Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

In his social media post about the weather-related change, Trump said that “various Dignitaries and Guests” would be taken into the Rotunda for the ceremony, although it’s unclear how many people that meant, or whom. — PBS

Good news! The public is not totally excluded. Ordinary citizens, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk will reportedly be admitted.

[Kazinski]

Well if you dislike Billionaires your choice is clear, according to Forbes:

"Our breakdown records 83 billionaires supporting Harris and 52 backing Trump so far (see the lists for both below)."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2024/10/30/kamala-harris-has-more-billionaires-prominently-backing-her-than-trump-bezos-and-griffin-weigh-in-updated/

And it appears neither Zuckerberg or Bezo donated or endorsed Harris or Trump during the campaign.

[gVOR08]

Bezos donated a cancelled endorsement and is destroying the integrity of his paper for Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, ceasing to destroy it for the Democrats, anyway.

But that "you're all in for us or you've joined the enemy!" reasoning is typical on the left, isn't it?

[Jerry B.]

Insufficiently doctrinaire.

[SimonP]

You're not entitled to an opinion, Goober, given that you likely neither subscribe to nor read the paper.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't subscribe, but I do read it to the limited extent their paywall permits.

[SimonP]

Sure you do, Gooby.

[Commenter_XY]

Take some Midol, SimonP. The brain cramps will go away. Maybe.

[SimonP]

I'd rather endure brain cramps than slide glibly through life in the way that your smooth brain enables you to do, fascist.

[Commenter_XY]

If you cry a little harder, the brain cramps might go away. Maybe.

[emilyhere]

Google paid $195 a hour on the internet..my close relative has been without labor for nine months and the earlier month her compensation check was $23660 by working at home for 10 hours a day..

Here→→ https://da.gd/income666

[Joe_dallas]

The integrity of the WP has been destroyed for a few decades

[Sarcastr0]

That's because you don't much like real facts, and prefer to uncritically trust weird blogs.

[Joe_dallas]

How would you know about real facts - you have repetitively demostrated that you live in a woke echo chamber

[Sarcastr0]

You call everything that isn't your weird sources or personal "common sense" the liberal echo chamber.

How many fields have you claimed expertise in at this point? You're a running joke.

And you going after sources is part of it. Maybe you can appeal to 'everyone knows' again. That's always unassailable.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yeah, can you remember the time they spent years posting under a sock puppet account before forgetting to switch log ins?

Oh wait.

[Krayt]

I pointed out earlier in the week how a CNN commentator said, "Musk is coming up to Trump to ensure profits. If Harris had won, he'd be all 'they/them' pronouns to protect the bottom line that way." That's what he does!" They glibly sit around, assured they've latched onto a deep truth of reality.

Yes, those rotten businessmen, twisting in the wind depending on which party is threatening to hurt them financially.

Uhh.....uhhhhh...which does not happen! Does not happen!

[emilyhere]

Google paid $195 a hour on the internet..my close relative has been without labor for nine months and the earlier month her compensation check was $23660 by working at home for 10 hours a day..

Here→→ https://da.gd/income666

[CountmontyC]

Those billionaires are (D)ifferent.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Have you forgotten the Iranian plot to kill him?

[Martinned2]

Apparently. Care to remind me?

[Stella Link the dog]

That incel goofball* in PA was an obvious Iranian operative.

* a goofball of the most dangerous type, not a relatively harmless goofball like Candace "I don't know if the earth is flat" Owens.

[Martinned2]

Obviously

[David Nieporent]

"Plot" makes it sound a bit more fully formed than it was.

https://apnews.com/article/iran-fbi-justice-department-iran-83cff84a7d65901a058ad6f41a564bdb

[VinniUSMC]

What do you think plot means? Time for you and your TDS to go find a nice hole to disappear into.

Even Hamassociated Press isn't as daft as you. Weird.

[Riva]

Were you this upset when Zuckerberg spent 400 plus million getting Biden elected in 2020? Biden sure loved his oligarchs in 2020. How the Big Guy has fallen.

[emilyhere]

Google paid $195 a hour on the internet..my close relative has been without labor for nine months and the earlier month her compensation check was $23660 by working at home for 10 hours a day..

Here→→ https://da.gd/income666

[Kazinski]

Trump takes office tomorrow we can expect a lot of executive orders and pardons.

The NY Times has a poll out about public attitudes to some Trump's proposals:

Support for Trump’s Policies Exceeds Support for Trump
A new poll found the public is sympathetic to the president-elect’s plans to deport migrants and reduce America’s presence overseas.

Deporting immigrants who are here illegally and have criminal records
Y 87% N10
Deporting immigrants who are here illegally and arrived over the last four years
Y 63% N33
Deporting all immigrants who are here illegally
Y 55%. N42

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/us/politics/trump-policies-immigration-tariffs-economy.html

For me along with deportating everyone who came illegally, (although i am sympathetic to proposals to legalize parents of US citizens) including by Biden's CBP One app, the top priority should be cutting half a trillion off our budget deficit by March, and I do mean cutting, then get to work on the next half trillion in cuts.

I also like the plan to end the security clearances of all 51 of the signees of the letter claiming Hunters laptop was Russian disinformation.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Every time Republicans take the White House the deficit explodes. Do you really think a habitual bankrupt and deadbeat like Trump will be any different?

[Kazinski]

I agree we need to get it down to 2% or less, here are the deficits for 2017-23 as% of GDP:

2017-01-01 -3.39306
2018-01-01 -3.77157
2019-01-01 -4.56634
2020-01-01 -14.66910
2021-01-01 -11.71965
2022-01-01 -5.29060
2023-01-01 -6.11543

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — The days of free-ride anti-deficit politics do not have much longer to run. Try to get out of that habit as soon as you can.

If you convince ordinary Americans that reducing the national debt is really important, they will begin to notice en masse that the only solution is to get the money from people who have money. That may not do much to get rid of the debt, but it will change the politics, probably in ways conservatives will not like.

[Brett Bellmore]

If there's any lesson on deficits over the last half century, it's that increasing revenue isn't a solution: The government just spends even more, and continues borrowing.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Nothing about that blather will put a drop more blood into the MAGA turnips. See if you can get more out of them, or try to deny them their 100% free emergency room, single-payer socialized medicine, and see what happens next politically.

You have been living a heavily subsidized life, in a heavily subsidized state, while howling about deficit spending. At least have the modesty to stop complaining about your largesse.

[Brett Bellmore]

Does any of that, even if true, refute my point? Every time revenue goes up, they just spend the extra money, and keep borrowing. There's scarcely been a time in the last half century when, if they'd just stopped increasing spending for a few years, revenues wouldn't have caught up with spending and put us in surplus! But it never happened.

Unless something fundamentally changes, increasing revenue just means running a deficit at higher total spending.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — The point, of course, is that the only fundamental change which suggests even a trace of rationality is to get needed money from people who have money. You cannot get money from people who do not have it.

You cannot pare back a family's subsistence below the replacement level. A large percentage of Americans cannot come up with even $400 in the event of a missed paycheck. Those can neither contribute more money, nor continue working and paying taxes if they get less money.

Those are facts which constrain your argument. Until you are willing to freeze the existing safety net in place, and turn instead to taxation of folks who have money, the notion of debt reduction will remain unsupportable.

If you think something political must happen to make extra tax revenue get applied to debt reduction, you had better think of it quick. It is the only path to the outcome you demand.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The point, of course, is that the only fundamental change which suggests even a trace of rationality is to get needed money from people who have money. "

And there you go, suggesting solving the problem by an increase in revenues, despite the well established fact that our government just spends every cent it can get its hands on, and then borrows anyway.

Here is a graph of federal spending as a percentage of GDP. The low point recently was 17.45% back in 2000. I'm sure you recall the dead being stacked like cordwood in that horrific era... Not.

So, don't pretend that spending only that much of GDP is tantamount to killing people.

Applying that percentage to 2024's GDP would be $5T in spending. Federal revenue last year was $4.92T.

We'd have been within a stone's throw of a balanced budget last year if we'd only spent as much as we did in the deadly year 2000.

[bernard11]

At 1% annual inflation we have to spend $1.27 today to buy what a dollar bought in 2000. So we need to cut real spending by 21% to do what you suggest.

At the Fed's 2% target rate we have to spend $1.61 today, leading to almost a 40% cut in real spending. Any ideas?

No problem for you, of course, since you would like to eviscerate government completely, but that just means you want a completely different government than we have. Most don't.

[Absaroka]

Bernard - can you elaborate a little? It's not obvious to me why you are applying an inflation adjustment to a percent of GDP number. If I'm understanding Brett's point it is that a constant level of services ought to require a constant pct of GDP; expenditures and GDP should both rise with inflation.

[Josh R]

Spending has gone up by about 5% of GDP (*) since 2000. Spending on health care has gone up by 3.3% of GDP. We are getting old.

(*) to bernard11: GDP accounts for inflation (and then some). Expressing spending as a % of GDP makes sense because GDP is roughly our income.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If I'm understanding Brett's point it is that a constant level of services ought to require a constant pct of GDP; expenditures and GDP should both rise with inflation."

At most a constant percentage of GDP; Per capita GDP in constant dollars has gone up 36% since 2000; If per capita government spending had simply been held constant adjusted for inflation, we'd be paying the debt down at this point, not running a huge deficit.

Federal spending per capita, adjusted for inflation, has gone up dramatically in the last 25 years.

[Michael Ejercito]

How would reducing spending levels to 2010, let alone 2000, eviscerate government?

[Sarcastr0]

Upon actually looking at it, his original metric didn't have a lot of sizzle, so Brett's back with another one!

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product are out, Federal Spending per Person is in!

[Absaroka]

"Upon actually looking at it, his original metric didn't have a lot of sizzle, so Brett's back with another one!

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product are out, Federal Spending per Person is in!"

I'd expect them to move in tandem, and both seem to support his position fairly well. Do you have a substantive argument against his point?

[Sarcastr0]

They don't move in tandem - the first is largely pretty flat since the mid 1960s, and the second has a much more pronounced upward trend.

That's expected - real GDP increases every year faster than our population does.

