

"That article also doesn't say anything about illegal immigrants!"

The first paragraph reads "The state will stop using hotels and motels as emergency shelters, a costly practice that became more common in recent years, as thousands of **migrant** families seek shelter in Massachusetts." (emphasis added)

That of course just moves the question - what words does WBUR use to describe illegal immigrants? A search for 'migrant' and 'illegal immigrant' on WBUR's site seems to[1] indicate they switched from 'illegal immigrant' to 'migrant' some years ago, as much of the press did. Enough of the recent 'migrant' stories are, in context, not talking about legal immigrants that arguing the 'migrants' in the linked article are legal seems a rough row to hoe.

[1]by 'seems to' I mean I only went through a few pages of hits

[ThePublius]

But David, here's the thing, at least as I see it. I know, we know, that there has been an enormous surge of immigrants since 2021. Many of them are illegal immigrants. Many would have been illegal before Biden's administration, but are now legally here, even though they crossed the border illegally, i.e., not via an official point of entry, but were apprehended or presented themselves to CBP and were given asylum hearing dates and paroled into the country. Many entered via the CBP One app and some of them were even flown from their home countries into the U.S. courtesy of the U.S. government. Regardless of all of that, we are now dealing with an enormous number of people in a short period of time who are consuming resources that cost a lot of money.

Note I haven't even mentioned the gang members, drug dealers and cartel members (but I repeat myself), and perhaps even dumps of Venezuelan prisons (as alleged by DJT and others, and detailed in a report by CIS https://cis.org/Arthur/Venezuela-Sending-Violent-Criminals-United-States.).

[shawn_dude]

There was, indeed, a surge in illegal immigration. In 2024, the Biden administration deported more illegal immigrants in a single year than in any year that Trump was president before. (And Obama beat both of them with 316,000 deportations in a single year.) What Biden did was prioritize deportations on violent criminals first which, arguably, would have increased the percentage of immigrants remaining who would qualify for asylum and subsequently requested it.

You also mention "before Biden" but that only squeezes into the four years Trump was president as his policies were the anomaly. Before Trump, during the Obama administration and earlier, it looked more like the Biden administration.

We'll see the Trump administration return to the cruel methods it used to try and dissuade illegal crossings in the future, no doubt. But it's worth noting that he'll have to get even more cruel than the living conditions in their home countries before his efforts will prevent them from trying to improve their lives here. (Trump may prove up to that challenge.) Regardless, the real solution here is to help the countries South of us stabilize their governments (which we helped destabilize in the past see: Dole) and living conditions so they choose to stay in their home countries rather than migrate North. A giant wall on the Southern border is going to be more expensive and less effective than diplomacy.

[ThePublius]

"As in other destination states, this influx presents a serious challenge to Massachusetts. While many lawmakers, including the state's current governor, Maura Healey, have long embraced sanctuary policies that guarantee access to housing, welfare programs, health coverage, and other benefits regardless of immigration status, some are now raising concerns about the cost to taxpayers. This report examines the fiscal impacts of historic levels of unlawful immigration in Massachusetts as one example of a sanctuary state, and recommends ways to mitigate the cost to taxpayers by reversing many of those policies before even more substantial costs begin to accrue in the coming years.

The cost to Massachusetts taxpayers of temporary housing and shelters is enormous, but it pales in comparison to the costs that will accumulate in the future if those in the temporary shelters today remain in the Commonwealth for the long term.
Taxpayers in Massachusetts have spent more than $1 billion to date on the emergency shelter system that has been overwhelmed with the task of housing thousands of newly arrived migrants, some who entered illegally and some who arrived under one of the Biden administration’s controversial parole programs. State budget officials expect they will have to spend another $1.8 billion in the next two years."

https://cis.org/Report/Massachusetts-Case-Study-Mass-Immigration-and-Welfare-State

[Martinned2]

You're forgetting the other half of that question: Are immigrants allowed to work, or does the law force them to sit around doing nothing or work illegally?

The answer is that they have to wait around for at least six months. In practice, it will almost certainly take them (much) longer than that to satisfy all the legal requirements to work legally. (I say as a Dutch citizen who moved back to the Netherlands last year, and who still ran into all sorts of bureaucratic trouble.)

[Mr. Bumble]

The other half of the question is are they allowed to be here in the first place?

[Martinned2]

Not if someone purports to be tallying up the money.