Brett's been pushing a debt crisis narrative in an attempt to short-circuit actual policy discussions, since he has some radical and unpopular ideas about government policy.

I'm no MMT person, but I don't buy the 'don't think ACT' thing he's pushing. Nor his comparison between the US and Argentina.

[bernard11]

Absaroka,

Brett wrote,

We'd have been within a stone's throw of a balanced budget last year if we'd only spent as much as we did in the deadly year 2000.>

I took him to be referring to spending measured in nominal dollars, not as % of GDP.

If %GDP was what he meant I misunderstood.

[Absaroka]

"I took him to be referring to spending measured in nominal dollars,.."

Got it, and I concur.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — The objective, Bellmore, cannot be a balanced budget. Or even a budget in surplus, although that might appear superficially to be a move in the direction of debt reduction. The objective must be debt reduction itself.

The path to achieve it cannot be one which causes financial ruin for a substantial fraction of American families. As economists well know, sustained budgetary surpluses risk depression of the economy, with potentially catastrophic consequences for those living close to the margin of mere economic subsistence.

So I repeat with slightly more specificity. The only practical policy path toward debt reduction is policy to get the money to do it from people who have money surplus to their subsistence needs. None is available from people who do not have surplus money. If you are unwilling to advocate that policy, you should shut up about debt reduction. Even balanced budgets will not reduce national debt.

[CountmontyC]

Giving spendaholics more money to spend is not rational. The rational thing is to take away their credit cards.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Down in later comments, this fucker is crying about his taxes going up when he lost his Blue State SALT subsidies.

What a piece of garbage.

[Krayt]

I've pointed this out time and again, and it's unrelated to any party in particular. The amount borrowed and spent is severed from need, much less dire need, and is proportional to GDP.

When the Internet boom of the late 90s poured so much into governmenr chests (states, too!) as trillions of private investment dollars suddenly were released, they found themselves in the black.

This was unexpected. How embarrassing!

Without losing increased revenue, Congress buckled down and, in about two years, had gotten back into the red.

You want to argue MAGA are dupes? Well, look at that. No argument here.

[Brett Bellmore]

They did NOT find themselves in the black. They had what the government calls a "primary surplus", which is to say, a surplus if you ignore interest on the debt.

"Primary surplus" is something you only brag about when you're running a deficit in real life.

[Stella Link the dog]

"They had what the government calls a "primary surplus", which is to say, a surplus if you ignore interest on the debt."

Could you source that? I've been looking and can't. What I do find is that during the last "surplus" years, the natioinal debt did increase and this increase is attributed to accounting maneuvers associated with, mostly, borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. That is, for calculation of the surplus/deficit, increases in debt owed to SS did not count but for the national debt, it did count. I can find no indication that interest payments were not included in the calculation of the reported surpluses and I don't recall that either.

So, is this chart (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD) the "primary" deficit?

[Absaroka]

See Chart 5 on page 7. You have to zoom in quite a bit to read it. You will see the top of the red area labeled 'Total Non-Interest Spending'. The heavy black line is labeled 'Total Receipts'.

The interval +- a couple years around year 2000 where the heavy black line is above the red is the 'primary surplus'.

(if the question is about terminology, the text to the left of the chart reads "The primary deficit is the difference between non-interest spending and receipts")

[Stella Link the dog]

"See Chart 5 on page 7."
Ok, looking at that chart. Above the line labeled "Total Non-Interest Spending" is a gray/blue line labeled "Total Spending." In the years in question, the heavy black line labeled "Total Receipts" appears to be higher than the Total Spending line indicating an actual gross surplus, not just a primary surplus. What am I missing?

[Absaroka]

"appears to be higher than the Total Spending line indicating an actual gross surplus, not just a primary surplus."

That's how I read it - a period of actual surplus, with a period of primary surplus wrapped around it.

[Stella Link the dog]

"That's how I read it - a period of actual surplus, with a period of primary surplus wrapped around it."

My recollection is that at some point, "deficit accounting" practices were changed with respect to how the Social Security trust funds and the SS surplus were addressed. As I recall, it used to be that SS accounting was "off budget" and the change caused SS revenue to be added to total revenue and SS expenditures added to total spending. The result was to cause deficit numbers to decrease. It seems that if SS outlays exceed SS income, the effect would be the opposite. There was controversy about this at the time.

[bernard11]

But the implication of a primary surplus is that you can start reducing debt, and hence interest payments.

And the whole notion that borrowing is inherently bad is just stupid.

[bernard11]

I think you have your data wrong, Brett.

They had a surplus from 1995 through 2000

[hobie]

I suppose we'll see how the rubes treat the titanic welfare known as Big AG. Paying all these reliable voters billions to grow or not grow crops

[Frank Drackman]

Somebody's got a case of the Moon-days!

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe they can end the ethanol mandates, and corn farmers can go back to growing food.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Tired of competing with your car for your dinner? Me too. My solution is more cars that run on electricity from solar and wind. If your solution is to get rid of part of the fuel supply, I think mine is likely to work out better price-wise.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The fact that you are rapidly opposed to the implementation greatest source of green energy that humanity has yet developed is about all we need to say with respect to your seriousness on this topic.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur — Nuclear? I am not opposed to nuclear energy. I am opposed to multiplication of nuclear hazards without limit. If you insist on letting that happen, then it is foolish to pretend you are advocating anything, "green."

I will back nuclear energy as a green energy source when the industry and its political backers demonstrate capacity to cope with the messes they have made already, and then walked away from. They can do that by organizing resources and political clout sufficient to do a cleanup, and then making it happen.

If they will not or cannot do that, then they make a mockery of your pretend-green advocacy. I am curious, however, what would make an intelligent person like I take you to be feel interested in defending as virtuous such a gigantic environmental fiasco. Can you help me out on that?

[Riva]

Lowering taxes actually increases revenue when the economy grows genius.

[Kazinski]

What we need to do is get Federal spending ss a percent of GDP back to 19-20% as it was in the middle of the Obama administration, or better yet 17-18% as it was in the last years of the Clinton administration.

The deficit is a problem, but having federal spending such a large part of the economy is also a problem of itsself.

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed, even aside from the growing debt, the government spending crowds out the private spending that actually fuels the economy.

About the only thing that gives me any real hope is that meeting with Milei last year; Nothing small or precedented is going to pull our fat out of the fire at this point.

Milei has really turned things around in Argentina, and faster than anybody expected. And our economy's fundamentals are better than Argentina's, we just need to stop killing our economy with government spending.

[Kazinski]

Even worse for the economy is the over regulation.

[bernard11]

Indeed, even aside from the growing debt, the government spending crowds out the private spending that actually fuels the economy.

So if a private company builds a building, or buys an airplane, that "fuels the economy." But if the government does that it doesn't fuel the economy?

Maybe you could explain. I mean, in both cases the construction people get paid (unless it's a Trump building), as does the airplane manufacturer.

[Absaroka]

It depends? I think some of the early canals, and the interstate system, probably have had pretty good ROI. At least some of what CDC/NSF/etc do. At least some majors 🙂 in public universities. I'm sure lots of other things.

But I think I'd also agree that, on average, $1 of government spending has a lower ROI than $1 of private investment, because A)the private sector is Darwinian in a way government isn't and relatedly (B)private actors have skin in the game in a way government employees don't.

Suppose the government decided to make big investments in, I dunno, supermarkets. Do you think you would overall have a better shopping experience long term at Safeway or UncleSamCo?

[bernard11]

But the government doesn't invest in supermarkets, and for many of the things it spends money on it's hard, or even impossible, to calculate ROI.

What's the ROI on an aircraft carrier? On pre-school education?

More generally, there's a question what the return consists of. For private investments it's the return specifically to the investors. But for government investments the return is society-wide benefits. It's not easy to compare the two.

[Absaroka]

"For private investments it's the return specifically to the investors."

Yes and no :-). We all benefit from, say, cell phones. I mean, the stockholders benefit, but when I call a tow truck for a blowout on a lonely road, that's pretty nice for me as well.

"But for government investments the return is society-wide benefits."

Yes and no :-). What are the benefits from the Bridge to Nowhere or Solyndra?

"It's not easy to compare the two."

I'm in fervent agreement there.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Suppose the government decided to make big investments in, I dunno, supermarkets. Do you think you would overall have a better shopping experience long term at Safeway or UncleSamCo?

Absaroka — From you, that's kind of a hoot. I am betting that at some point in your life you probably got fed out of a government supermarket called a military commissary. At a big one, your shopping choices and price levels would likely have been the best you have experienced in your entire life. For anything better you would probably have to have gone overseas, to some nation actively subsidizing groceries—like military commissaries did, and maybe still do for all I know. I haven't been in one since the 1960s.

[Absaroka]

They were OK, as I remember. They are cheaper, because they are subsidized. And on base housing was free!

[Brett Bellmore]

The deficit has been continuously exploding for decades now, regardless of which party is in control. The last time we even got close to balancing the budget was when a stock market bubble coincided with an impeachment fight during the Clinton administration, and Congress temporarily couldn't agree on how to spend the loot.

And that was only close; A 'primary' surplus, which is a term the government uses for deficits that wouldn't be deficits if you could ignore interest on the existing debt, which you can't.

You want me to say Republicans are horrible on deficit spending? Sure, almost everybody in office is horrible on it now, to not be horrible on it is to end up in the private sector, because you get outbid by somebody willing to run on buying votes with borrowed money.

I hope to God that Trump is going to pull a Milie, and bring genuinely radical reform to America. I don't expect it, I just hope it. It's our only chance at this point.

If he does, he better have some awfully good security, they were already trying to kill him.

[hobie]

You've been encouraging the gun nuts to get wild for 4 years now. Since they're the only ones trying to kill Trump so far, you should tone it down for awhile

[Brett Bellmore]

I've been what? Maybe you've got a quote of me doing that, some sort of link?

I think you may have me confused with Dr. Ed.

[Riva]

No, leftist nut burgers are to blame. That’s on your side sport.

[Sarcastr0]

If the two idiots who tried to shoot Trump are liberals, the Conspiracy did a great job of hiding it.

[Riva]

A lot of questions remain unanswered but they definitely were not Trump supporters. As for their politics in general, political death fantasies are the stock and trade of the left. There have even been comments here that reflect this sickness.

[Sarcastr0]

So no evidence they are 'leftist nut burgers' other than your wishes.

How pathetic of you.

[Riva]

So, you’re denying the left has engaged in political death fantasies?

How pathetic of you.

[Sarcastr0]

Here is your original thesis: "leftist nut burgers are to blame [for trying to kill Trump]"

Here is your new thesis: "the left has engaged in political death fantasies."

You're very bad at this whole thing, eh?

[Riva]

Are you still pathetically denying the left enjoys political death fantasies? Kinda seems that you are.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I'm not engaging with your pathetic new thesis at all.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, cool your fucking jets. Nothing is exploding.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

The only crisis is the one you've manufactured because you don't like the government your fellow Americans chose and want to pretend it's more than just your opinion.

You want radical things. You're not going to get them. You're just going to get Trump looting and owning the people you want to be owned.

And you'll like it, because in the end vibes beat everything else with you.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't like the government your fellow Americans chose this past November.

It's like you don't realize you exist. You have no self-awareness. You're like that Stephen homo fella up thread demanding people stop bitching about paying their fair share, then down thread whining like a bitch about losing his SALT subsidies and having to pay his fair share.

[Sarcastr0]

You link to this flat-ass graph above, as though it proves your crisis narrative. I'd missed that.

You're just using crisis rhetoric to justify radical policies you already support.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Stop fucking complaining about the government your fellow Americans chose.

And start looking for work, you worthless govie.

[bernard11]

I hope to God that Trump is going to pull a Milie,

You mean explode the poverty rate?

What would it take to get Him to relent? We have no slaves to free - maybe's He's just not up on the Civil War business.

[bernard11]

No. It hasn't been "continuously exploding for decades now." That's idiotic.

The last time we even got close to balancing the budget was when a stock market bubble coincided with an impeachment fight during the Clinton administration, and Congress temporarily couldn't agree on how to spend the loot.

I don't see the slightest mention here of the 1993 Clinton tax increase, widely predicted by Republicans to generate economic disaster. Instead, you just throw out the party line.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Make the National Debt Important Again!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This letter?

"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case." Damning, isn't it?

And, huh? "On October 28, 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched a mobile device application called CBP One so that travelers could access certain agency functions on mobile devices. Over the last two years, the agency has expanded CBP One’s uses. The app has become the only way that migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border seeking asylum at a port of entry can preschedule appointments for processing and maintain guaranteed asylum eligibility. CBP One also became the only way that Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans seeking to secure travel authorization to obtain parole through special programs for those nationalities can submit their biometric information to CBP." How did Joe Biden manage to get credit for it?!?

(Also, you might have noticed that the CPB One App has nothing to do with allowing immigrants to enter the United States "illegally". By definition, asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants, nor are those from certain countries who have been granted humanitarian parole.)

[Brett Bellmore]

" By definition, asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants"

By definition, successful asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. The unsuccessful ones, which is most of them?

They're just illegal immigrants who've been coached to request asylum if they get caught crossing the border.

[Mr. Bumble]

How many countries do you get to pass through and still be allowed to claim asylum in the US?

[Brett Bellmore]

For the last four years? All of them.

[Stella Link the dog]

And prior to the last four years? What is, and has been, the US law about asylum seekers and number of countries passed through?

And, if US law makes asylum seekers legal prior to adjudication of their claims, they are, by definition, legal until asylum is denied, are they not?

[Mr. Bumble]

Still licking your own ass, I see.

[Stella Link the dog]

And you are still practicing your one-handed typing skills while posting vacuous nonsense , believing that you are displaying mordant wit.

Do you care to address the question at hand which is the state of US law concerning how many countries passed through would be permissible for an asylum seeker?

[David Nieporent]

How many countries do you get to pass through and still be allowed to claim asylum in the US?

As many as you want. There is an idea called the "safe third country" doctrine, which is found in some bilateral agreements between countries, but nothing in either international law or U.S. law codifies that as a requirement for asylum seekers.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This may indeed be a flaw in the international agreements most countries have entered into, but even if so, it is still the law and the US is bound to follow it. (Or resile.)

[David Nieporent]

Your pronouns confuse me. What is "this" and "it" in your statements?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sorry, the "it" are the various international agreements the US has signed on to, requiring it to accept asylum seekers regardless of how many countries they have passed through before claiming asylum.

I think that is a flaw, because it is frequently abused, thus engendering disrespect for the law, but I accept that it is currently the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

Under the safe third country doctrine, you're not telling the applicant that they don't qualify for asylum, you're telling them that they're applying in the wrong country, because you only need to grant them asylum from the country they're in, not some country they used to be in.

If you're in Mexico, and applying for asylum from Honduras, we are perfectly entitled to tell you, "Ask Mexico for asylum."

[Sarcastr0]

Weren't you arguing all asylum seekers are presumptively illegal aliens?

What's this climb-down?

[David Nieporent]

If you're in Mexico, and applying for asylum from Honduras, we are perfectly entitled to tell you, "Ask Mexico for asylum."

If that's what U.S. law said, but it doesn't. We do have an agreement with Canada to that effect, but not Mexico.

[Stella Link the dog]

"If you're in Mexico"

I believe we are addressing people who are in the US applying for asylum, not people in Mexico. Certainly, people in Mexico are not "illegal aliens" in the US, are they?

[Stella Link the dog]

Is "the safe third country doctrine" codified in US law? Was "the safe third country doctrine" implemented during the first Trump administration? My recollection is that once an asylum seeking alien was able to enter the US and apply for asylum, that alien was not summarily told "that they're applying in the wrong country" and expelled. Am I wrong?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If their asylum claims fail, and then they refuse to leave, they are illegal immigrants.

[David Nieporent]

Right. If. But unless/until their asylum claims fail and they refuse to leave, they are not.

[TwelveInchPianist]

People who apply for asylum knowing that they don't qualify are illegal immigrants.

Something like 40% of asylum application are approved. Maybe some are misunderstandings, but probably about half of asylum applicants are illegal immigrants.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think illegality depends on a not easily ascertainable state of mind.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Then you'd be wrong. If you say, "I fear being persecuted in my home country" and you don't fear being persecuted in your home country, then you're here illegally, whether your lie is easily ascertainable or not.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe in some philosophical sense, but not in a legal sense. If you shoot someone when you're not actually in fear of your life, but a jury says "Not guilty," then you might be a murderer as far as St. Peter at the pearly gates is concerned, but you're not legally a murderer.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? If you lie to gain entry to the US, that's still illegal entry, just like sneaking over the border.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe in some philosophical sense, but not in a legal sense. If you lie to gain entry to the U.S., but the finder of fact believes you, then it might be illegal entry as far as St. Peter at the pearly gates is concerned, but it's not legally "illegal entry."
​
​
(I've highlighted the key part.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

What finder of fact? If you lie to gain entry to the US, you can be prosecuted for illegal entry just like the guy who snuck over the border. "The guy I lied to believed me" isn't a defense.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And if you sneak into the US illegally and then apply for asylum, it's not clear whether you're here legally, or just awaiting a decision on removal.

[SimonP]

Part of the reason we have to drop the term "illegal immigrant" for "undocumented immigrant" is this kind of obfuscatory nonsense, Goobs.

People whose asylum claims are pending are legally entitled to reside in the country. There is not some private meaning to the words "legal" and "illegal" that supersedes that legal status. All you're saying, Goobs, is that "illegal immigrants" are just immigrants you don't like.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"People whose asylum claims are pending are legally entitled to reside in the country."

Not if their claims are false, and given that only around 40% of claims are successful, it's safe to say a large number of them are.

[Sarcastr0]

Not ONCE their claims are FOUND to be insufficient.

You're eliding the causal arrow of time.

[TwelveInchPianist]

In order to claim asylum, you have to claim that you are in danger of being persecuted in your home country. If that claim is a lie, then you're here illegally.

[SimonP]

After they've exhausted the process, sure - send them home.

Until then, they're legal.

[bernard11]

I don't suppose you can accept the idea that some claimants legitimately believe their claims are valid, but that ICE or whoever thinks they are not, and hence they are rejected. (Courts never err, of course, and have a perfect understanding of conditions in foreign countries.)

So let's drop the whole "false claims" BS and recognize that while some are legitimately false other are probably just fine, especially if it's Trumpists making the decision.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I don't suppose you can accept the idea that some claimants legitimately believe their claims are valid, but that ICE or whoever thinks they are not, and hence they are rejected."

I accepted it above:

"Something like 40% of asylum application are approved. Maybe some are misunderstandings, but probably about half of asylum applicants are illegal immigrants."

[David Nieporent]

They're just illegal immigrants who've been coached to request asylum if they get caught crossing the border.

(1) You have, of course, made that up.
(2) By definition, that doesn't apply to users of the CBP One app, which was what he referred to.

[Kazinski]

And as one of Trumps first actions the CBP One app is shutdown.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5095875-trump-administration-shuts-down-cbp-one-app/

"By shutting down the CBP One app, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials essentially canceled all outstanding appointments made by migrants without visas who sought to enter the United States through legal ports of entry."

[SimonP]

Gosh! I wonder what might happen next?

[santamonica811]

So, Trump's new term is about to begin. It would be great to come back in 4 years, and see how the country is doing. Of course, there are some things that can't be measured, but that doesn't mean they are unimportant, of course. Level of patriotism, love of country, respect America has around the world, etc etc.

But many things can be measured. How the stock market has done in the past 4 years. Number of legal immigrants, and the number of illegal immigrants. The number deported, the number stopped at the borders. The number of violent crimes. The number of guns that can be tracked. The number of abortions (again, that can be tracked). The number of school shootings. The rate of inflation. The cost of petrol, and eggs, and fruit.

Are we in any wars? Did we fail to intervene in any wars where we should have? Are our children being better or more poorly educated? Are universities encouraging free speech or not? Are the various social media more honest or less honest? Do women have more or less control over their own bodies? Do parents have more or less control over their children's educations? Is the environment doing better or worse?