[ThePublius]

In Massachusetts they can work, regardless of immigration status:

"Are illegal immigrants allowed to work in Massachusetts?
All working people are protected by labor and employment laws. At the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, we do not ask about your immigration status and we do not provide information of workers to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unless required by a subpoena or judicial warrant."

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/information-for-immigrant-workers-about-their-rights#:~:text=All%20working%20people%20are%20protected,a%20subpoena%20or%20judicial%20warrant.

[David Nieporent]

In Massachusetts they can work, regardless of immigration status:

That's false. The state has no power to authorize them to work; that's governed by federal law. And that's not what your quoted cite says anyway. It says that they're "protected by labor and employment laws," not that they're allowed to work. What that means is that employers cannot, e.g., legally pay them $2.00/hour or not provide them with safety equipment or whatever. They can sue or file a complaint with the state department of labor even if they're not authorized to work in the U.S. (And that's good policy even if one thinks that every illegal immigrant should be immediately rounded up and deported today. Making it legal for employers to pay them sub-minimum wage (or not pay them overtime) would incentivize employees to hire them.)

[ThePublius]

No, it's not false, according to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Here's the full text of the directive:

https://www.mass.gov/doc/advisory-on-the-wage-and-hour-rights-of-immigrant-workers/download

So, regardless of whether it's illegal under federal law, you're not going to get in trouble as an illegal immigrant working in Massachusetts.
At page 2:

"Legal Discussion
All workers are entitled to wages for work performed: Once “an employee has completed the labor, service, or
performance required of him,” he has “earned” his wage. Awuah v. Coverall N. Am., Inc., 460 Mass. 484, 492 (2011).
After wages have been earned, an employee must receive full and timely payment. Wiedmann v. The Bradford Grp., Inc.,
444 Mass. 698, 703 (2005); Boston Police Patrolmen’s Ass’n, Inc. v. Boston, 435 Mass. 718, 720 (2002). The right to be
paid earned wages is unconditional and cannot be surrendered under any circumstances. Newton v. Comm’r of the Dep’t
of Youth Serv., 62 Mass. App. Ct. 343, 346-47 (2004) (Wage Act creates personal and independent statutory right to
wages); Dobin v. CIOview Corp., 2003 WL 22454602, 5 (Mass. Super. Ct. Oct. 29, 2003) (Wage Act “sets forth no
circumstances in which such a waiver would be lawful”).1

The right to be paid extends regardless of immigration status: Immigration status is not a factor in determining a
worker’s right to be paid earned wages. Jin-Ming Lin v. Chinatown Restaurant Corp., 771 F. Supp. 2d 185, 190 (D. Mass.
2011) (employees’ immigration status irrelevant to their claims under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for
unpaid minimum wage and overtime).2 See also Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 711 F.3d 1299, 1306-07 (11th
Cir. 2013) (FLSA applies to undocumented workers seeking recovery of overtime); Lucas v. Jerusalem Café, LLC, 721
F.3d 927, 933-35 (8th Cir. 2013) (FLSA applies to undocumented workers because “employers who unlawfully hire
unauthorized aliens must otherwise comply with federal employment laws.”); Colon v. Major Perry Street Corp., 987 F.
Supp. 2d 451, 459 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (FLSA mandates relief, statutory language forecloses possibility for court discretion)."

(emphasis mine)

And so on....

[David Nieporent]

So, regardless of whether it's illegal under federal law, you're not going to get in trouble as an illegal immigrant working in Massachusetts.

The federal government enforces its laws in Massachusetts, too! That the state won't come after illegal immigrants does not in fact make it legal for those illegal immigrants to work.

Nothing in your quoted excerpt contradicts anything I said: federal and state labor laws protect the workers (from the employers) but do not make it legal for the workers to work in the state. I practice employment law, and routinely represent legal and illegal immigrants in cases of this nature.

[ThePublius]

"The federal government enforces its laws in Massachusetts, too! That the state won't come after illegal immigrants does not in fact make it legal for those illegal immigrants to work."

I see. Well, then it's de facto legal in MA if MA doesn't cooperate with federal law enforcement.

"I practice employment law, and routinely represent legal and illegal immigrants in cases of this nature."

O.K., I will defer to your expertise on this topic now.

[ThePublius]

Well, that didn't take long...