So. If ya'll can take off your partisan blinders for a few minutes, what would be a good list of things to look at, when evaluating ANY president? And, if you can; for each of these, how would you measure them?

I'm glad we are in the war in Ukraine, and I'm glad we have no boots on the ground. I'm glad we are supporting Israel, but wish we were doing a better job of minimizing Gaza casualties. I think free speech on college campuses is worse off than 4 years ago. I think that America is far more respected now than it was 4 years ago. I have no idea of school shootings are up or down in that period? I have no idea of per capita gun ownership is up or down.

Today, for the stock market:
DOW: 43,487
Nasdaq 19,630

There, I've done the easy one. The hard ones are for your collective wisdom. I think it would be great to have a list of 10 or 20 or 40 things, where we could look each 4 years, before an election, and have at least some consensus on what sources are trustworthy enough to measure those things, and how the past president has done.

More objectivity, more facts; less feelz. ????

[Kazinski]

It wouldn't surprise me if the stock market takes a breather in the next 2 years, just because it was up 66% in Trumps first term and 57% in Biden's term.

It seems a little overvalued now, but if things go right like reducing the deficit, and getting some significant deregulation initiatives, it may have some more room to the upside.

[gVOR08]

“like reducing the deficit”. Trump? Really?

[Frank Drackman]

You’re right, 12 years of Reagan/GHWB, 8 years of “W”, then “45” Repubiclown Congresses for much of the time and National Pubic Radio/Broadcasting System still spewing Bullshit paid for with my Shekels (and I don’t even get one of their stupid totes) in Atlanta they’ve even stooped to begging people for their junk cars, that’s right, they’re stealing from the Kars for Kids Kids

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

sm811...I have not forgotten your recipe. I have a few possibilities.

How to objectively measure a POTUS.

Start with foreign policy (noticeably absent from your list), which is a primary responsibility of POTUS. Are we at war? Are treaty-bound allies at threat of war? Is policy executed to advance tangible American interests (financial, diplomatic)? One additional metric: state dept headcount. It must be lower, much lower in DC.

Domestic policy...I have to tell you, Pres Trump has promised so much oddball shit that a scorecard is the way to go, sort of like 'promises made, promises kept). What I look for.
Are there riots and civil unrest?
Has DC federal headcount been reduced?
Is the rate of deficit spending slowed, stopped, or reversed?
Business climate...favorable? Is small business formation increasing?
Unemployment...remains <5%. Bonus if <3.5%.
1MM+ deportations annually by the end of his term.
Military readiness...You know, the best war is the war you never have to fight. Not sure how to objectively measure 'readiness'.

The Dow is not a very good measure of the business climate or the economy. The S&P 500 is a much more accurate indicator of American business and economic climate, to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

Um, do the riots and civil unrest count as a plus or a minus? Because I kind of figure that if the left doesn't riot, he must not be doing enough.

[Commenter_XY]

There is a qualitative difference in riots (like we saw during the pandemic) and uber-lib struggle cum therapy sessions.

Like yourself, I am thoroughly enjoying the ongoing struggle sessions and lmao at the spectacle they are making of themselves. And I hope the struggle sessions don't stop, either. We need the laughter.

Violence, property destruction, arson, vandalism....no mercy whatsoever. If we see widespread unrest and rioting, it would be a fail on POTUS Trump. That is a useful metric.

Part of incoming POTUS Trump's job is to persuade those opposed to him to buy into his proposed solutions. That includes the progs.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, agree that, this time around, no mercy for rioters. Shouldn't have been the first time around, either.

I'm just saying that if there aren't riots, Trump is playing it too conservatively.

[Commenter_XY]

I need to add two more things, foreign policy-wise.

Acquire Panama Canal, and rename it to Trump's Trench.
Acquire Greenland, and call it Trump's Folly.

🙂

[Sarcastr0]

Don’t forget the Beria-esque revenge show trials you were so excited about!

[Commenter_XY]

MAGA-mesis has already begun, nitwit. 😉

[Sarcastr0]

Whatever that means.

You're ignorant of how the government works, and want terrible authoritarian things done to those with whom you disagree.

And you're a coward. When called on either of the above, you slink away.

[Commenter_XY]

From the OP, I am the guy who proposed the metric. No moving the goalpost, nitwit.

Did it occur to you that the lack of civil unrest and/or riots over the course of his term would be success, not failure? Of course not.

That is separate from the fact that progs emote to the max, and provide endless amusement to us normies. Tik Tok (now back, thanks Pres Trump!) has daily (hourly) posts of their antics.

Take Luke Crywalker, for example. Priceless. She is the perfect representative of today's progressive. Are you sure you aren't related, Sarcastr0. One wonders.

[Sarcastr0]

As bernard has pointed out, you have no idea what government does, don't want to learn, just want to own the libs.

But why not set some numbers?

Lazy and spiteful.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think we'd be better off just building a new canal along our border with Mexico. Completely under our control, AND dual use! 😉

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And don't forget, making Mexico pay for it...

[hobie]

I also heard we're gonna lock up Hillary too

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm sure Bill is praying that you're right.

[Commenter_XY]

Sort of like a moat with alligators? = MX canal 🙂

[CountmontyC]

The Rio Grande canal.

[Sarcastr0]

What a shitty metric, Brett.

Just pure own the libs. No actual policy upshot.

Nihilistic.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the only thing that's shitty about it is Democrats rioting whenever they don't get their way.

[Sarcastr0]

1. You've predicted how many liberal riots that have never come to pass? Not that you ever learn that your take on liberals is wrong, you just explain it away.

2. Your metric is that if they don't riot Trump hasn't done enough. That does not indicate you think liberals riot whenever they don't get their way. Otherwise, it's not a coherent metric

You want Trump to push stuff until liberals riot. And then to crack down.
As I said, no policy, just libs owning. In your usual flagrantly authoritarian style.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, that might be a better complaint if it weren't for the fact that you refuse to admit that events where windows get smashed and cars set on fire ARE "riots".

[Mr. Bumble]

...or where lawyers firebomb police cars.

[Sarcastr0]

No changing the subject.

We're talking about, among other riots that never happened, the 2024 liberal riots you were CONVINCED would happen, and never came to pass.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's not changing the subject: Your count of "riots" is a drastic undercount.

Anyway, let's see if Democrats manage to get through today without rioting in DC, the way they did in 2017. (Though if they do riot, you'll doubtless claim the fires were just for warmth.)

[Sarcastr0]

Without agreeing with your take on 2017, your predictions since then - about Antifa and campus violence, and indeed the post-Trump election? All have come to nothing.

And, as expected, you brush it all off and go back to your weak attempt to equate something with January 06, even if that means you've not been right for 8 years.

Anyway, let's see if Democrats manage to get through today without rioting in DC, the way they did in 2017.
Quit being so hopeful.

[David Nieporent]

Without agreeing with your take on 2017, your predictions since then - about Antifa and campus violence, and indeed the post-Trump election? All have come to nothing.

Hey, give him credit for not being Dr. Ed, at least, who has predicted 50 of the last 0 civil wars.

[hobie]

Well, Republicans run the show from top to bottom as of today. Remember how everything from gas to eggs was Biden's Hunter's doing? Now it ain't

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't actually remember that. Biden, yes, not the Hunter part.

[SRG2]

Judging by the last time, we will hear, "Trump kept all his promises" - "but he didn't, look at A, B, C, etc" "ah, but he would have done if it hadn't been for the Democrats, GOP traitors, rootless cosmopolitans", etc

[Commenter_XY]

Like I said SRG2, incoming POTUS Trump has promised a lot of oddball shit. I would like to see a scorecard, quite honestly.

[SRG2]

Good idea, but as I implied, Trump supporters will deny the results

[ducksalad]

You won't have to wait very long.

The first deadline, which Trump himself set repeatedly and with zero ambiguity, was to absolutely end the Ukraine War by tomorrow at 12 noon Eastern time.

(However, I think we have to acknowledge that he did, sort of, fulfill his promise to end the war in Gaza before his term even started. It might not really be over but it did stop and he had a lot to do with it.)

[Commenter_XY]

He might get a 'partially met' on that one = ending RUS/UKR war by 1201pm tomorrow. But I could foresee a deal by EOY.

[Martinned2]

LOL, during the last few months no two Trumpists on this blog have ever agreed on what Trump even promised, so good luck putting together a list of Trump promises that even other Republicans or Democrats would agree with.

[F.D. Wolf]

J.D. Vance will be the first vice president with a beard since Charles Fairbanks, who was the vice president during President Theodore Roosevelt's second term (1905-1909).

[gVOR08]

A beard is irrelevant to his critical role as insurance against impeachment and assassination. With JD in the wings, we all hope Trump is healthier than he looks.

[F.D. Wolf]

I'm afraid few presidents from now on will look healthy when compared to Joe "Sharp as a Tack" Biden who, as we were reliably informed one year ago, was a "superager".

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-appears-superager-doctors-say-1858473

[Brett Bellmore]

To be fair, just by being alive at his age, he is doing better than most men. Just not "ought to be President' well.

[Frank Drackman]

Who's this "We" you're talking about Paleface?

[Martinned2]

Didn't you hear, the Trump presidency is part of a wider pushback against the feminisation of society. Now men can be real men again, bone spurs and child abuse charges included. Hence the beard.

[David Nieporent]

You know, I've been following politics for roughly the last 45 years, and I am pretty sure that every single vice president (and vice presidential nominee, for that matter) has been unfunnily jokingly described as assassination insurance.

[Absaroka]

Nah...Bush Sr and Biden were pretty obviously qualified, given that they were elected[1]. I think Gore was pretty obviously qualified, even if he lost a squeaker. Mondale as well. Agnew, Quayle, and Harris ...not so much :-).

Ford got a lot of shade, but I think he did pretty well.

[1]Partisans will quibble, but the voters evidently thought both were qualified for the top job.

[ducksalad]

Watch JDV give a speech. One of his repeated moves is to hold both hands out in front of him with the fingers outstretched.

Get the signal? Five times five. Twenty-five.

Watch the other cabinet members to see if they do it during their confirmation hearings.

[not guilty]

Was the first president with a beard James Buchanan?

[Frank Drackman]

AlGore was only VPOTUS but certainly had one in Tipper, although she would probably make any guy take the brown dirt road

[Bob from Ohio]

"James Buchanan?"

Every picture or painting of Buchanan I've seen has him clean shaven.

[not guilty]

I see that Bob missed the double entendre. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Beard

[Noscitur a sociis]

But he didn’t have that kind of beard either!

[not guilty]

I'm not so sure about that. Wikipedia recites:

In 1818, Buchanan met Anne Caroline Coleman at a grand ball in Lancaster, and the two began courting. Anne was the daughter of the wealthy iron manufacturer Robert Coleman; Robert, like Buchanan's father, was from County Donegal in Ulster. Anne was also the sister-in-law of Philadelphia judge Joseph Hemphill, one of Buchanan's colleagues. By 1819, the two were engaged, but spent little time together. Buchanan was busy with his law firm and political projects during the Panic of 1819, which took him away from Coleman for weeks at a time. Rumors abounded, as some suggested that he was involved with other (unidentified) women. Letters from Coleman revealed she was aware of several rumors, and she accused him of only being interested in her money. She broke off the engagement, and soon afterward, on December 9, 1819, inexplicably died of "hysterical convulsions" resulting from an overdose of laudanum, at the age of 23. It was never established if the drug was taken by instruction, by accident, or by intent. Buchanan wrote to her father for permission to attend the funeral, which was refused. At the time of her funeral, he said that, "I feel happiness has fled from me forever." Afterwards, Buchanan claimed that he remained unmarried out of devotion to his only love, who had died young.

In 1833 and the 1840s, he spoke of plans to marry, but these came to nothing and may merely have been due to his ambitions for a seat in the federal Senate or the White House. In the latter case, the aspirant was 19-year-old Anna Payne, the niece of former First Lady Dolley Madison. During his presidency, an orphaned niece, Harriet Lane, whom he had adopted, served as official White House hostess. There was an unfounded rumor that he had an affair with President Polk's widow, Sarah Childress Polk.

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

[Dan Schiavetta]

Today we will witness the passing of responsible government. We will miss having a Secretary of Labor who cares about labor, a Secretary of Energy who cares about our country's energy future, a Secretary of State who cares about our credibility with other nations, an EPA head who cares about the environment . . . from now on it will be all about pleasing Trump and his momentary whims. This is unique in our history.

Republicans will say to Democrats, "Get over it." How dare they? Trump and his party spent the last four years not getting over the fact that he lost in 2020. They denied that he actually lost. And they were rewarded for it.

Let's also give Kamala Harris her due. How painful it must have been for her to call Trump to congratulate him (as it was for Hillary Clinton in 2016), something Trump himself never had the fortitude to do in 2020.

Being Democrats, we are self-aware, and tend to self-flagellate when we lose. But Harris ran as good a campaign as could be expected. Her loss was partly due to racism and misogyny (as the comments here have well demonstrated). But:
-- running for President was dumped in her lap with three months to go
-- she quickly consolidated her support
-- raised a ton of $
-- kept her big, sloppy, diverse Democratic Party in line, and even got Republicans on her side
-- never did or said anything stupid
-- did such a number on Trump during that debate that he shrank from any rematch
-- somehow got the Teamsters (whose rank and file was overwhelmingly pro-Trump) to not endorse him

By contrast, Trump belched, farted, as usual demonstrated no self-control at all, and still won. This was due to the massive disinformation that has now even seeped in to the nonwhite electorate.

No, I'm not going to "get over it".

[Kazinski]

Well I encourage you to keep thinking it was racism and misogyny, so you never figure out the real reasons.

Although I will point out that when Harris took over the campaign she immediately jumped in the polls over Biden's levels, and never sank down to where his numbers were.

I will stipulate that when Karen Bass loses her reelection campaign, it will be due to racism and misogyny too.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I encourage you to do a better job of reading and comprehending comments.

"Being Democrats, we are self-aware, and tend to self-flagellate when we lose. But Harris ran as good a campaign as could be expected. Her loss was partly due to racism and misogyny (as the comments here have well demonstrated)."

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, the DemoKKKrats are a race-ist party, and her husband is a misogynist, not a good look for a national erection

[hobie]

"a race-ist party" Frankie 'Wounded Warrior' Drackman, America's neediest veteran, shall we doom scroll you and Ed's and Bumble's comments over the past 4 years?

[Mr. Bumble]

Have at it fucktard.

[Sarcastr0]

We have people wanting revenge show trials. We have people wanting Trump to push until there are riots. We have you who now loves every European far right party that exists.

I'm not sure the Dems had anything to do with Trump winning.

From just the folks on this website [a dangerously weird sampling I know] it looks like America has just reached a time where it needs to fuck around and find out.

[Riva]

BS. Who wants a show trial? Give me a quote you lying clown.

[Sarcastr0]

Easy one:

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/17/friday-open-thread-3/?comments=true#comment-10873005

"The shoe is now on the other foot, and it is payback time. They have the list of people, only need to find the crime now."

And of course Michael below is condoning them.

"Few things are more corrosive in politics than the conviction that you have been wronged so much that you're justified in breaking all the rules to get even.

-Orin Kerr"

[Michael P]

One of those more corrosive things is the conviction that YOUR ends justify any means, and the left even puts that into their slogans and organization names: "By Any Means Necessary". The left preemptively breaks rules because they are afraid of the right having power.

[Sarcastr0]

You are convincing yourself you've been wronged exactly like what Kerr says.

[Michael P]

No, I am pointing out that you are asking the right to bend over and accept more abuse. For example, you claimed I condoned show trials where I very specifically addressed the riot-advocacy you mentioned. You are a gutless liar.

[Commenter_XY]

You know Sarcastr0, it is only the certainty that a threat will be carried out that deters an opponent. The standard was already set. Now you can live with the standard you helped create.

And yes Sarcastr0, the shoe is on the other foot. You just don't want to live with the standard you previously cheered being enforced.

I very much look forward to the next four years.

[Sarcastr0]

Read the Kerr quote.

Insisting that your show trials are justified doesn't make you less evil.

No wonder holidays no longer carry any joy for you.

But much obliged for showing ML he's overestimated his compatriots morality.

[Michael P]

Calling investigations and prosecutions "show trials" does not make them such. You need actual evidence, such as Alvin Bragg's reversal of his prior determination and his predecessor's interpretation of law in order to go after a political target.

[David Nieporent]

Calling investigations and prosecutions "lawfare" does not make them such either, but that didn't seem to bother you.

[Commenter_XY]

Well then it won't be a problem when the shoe is on the other foot, will it?

[Sarcastr0]

Insisting something is lawfare so you can support revenge show trials for real is not the shoe being on the other foot.

What it is:

"Few things are more corrosive in politics than the conviction that you have been wronged so much that you're justified in breaking all the rules to get even."

-Orin Kerr

[Michael P]

It didn't bother me because it is an irrelevant observation. Democrat lawfare is still lawfare, even if you join Gaslight0 in denying it.

[Sarcastr0]

Michael, you need to declare judges and juries and prosecutors all illegitimate, put no small amount of effort in maintaining a misunderstanding of the law, and apply the Supreme Court decision retroactively.

All so you can assert 'lawfare from the left!'

Seems tiring.

Meanwhile, do you agree with Commenter that it's time for some revenge lawfare from the right, actual criminality or pardons bedamned?

[Michael P]

We'll see who needs to declare what. The civil fraud case seemed to be on very shaky grounds at the appellate level. The 34 felonies case has just as many holes, and I mentioned a few of those. Politically driven prosecutions over nothingburgers are properly characterized as lawfare, unlike -- for example -- investigations into selling influence to Chinese and Russian agents, illegally funding gain-of-function research at a foreign bioweapons lab, and so on.

[Sarcastr0]

All ipse dixit.

Or, dangerously for you, predictions about how an appeal will go.

As expected.

[not guilty]

Michael P, what do you fancy will be any viable issue(s) on appeal from President Trump's criminal conviction to the appellate courts of New York? Please be specific.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Michael P.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Michael P.

Man up and admit that you have no clue.

[Riva]

That’s all you have Sarcastr0, you gaslighting clown? Distorting something an anonymous commenter here wrote? Actually, I should apologize to gaslighting clowns for comparing them to you.

[Sarcastr0]

Good move to distance yourself from Commenter.

I link below to a poll showing it's more. But I also think it's important to note how crazy commenters on here are, as America begins to fuck around.

[Michael P]

The irony is rich in people complaining about what people supposedly want Trump to do after their side pushed until there were massive and widespread riots in 2020.

[Sarcastr0]

pushed until there were massive and widespread riots in 2020.

I'd believe this is Bruce said it, or if Brett said it.

You? You're to basic for to actually think this.

You're just trolling.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I'm not sure the Dems had anything to do with Trump winning. "

Record illegal immigration, excessive focus on "trans" and inflation in 2021-2024 were not caused by the GOP dude.

The Trump lawfare was also not not caused by the GOP.

[Kazinski]

Well how far does Trump have to "push" to cause riots?

There were violent riots on inauguration day in 2017.

Violent Anti-Trump Protests Try To Steal Spotlight On Inauguration Day | NBC Nightly News

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr0i6piW_ak

[Frank Drackman]

Pete Booty Judge certainly used Transportation alot as Secretary of it, taking his innumerable "Paternity" leaves, Paternity leave's bullshit anyway, and especially when you're just adopting a kid you paid a woman to bear.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But Harris ran as good a campaign as could be expected."

Technically, I agree, with the proviso that nobody would have sensibly expected her to run a very good campaign, given her performance when she was running for the nomination. She was, quite openly, chosen on the basis of the melanin content of her skin, and her lack of a Y chromosome. Not her political skills.

Well, you got what you went shopping for: A sort of 'black' woman with lousy political skills. Maybe next time you'll lower the priority of the cosmetics, and concentrate on picking somebody who knows what they're doing.

Ezra Klein is asking, "Trump Barely Won the Popular Vote. Why Doesn’t It Feel That Way?"