"Benjamin Netanyahu has this morning accused Hamas of trying to backtrack on the six-week ceasefire and hostage release that was agreed yesterday. The Israeli Prime Minister’s office released a statement saying that Hamas objected to part of the deal that would give Israel the power to veto the release of certain prisoners, and that negotiators had been instructed to hold firm on the agreed terms. The statement also said Hamas was trying to ‘extort last-minute concessions’ – a claim the group denies. An Israeli cabinet vote on the deal, which was expected to take place later today, has been delayed ‘until the mediators notify Israel that Hamas has accepted all of the agreement’."

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/netanyahu-hamas-is-backtracking-on-ceasefire/

[David Nieporent]

If it falls apart, it's all Biden's fault. If it succeeds, it's all Donald Trump's accomplishment.

[ThePublius]

I didn't say that, David. I just have zero faith that Hamas will live up to any deal for any significant length of time. I'm just surprised this is falling apart before the Israeli cabinet vote.

[Brett Bellmore]

They certainly never have kept their side of deals in the past, which is why negotiating a deal in the first place makes little sense. Unless has been suggested the notion was that they'd get some hostages out before the deal collapsed.

[Martinned2]

They certainly never have kept their side of deals in the past

Israel's track record is also decidedly mixed. The peace deals with Egypt and Jordan have held, every other deal they've ever made (various cease-fires etc) not so much.

It's the Middle East. Everyone has a centuries-old blood feud against everyone else. No reason to pick sides.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The peace deals with Egypt and Jordan have held, every other deal they've ever made (various cease-fires etc) not so much."
...and which party broke those cease fires?
Was there a cease fire in effect on Oct. 7?
Reminds me of Tet '68.

[Brett Bellmore]

I do hope you're not counting cease fires that ended with rocket fire from the Palestinians against Israel...

[Martinned2]

I'm not.

[ThePublius]

By the way, David, yes, I credited Trump with closing the deal, as did members of Biden's team. But that doesn't mean I like the deal. I think it is ultimately against Israel's existential interests. Israel should have continued towards the total destruction of Hamas, with unconditional surrender and release of ALL hostages (not just 35 of an estimated 94 remaining), no release of Palestinian terrorist prisoners, and total control of the region. So, I'm disappointed in Trump's move here. This is not "hell to pay."

[Sarcastr0]

Weird you didn't say anything about not liking the deal yesterday.

[ThePublius]

I don't think that's weird at all. I just didn't mention it.

How about you, do you like the deal?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I just didn't mention it."

That doesn't compute with Sarcastro. It's gotta be bad faith.

[Sarcastr0]

He posted to give Trump credit for something he now claims he didn't like to begin with.
He just didn't mention that he didn't like it when he was giving Trump credit.

It's pretty hard to square, though I allow he may have an explanation I have not yet seen.

[ThePublius]

There really is no explanation. That Trump is correctly credited to some degree for the deal and that I don't like the deal are orthogonal. I didn't mention the latter.

[Sarcastr0]

That Trump is correctly credited to some degree for the deal and that I don't like the deal are orthogonal

No they are not orthogonal - you don't credit people for something you don't like, as normal people speak to one another.

Come on, man. We all know what happened; this is weaselly.

[ThePublius]

No, it's not! Weasley would be be saying, untruthfully, that I like the deal (because it's Trump). His negotiating skills, via his team are orthogonal to the deal itself. At least that's my perspective. He can get stuff done, even if it's not stuff I like.

{orthogonal: events that are statistically independent, or do not affect one another in terms of outcome]

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If it falls apart, it's all Biden's fault. If it succeeds, it's all Donald Trump's accomplishment."

Interesting prediction. We'll see if it plays out.

[ThePublius]

Does anyone know if this is true?

"@GavinNewsom ordered the removal of @elonmusk from the command post, and ordered the Cal Fire firefighters to return all donated startlinks. "

https://x.com/AveryWarwick/status/1879544462289846711?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1879681284232090108%7Ctwgr%5Ef3062f610e19859040846264ce65271fe1ab5117%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F696551%2F

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds in character for Newsom.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose we'll know within another day or two if it can be confirmed.

[Zarniwoop]

Ding! Correct answer, and far better approach spreading hot takes from Xitter and breathlessly asking “is this true?” while inviting “sounds believable” responses.

That’s how mis/disinformation spreads.

[ThePublius]

Here's another story, but still anonymous sources.

https://jessicareedkraus.substack.com/p/exclusive-source-claims-newsom-confiscated?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

[David Nieporent]

It seems like it's one source, not sources — and while there's no way to be sure, likely the same source as the original tweet.