Because when you spend 8 years politically kneecapping somebody, even get them convicted of a felony just before the election, and they win anyway, you can't avoid understanding that they didn't win. You lost.

Democratic political extremism got so far out ahead of the curve that you managed to lose to Donald Trump. And it happened because you've made your bubble so airtight that you actually think the crazy is popular.

[Martinned2]

She was, quite openly, chosen on the basis of the melanin content of her skin, and her lack of a Y chromosome.

And, quite openly, not elected on the same basis.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Brett:

Not a substantive response. You don't specify anything she did badly. I'll wager you can't mention a single example -- without it being obvious that Trump did it worse.

[Brett Bellmore]

You want an example of her doing something badly?

Harris says there’s not much she’d have done differently than Biden over the last 4 years

That was the point where she needed to kick Biden under the bus to have any chance of winning, given public opinion about the Biden administration.

[Dan Schiavetta]

No V.P. running to succeed their boss can possibly kick him under the bus. Nixon didn't in 1960. Humphrey didn't in 1968. George H.W. Bush didn't in 1992. Harris was in just as difficult a position as they were and did just as they did.

[David Nieporent]

There is a wide excluded middle between "I would do everything identically" and "throw him under the bus." I too thought that was the answer that basically threw the election away for Harris.

[not guilty]

"No V.P. running to succeed their boss can possibly kick him under the bus. Nixon didn't in 1960. Humphrey didn't in 1968. George H.W. Bush didn't in 1992. Harris was in just as difficult a position as they were and did just as they did."

Albert Gore, Jr. (as some of us in Middle Tennessee remember him) didn't exactly throw Bill Clinton under the bus, but he might have been elected president if he had not kept Clinton at arm's length.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Harris was in just as difficult a position as they were and did just as they did.

It was a difficult position. She still failed catastrophically.

[Commenter_XY]

Kamala cannot speak extemporaneously. And we also know she cannot read maps very well, either.

She was a terrible candidate in 2020, and a terrible candidate in 2024.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Proof needed.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, her election results in those two years?

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter has some specific beefs that are not really worth dwelling on, but at least he didn't call her slutty.

As for the terrible candidate bit, could be. I'm certainly not good at political predictions. But from what I'm seeing, I'm not sure this was on her.
Might just be one of those populist waves, and not any great man theory thing at all.

From polling and reporting, it really looks like a lot of America seems excited to fuck around a bit with some authoritarianism.

Unfortunately, we're all going to find out.

[SimonP]

Goober hasn't got anything besides, "She's a DEI hire." His media diet must be narrowing. He used to pretend he read things he didn't agree with.

[Bob from Ohio]

" anything she did badly. "

Embracing the Cheney family so hard.

The Nation Politics / November 12, 2024
"Liz Cheney Was an Electoral Fiasco for Kamala Harris
Conservatives backed Trump by bigger percentages than in 2020. And time spent with Cheney prevented Harris from reaching out to the voters she needed."
John Nichols

[John F. Carr]

Harris basically showed up for work. I like Nate Silver's description of her as a "replacement-level candidate." She got attention for being the most intersectional candidate since Lenore Fulani, but unlike Fulani Harris didn't sound smart.

"Not Trump" was good enough to win in 2020. Not in 2024.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not a substantive response. You cannot give an example of Harris not sounding smart -- and we can all think of hundreds of times Trump sounded stupid.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let's take that campaign slogan: "What can be, unburdened by what has been,".

If you didn't think about it, it just sounded stupid. If you did think about it, you realized she was demanding that you ignore her record.

[Dan Schiavetta]

A trivial example. FWIW, I've never heard slogan until you mentioned it.

[David Nieporent]

If you thought about it objectively, you realized that's not even remotely what she was saying. Also, that wasn't her "campaign slogan."

[Bob from Ohio]

A catch phrase.

[David Nieporent]

You cannot give an example of Harris not sounding smart

I am not going to go back and google to find such things, but come on. Of course one can. To be clear, I don't think "stupid" is really the right word; she just sounded vapid. Like she was trying not to say anything… and succeeding. Even liberals such as The Daily Show made fun of her "word salad."

[Frank Drackman]

Her whole “Russia is a powerful country………” bit, she made Forest Gump sound like Henry Kissinger

[VinniUSMC]

No, I'm not going to "get over it".

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

**deep breath**

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Clown's are funny. Hey Capt, maybe you should call a crisis hotline.

[Sarcastr0]

Some on the right don't seem to have an actual sense of humor, just spite they like to unconvincingly dress up as mirth.

maybe you should call a crisis hotline.
Suicide? You talking about him committing suicide?

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a reference to his former handle.

[Michael Ejercito]

Being Democrats, we are self-aware, and tend to self-flagellate when we lose.
2016 was the exception.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"running for President was dumped in her lap with three months to go"

Huh? She chose to enter the race when she did, she could have entered earlier if she chose to. Why do you want to relieve her of responsibility for her poor choices?

[bernard11]

Good post, Dan.

[Commenter_XY]

A new dawn; a new POTUS.

May God guide President Trump's actions for the betterment of the United States of America.

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY — From your lips to God's nose. It will have to be clamped shut to get close enough to Trump to advise him at all.

[gVOR08]

I sure hope God guides Trump’s actions for the betterment of the United States. Trump sure won’t.

[Frank Drackman]

Well He chose him, so he'll probably keep His eyes on things, so what do Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny have to say about it?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump just proves there is no God.

[Mr. Bumble]

No, he proves God has a sense of humor.

[Bwaaah]

That, I believe.

[Frank Drackman]

and you're not a special Snowflake

[hobie]

I wasn't aware Trump was a practicing Christian. I suppose some deity speaks to him

[Riva]

That’s because you’re an ignorant little shit.

[Martinned2]

Between all the bribes, I'm not sure God will get a word in edgewise.

[Dan Schiavetta]

+1

[SimonP]

Given the number of you asshats that are or about to be on a fixed income, you better hope Trump doesn't execute on his economic (mis)management promises.

[John F. Carr]

For as long as I can remember Massachusetts law made servers of alcohol strictly liable for mistaken reliance on an out of state ID card as proof of age. General Laws Chapter 138 Section 34B protects anyone who "reasonably relies" on Massachusetts or federal identification. The disparate treatment of in- and out-of-state licenses was upheld in court. A new law gives out of state driver's licenses the same legal status as Massachusetts licenses.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2024/Chapter348

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Full faith and credit?

[John F. Carr]

The courts upheld the law against a full faith and credit challenge.

[Brett Bellmore]

The 21st amendment arguably overrides the full faith and credit clause, for the sole topic of alcohol. Section 2 of that amendment:

"The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."

[John F. Carr]

It was legal to sell to somebody from out of state. I got into a bar with an out of state license. The difference is, if I turned out to be underage the bar would be in more trouble for serving me.

[David Nieporent]

How could ff&c apply, given what Carr described? This Massachusetts policy only applied to fake driver's licenses, which by definition are not entitled to any credit at all.

[hobie]

Ah, as a teenager I remember well getting a fake license at a flea market stall in San Antonio. I chose one from Jackson Mississippi. And it worked

[Brett Bellmore]

Back in Michigan I became old enough to drink, the next year stopped being old enough to drink, and a couple years later was old enough to drink again. Which was kind of anti-climatic, frankly, because I didn't drink...

[John F. Carr]

A New York law putting price caps on some Internet service goes into effect. The Poor have a right to service at $15 per month. The first casualty of the law is AT&T 5G home internet. The company says it will leave the market entirely because it is uneconomical to offer service on New York's terms.

https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/att-is-stopping-its-5g-internet-air-service-in-ny-because-of-new-broadband-law/

[Martinned2]

5G is mobile phones, you know that right?

And unless AT&T is going to dig up its cables, I'm not sure what the downside is of it leaving a state.

[John F. Carr]

The AT&T home internet box is in a different regulatory regime than a cell phone even though both use the same wireless technology. It is regulated the same as a fiber connection.

[VinniUSMC]

Hey stupid Nazi-boy, 5G home internet is a simple Google search away.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump is not normal. MAGA is not normal. Not only is MAGA not normal, it won't even get preponderate unless it lasts decades.

History shows that less-virulent traditions of misrule can last centuries before collapse. But this one is virulent. There is no earthly reason why this one should survive even 10 years. I am 78-years old, and expect to live to see the end of MAGA.

In the meantime, Americans still subject to reason can keep their heads down. Learn to practice the mordant humor of ordinary Soviet citizens: "They pretend to pay us; we pretend to work."

While the oligarchs push crypto coinage, expect barter to see a resurgence in the work-a-day economy. Want an investment tip? Gardening tools could be the new, "Plastics." Expect the suburban real estate market to get newly re-interested in good sun exposures, and reliable summer precipitation. Maybe zoning lax enough to permit a few goats.

Also? Think hard about finding a way to monetize lies about higher inflation rates, and how to get rich quick off a collapse of public health policy. In short, to prosper short-term, just align yourself to take advantage of whatever a bat-shit crazy oligarch might think would hurt you most.

[Commenter_XY]

Not to rain on your parade lathrop, but you have roughly a 6% chance of not seeing the end of Pres Trumps second term, according to the SSA actuarial tables. Not insignificant.

With luck, your SSA will soon be tax-free.

The Republic has endured good POTUS' and bad ones; good Congresses, and bad ones. We are still here some 250 years later, despite all the naysayers. The sun will rise in the east and set in the west.

Be happy. Stay healthy (physical, mental, spiritual). Don't hit the draino yet. 😉

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY — My SSA is already tax free, so I will get zero benefit from that.

But back when I was still working, Trump got a tax cut through Congress, with changes to income tax rates, and other changes to deductions on mortgage interest.

My employer got guidelines to reduce the amount of money to withhold from my checks, so I would be happy and grateful about my new lower taxes. But at tax time I discovered the change in the mortgage deduction more than offset the lower income tax rate—which of course was already on course to expire for all but the rich.

Net result for me from the Trump tax deductions: I owed more taxes than before, but less had been withheld, so I had to dig deep at tax time. That, of course, was a carefully engineered policy to torment blue state residents already struggling with expensive mortgage loans for ordinary but highly-priced housing. Everybody else in the blue-collar town I lived in got hit likewise.

[Frank Drackman]

Why are you paying interest on a house?, just pay cash, like I did, OK, I get that it's a tax "Break" for some peoples, (same peoples who think getting a "Refund" is a good thing) but it's obviously not for you.

[Stella Link the dog]

When the bank is offering me $,$$$,$$$ at 2.125% for 30 years, I take it.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and when was that?

[Stella Link the dog]

"when was that?"
2020. That's the mortgage that I currently have. Nominal rate 2.125% -- APR slightly higher, but not much.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and who had been president when you got your mortgage?
Now, after four years of the Biden presidency, what are the current rates?

[Stella Link the dog]

"Now, after four years of the Biden presidency, what are the current rates?"

Rates too high? Take the REMF's advice "Let them pay cash."

[Kazinski]

I am not sure we will see mortgage rates that low again for a while, looking at St. Louis fed weekly mortgage data, from 1971-2009 rates never dropped below 5%, and the median rate since 1971 through 2024 is 7.34%, slightly above current rates.

[bernard11]

Why wouldn't you pay interest on a house if you can earn more on the cash by doing so?

[Commenter_XY]

Well then you're very low income = My SSA is already tax free, so I will get zero benefit from that.

For your sake, since you appear to live on fixed income only, I hope CPI-E slows down and reverses. Seems unlikely, but it didn't seem too likely we would have a POTUS Trump again, on January 20, 2021 either.

I foresee an adjustment to SALT, not outright elimination. So some 'relief' is coming.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Why on Earth should everyone else subsidize your Blue State lifestyle?

Screw your whining over your SALT tax deductions, pay your fair fucking share.

You liberals love taxes when they are on other people. You never like paying them yourself.

[SRG2]

Why on Earth should everyone else subsidize your Blue State lifestyle?

That makes a change. Usually blue states subsidise red states. IUn fact, the non-profit that originally funded the research and stats on this stopped funding it because it was a conservative organisation and they were expecting the research would show that the red were subsidising the blue.

[RedheadedPharoh]

But isn't that inline with your beliefs? Rich people paying their fair share, while poor people benefit from the rich people being taxed?

[SRG2]

Deflecting away from the point. Evidently, as long as you thought that red states were subsidising blue, you questioned why it should be the case. Given that the facts indicate it's the other way around, why then the case is altered. You're quite happy for blue to subsidise red. The word is "hypocrisy".

[RedheadedPharoh]

Why are you complaining about doing something that you believe to be morally good?

>Evidently, as long as you thought that red states were subsidising blue, you questioned why it should be the case.

You mean "as long as I thought poor people were subsidizing rich people I questioned why it should be the case."

And I also questioned "Your principles are that rich people should subsidize poor people and not the other way around so why the fuck are you bitching about losing a subsidy that violates your morals?"

[SRG2]

Why do you keep deflecting from the point? And I had never expressed any position, moral or otherwise, about who if anyone should subsidise whom, so why do you keep trying to make my imagined position part of your argument?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Why were you deflecting from my point about Liberals who love taxing other people but hate paying taxes themselves?

[SRG2]

I was responding to your crass comment "Why on Earth should everyone else subsidize your Blue State lifestyle?"

And I stuck to it, no deflection. Now fuck off, there's a good chap.

[Brett Bellmore]

IIRC, the claim that 'blue' states subsidize 'red' states is generally based on the 'red' states having the lion's share of military bases, and the spending on those bases being characterized as a subsidy, because "the money is being spent in those states".

But this is not properly a subsidy if you were going to have military bases anyway.

[bernard11]

If the decision as to where to put the bases is political, not strategic, as it surely is, then yes, it's a subsidy, or favored treatment, or pork, or whatever you want to call it.

[Absaroka]

"as it surely is"

I think you'd need to do more work than that. The missile bases aren't in MT/ND/WY/SD because Palo Alto and the Boston 'burbs didn't have the political clout to grab some of that sweet ICBM pork. Yucca Flats wasn't grabbed by a greedy NV ... in fact I think the locals there would much prefer it be under Philadelphia. The feds paid for a lot of the interstate thru Nebraska, but 90+% of the traffic is interstate.

To be clear, pork happens ... there's a reason there are so many fed offices in WV. Defense contractors absolutely look at at who is sitting on which committee when deciding where to build the F-99 wing sections, etc.

But you need to do the detailed accounting to support an assertion of State X is subsidizing State B. A simple checks in vs checks out accounting isn't persuasive.

For some other considerations: FBI agent spends a career investigating financial crimes on Wall St. He then retires to Florida. Is his pension a subsidy to FL? For that matter, was his salary a subsidy to NYC, or is it Arkansas paying for services rendered, namely keeping Wall St honest?

The Park Service mails Yellowstone employees' paychecks to WY. Is that a subsidy to WY, or is it the country as a whole doing upkeep on the land we own there, and providing a service to people vacationing from Los Angeles?

When the GSA mails a check to Ford to buy G-rides for the Secret Service, is that a subsidy for Detroit?

etc, etc, etc)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Actually, before red state politicians turned defense spending into a political hog farm, the blue states were likewise replete with military bases of all descriptions. Since that red-state capture, the ruins of those blue state bases have rotted in place.

A military depot near me in MA, during WW II, supplied nearly the entire ammunition requirements of the U.S Navy's Atlantic fleet. It lies adjacent to the rotting remains of a shipyard which built hundreds of liberty ships, plus famous warships including aircraft carriers.

The depot is now an overgrown weedy park, dotted with empty bunkers, plus a few bunkers mysteriously still guarded. I'm guessing those are empty too, except for traces of munitions too sensitive to permit public contact even now. The shipyard has become an extensive quay-side parking lot for imported automobiles, fringed with closed and decaying former shop buildings.

Scenes of military rot at political behest are repeated throughout the Northeast. The nation still features thriving military shipyards on all its coasts, but only trivially in the Northeast. That did not happen because the Northeast coast became militarily insignificant, or because coasts elsewhere became more militarily significant. It was politics, driven by red state economic necessity, and a perception that the Northeast was rich enough to do without.

[Absaroka]

WWII shipyards have pretty much all closed, regardless or red/blue.

The current naval shipyards are in VA, HI, NH, and WA. That's one purple and 3 blue states. Electric Boat is in CT, another blue. Newport News is in purple VA.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, when I lived in Portsmouth, NH, I recall pretty clearly going over the bridge to Maine to get to the shipyard at Kittery. That one is near-defunct now. Electric Boat in New London is down to a small remnant of what it was as recently as (I think) the 1980s.

Also, still active in Maine is the small-to-medium sized shipyard at Bath Iron Works, which has over a very long interval built a great many naval vessels, mostly destroyers. Still fully at work.

Also, Newport News of course goes way back.

[Absaroka]

Right. At the end of WWII we had a 6000+ ship navy (that's navy, not transports like Liberty and Victory ships), the vast majority of which were built for the war. That took a lot of shipyards. We're down to what - 300 some? And not all built in 4 years. That takes ... a lot less shipyards. It's not the republican plot you assume.

[ThePublius]

"Electric Boat in New London is down to a small remnant of what it was as recently as (I think) the 1980s."

Electric Boat in Groton (New London) is busy, and expanding. This, just a week ago:

"On Jan. 2, Electric Boat completed the $5.5 million purchase of a 55-acre commercial property just off Interstate 95 in North Stonington from a real estate affiliate of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, which operates the nearby Foxwoods Resort Casino, according to town records. Electric Boat plans to build a 480,000-square-foot warehouse at the 45 Frontage Road property, equating to about eight football fields in total space.

"Electric Boat is currently building the first two submarines in a new fleet of 12 Columbia-class ballistic nuclear missile subs that the U.S. Navy wants to replace 14 aging Ohio-class subs as they hit the end of their extended operating periods. On Monday, the U.S. Navy announced that the third submarine of the Columbia class will be named the USS Groton, in a nod to the the city's importance to the Navy via the Naval Submarine Base New London and the Electric Boat shipyard."

(I thought submarines were supposed to be named after fish.)

[ThePublius]

Link:
https://www.ctinsider.com/business/article/ct-electric-boat-groton-stonington-warehouse-20031330.php

[Absaroka]

"I thought submarines were supposed to be named after fish."

They are supposed to be, harummph :-). That was the WWII convention. It got dropped along the way. Early SSN's were fish, then mostly named for cities (like cruisers used to be) for a while. Lately some fish mixed back in.

SSBN's were named for prominent Americans for a while, then states for a while, maybe a mix now?

Carriers were named for famous battles, but ex-presidents seems to be the fashion now.

You kids get off my lawn.

[Drewski]

Man, you are such a creep.

[Sarcastr0]

At least he didn't tell anyone to kill themselves this time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump is similar to FDR. Plan to live to 130...

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, a 78 year old Bernie Bro. You're past your expiration date by a few years now, why not "Save the Planet"?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm definitely now going all-in for crypto--an industry I have always tried to stay far away from.

But no, I'm not investing in crypto! That's for marks. I'm going to be working in crypto, helping set up the marks. If there's one certainty in Trumpworld 2.0, he will protect his own investments...

[Krayt]

We're about 50 years into misrule by mass overspending with no intention to pay back, as a business model. It's nasty misrule, but not so bad it will burn itself out, one of your categories.

Does that count as long-term, chronic misrule? If it was fixed tomorrow, historians would not think so.

It won't be fixed tomorrow.

[Krayt]

Chronic misrule by using the investigative and prosecutorial power of government against political enemies continues apace. This was an open and known disease process for millenia by the time the Founding Fathers tried to protect against it.

The tortuous weasel arguments that evolved to work around protections are interesting, and sad, and indicative of the seemingly hopless, to this day, ancient struggles to be free from it.

[hobie]

I just bought $20,000 of Trump coin. now I own $20,000 of [insert synonym for nothingness]

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow. I have a "basket of deplorables" t-shirt, from 2016, but that's about it for political merch.

[Stella Link the dog]

I have an 8645 t-shirt.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Synonym: Public Relations Backed Currency [PRBC].