[Sarcastr0]

Also if you Google that lady, her background and the journalistic philosophy she speaks about do not inspire confidence in her credibility.

[Frank Drackman]

You mean her Credibility is worse than Hilary Rodman, Cums-a-lot, and Poke-a-Hontas's?? Who am I leaving out?
Oh yeah, "Dr" Jill Biden, maybe as an Ex-First-Lady she can go into practice again.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

I think it has been mentioned up thread but now Hunter Biden is claiming the LA fires destroyed his paintings "worth millions".
Word of advice; be careful making an insurance claim, you just might have to reveal who bought your paintings and how much they paid. That would be an interesting list.

[Frank Drackman]

I have an idea of something of Hunters that might have gone "Up in Smoke" (Still holds us 40+ years later), but it wasn't paintings and it wasn't "Worth Millions"

[Sarcastr0]

You see this anywhere other than the NY Post citing only 'a source close to the Biden family?'

[ThePublius]

Just google "hunter biden paintings fire loss value." There are stories on this from multiple outlets.

I doubt he will get paid, 'though I'm no expert on CA insurance. Usually, beyond a certain limit, possession need be 'scheduled,' for which additional premiums are charged, in order to be covered.

[Mr. Bumble]

Can he claim it as a loss on his taxes?

[Brett Bellmore]

He can, but if he does he'd better file his taxes in the next three days, because dad can't pardon tax fraud after the 20th.

[Zarniwoop]

Just google "hunter biden paintings fire loss value." There are stories on this from multiple outlets.

I just did, and the only source I even recognize is the NYPost.

Which of the top 5 hits do you consider most credible, after the NYPost?

Can you tell if any or all of them are simply AI generated re-imaginings of the NYPost article?

[Sarcastr0]

All I'm seeing is stories that circle back to NY Post as their source.

It's pearls before swine, but good media literacy would be to wait a tick for confirmation.

I'd say the same if the source were an anonymous informer close to Trump as published in Mother Jones.

[ThePublius]

Yes, I looked back, and it seems the only source of the articles and tweets on this is the NYP story.

[Sarcastr0]

Doesn't mean it's wrong; doesn't seem out of character for Hunter. Just means wait a day or so to see.

[Brett Bellmore]

I see stories that are reasonably sourced (Not that I'm willing to say that the NYP isn't a reasonable source, but it's only one reasonable source an they're citing an anonymous account.) that say one or more art galleries/warehouses did burn in the recent fire, most notably a big Warhol collection. But none of them mention Hunter.

I'm going to guess, and this is only a guess, that if they did burn, it wasn't a widely recognized museum or art storage center, but more like somebody's rental u-store.

I've looked at Hunter's work, and I might have been even willing to part with $50 for one at a Michael's, but they prices they actually went for were just money laundering. I doubt anybody who bought one is eager to have the receipt on display at their home now that Biden is leaving office. 50 years from now their only value will be as historical curiosities.

[Absaroka]

Stored in a warehouse near his lawyer's house, from an unimpeachable source.

(In the top couple of search results, couldn't resist)

[Brett Bellmore]

Just second hand from the NYP.

[Absaroka]

Humor is hard on the internet.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Haven't you said before that anonymous sources in newspapers are totes reliable?

[ThePublius]

To whom are you addressing that comment?

[Frank Drackman]

These confirmation hearings are too dry, need some "Walk Up" Music for the nominees
I'm thinking "20th Century Boy" by T Rex for Petie Hedge-Sex
and like with "East Bound and Down" fictional "Sports Sesh" Talk Show, the nominee needs a "BORING!" Sound Effect to play when the Senators drone on too long.

Frank

[John F. Carr]

In 2017 immigration detainees in Washington sued the GEO Group, a private prison contractor, for paying $1 per day instead of minimum wage to help operate their facility. The Ninth Circuit today upheld a $23 million award. In this case federal law does not preempt state law. The contract explicitly requires the contractor to obey state labor law and the cost of paying minimum wage does not prevent the facility from turning a profit.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/01/16/21-36024.pdf

[TwelveInchPianist]

So how 'bout that SCOTUSBlog dude?

[Life of Brian]

Missed that one. Ouchie ouch ouch.

https://www.mediaite.com/crime/scotusblog-publisher-indicted-for-tax-evasion-accused-of-misusing-funds-to-cover-gambling-debts/