[RedheadedPharoh]

MAGA is the next evolution of the TEA Party. This party is just getting started Stephen.

What's most surprising about your post is that most homosexuals don't live to your age.

So props to you. I'm guessing you try and live more like a normal person, heterosexual and have adopted our culture.

[Stella Link the dog]

"What's most surprising about your post is that most homosexuals don't live to your age."

Most American males don't like to his age.

[RedheadedPharoh]

So you support the unconstitutional disenfranchisement of people who aren't part of your political tribe.

That's pretty gross, even for a Democrat.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I am 78-years old, and expect to live to see the end of MAGA.

MAGA doesn’t have much to it except personal loyalty to Trump, so when he disappears from public life in four years, I think you’re indeed likely to see the collation fracture. If Vance doesn’t win, I’d expect MAGA to largely be a nonentity in 2032. And I certainly hope you’re still with us for it, your hysterical fantasizing notwithstanding.

[John F. Carr]

A CIA agent has pleaded guilty to leaking classified documents about preparations for an attack by [redacted] on [redacted]. Everybody knows the countries involved are Israel and Iran. The government won't even admit that people think the countries involved are Israel and Iran. The names were redacted from a public Telegram post about the documents. According to published reports, not confirmed in the plea agreement, Israel called off the attack after its preparations were revealed.

The sentencing guidelines call for about six years because the defendant is a first time offender who pleaded guilty.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69393354/united-states-v-rahman/

[Dr. Ed 2]

If this is a plea deal, gotta wonder what else was done.

[Frank Drackman]

Probably a lot of pagers and cellphones “Blowing Up”

[John F. Carr]

Most cases end with plea deals.

The harm to American interests was slight. The defendant might want to avoid traveling to Israel.

[Frank Drackman]

But can the defendant avoid Israel traveling to him?

[F.D. Wolf]

The forecast for those in the country illegally is snow today and ICE tomorrow.

[Commenter_XY]

LOL, nice one.

MAGA-mesis continues. The Deep State vomiting out members.

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/state-department-resignations-inauguration/2025/01/19/id/1195698/

Many, many more to come.

[Brett Bellmore]

That was pretty funny.

[A Japanese Student]

Fun fact about ICE - until October 1 of last year, it was referred to as the Bureau of Border Security in the statute: https://www.congress.gov/118/plaws/publ96/PLAW-118publ96.pdf

There is one interesting problem: amendments made in that Act, including the rename, "shall cease to have force or effect" beginning October 1, 2030. Will the ICE have to rename back to BBS then?

[Kazinski]

AP:
Some immigrants are already leaving the US in ‘self-deportations’ as Trump’s threats loom

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-self-deportation-trump-0a8d8371cf7e22a5809db40ebbecf42d

[Commenter_XY]

More illegal aliens need to self-deport faster.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The article is about a legal alien... But who cares about that?

The cruelty is the point!

[Brett Bellmore]

It's about an alien Biden had extended temporary parole to. She arrived in 2023 on a 2 year parole, so she was going to have to leave anyway.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Still not an "illegal alien", then...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Both LA and Long Beach have fire boats that can pump a bleepload of water, and at least some can pump it ashore to feed fire trucks on land. They go 15 MPH, its 30 miles to Malibu -- they could have been there in 2-3 hours and saved all the expensive homes.

Why weren't they?

And salt water puts out fires just fine...

[hobie]

And people in North Carolina could have erected massive stilts on all trees and bulwark dams out of Trump bibles....but they didn't. Them east coast lib hillbillies had it comin'

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not in 2 hours....

[Martinned2]

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

[Magister]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/blogs/smithsonian-environmental-research-center/2025/01/13/firefighting-planes-are-dumping-ocean-water-on-the-los-angeles-fires-why-using-saltwater-is-typically-a-last-resort/

[Dr. Ed 2]

That is asinine -- try drenching trees daily with the red fire retardant and tell me how they do. (Hint, they will die.)

And Smithsonian fails to distinguish between ground soaking from being UNDERWATER and a one-time dump on top.

But fire is worse, it's not just the HazMats released but burning all the organics in the soil, leaving just sterile sand.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And the red stuff "contains two types of salt: monoammonium phosphate and diammonium phosphate" and a whole lot more than 3.5%! See https://www.npr.org/2025/01/10/nx-s1-5254179/los-angeles-wildfires-flame-retardant

[Absaroka]

"That is asinine -- try drenching trees daily with the red fire retardant and tell me how they do. "

Can you share your source? I've always heard it's a fertilizer: "Phosphate can also act as a fertilizer once the fire danger has passed".

(I suppose 'every day' might be over fertilizing)

(I think you're probably right about salt water being fine for firefighting)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Many fertilizers are salts -- here is a technical article on this:
https://www.growmarkfs.com/Resource-Center/item/understanding-fertilizer-salt-index

This is part of the problem with the Salton Sea -- the fertilizer runoff has increased the saline level in that sea. It's not the only problem, but it ain't helping.

Remember that salt affects water balance -- fresh water (low saline content) rushes to higher saline water because of something to do with osmosis. Calcium Chloride pellets will literally pull water out of the air. it used to be used to control dust on dirt roads.

Toss lobsters in fresh water, e.g. kitchen sink, and they will do their damnist to get away from it as they know it is fatal -- they literally drown. It makes their gills explode or something -- even heavy rain will kill them. But unless they are in the sun, they can be out of the water for 10 hours, and 200 years ago when they were commonly found in tidepools, often were.

Bear in mind that the red stuff also affects photosynthesis and respiration, but you will also find that moderate radiant heat will cause subsequent foliage death.

It's that, well, fire's worse.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The ocean is about 3.5% salt.

Do you have any idea of the salt content of the salt content of the slush on the road, or how many TONS of salt are applied to every lane-mile of highway?

Besides, even without subsequent mudslides, burning all the organics in the soil does more damage than a one-time application of salt.

[Magister]

Plenty of fires for millennia that ecosystems recovered from.

Salt on roads is a huge concern; 22 million tons annually, with 8 to 9 million lane miles. Many places have moved to brining or otherwise reducing salt use.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Fun fact about salting roads. If temperatures do not stay high enough to melt the salt/snow mix completely, then the salt often makes the roads more dangerous than they need to be. Wet cold snow is more slippery than dry cold snow. Especially in locales with temperatures in single digits or less, no salt use at all can make sense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

All salt does is drop the freezing temp of water. NaCl is 0°F, a 30% mixture of CaCl is -52°F.

The problem you run into is that the weight of vehicles melts the snow under the tires, with it then refreezing as ice. That's how snow flurries or snow blowing onto the highway forms black ice.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, when I attended college in Michigan's UP, they used exclusively sand, which was vacuumed up in the spring. Salt would have been no better than any other granular material, while being environmentally destructive.

On the plus side, at those temperatures you get by just fine with tennis shoes and a good pair of socks, because, no slush!

[Absaroka]

In Cheyenne, they didn't salt or sand, because you didn't get anywhere near freezing until maybe April, when you went from cold packed snow to bare pavement in a week.

We have experienced the -40 phenomenon once on a ski trip - no glide at all. It's like skiing on sand.

Camping at -20 was way nicer than +20. You could sit on a snowbank for lunch and not get wet. Gotta drink a lot to stay hydrated, though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The snow normally melts under skis (and ice skates).
With X-Country skis, you may have had the wrong wax on them.

[Absaroka]

Sigh.

The physics are still up in the air a bit, but the abrupt increase of friction is pretty well known.

[VinniUSMC]

Cross country skiing on wet sand is surprisingly smooth. We did that as part of our cold weather training primer in Camp Lejeune, preparing for our trip to Bridgeport. Which was cancelled on account of playtime in the sandbox.

[Absaroka]

Interesting! There's gotta be a crayon joke in there somewhere about marines skiing on sand :-). I've heard of people skiing/snowboarding steep dry dunes. Still don't think dry sand would work well ... kinda surprised wet sand does.

Serious question: did they give y'all decent gear? We ran into some guys from the Ranger Regiment in the Cascades many years ago (right before Panama), and they were using improvised bindings out of zip cord ... which isn't a very good way to learn to ski, to put it mildly.

[Jmaie]

"We have experienced the -40 phenomenon once on a ski trip - no glide at all. It's like skiing on sand."

Interesting, I've not heard about that before. I've only been skiing in extreme cold once, and we had no issues sliding. Was at Mammoth in the early 80's. I never did hear what the temperature was - only that it was supposedly -79F with wind chill.

[Kazinski]

I once drove from Tulsa to Fayetteville when it was -15, after a storm dropped a foot of snow, its amazing how much like sand it is when its well below zero.

If it was +15 I would have ended up in a ditch, or more likely not made it out of the parking lot.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" Many places have moved to brining"

brine /brīn/noun

Water saturated with or containing large amounts of a salt, especially sodium chloride. The water of a sea or an ocean. A large body of salt water.

They dissolve a salt, usually CaCl, in water to make brine...

[Magister]

Using brine instead of rock salt reduces the amount of salt needed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And chews up brake lines.

Brine depends on the salt used, CaCl is more effective.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and more expensive.

[F.D. Wolf]

Latest 2030 reapportionment forecast from the American Redistricting Project based on population trends as of December 2024:

Texas: +4
Florida: +4
Idaho: +1
Utah: +1
Arizona: +1

California: -3
New York: -2
Oregon: -1
Minnesota: -1
Wisconsin: -1
Illinois: -1
Pennsylvania: -1
Rhode Island: -1

https://thearp.org/blog/apportionment/2030-apportionment-forecast-2024/

[Frank Drackman]

So if current trends continue (they rarely do) R's gain 9 Electrical Votes in the 2032 erection by doing absolutely nothing (and probably 10 when Nebraska comes to their senses and stops dividing the few Electrical votes they have)

[Brett Bellmore]

And they'll gain 12-13 if they can reform the Census so that it doesn't make massive mistakes in favor of the Democrats next time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Might not matter if we don't clean up voter registration and existing voter rolls.

[Martinned2]

That's one hell of a euphemism...

[SRG2]

He probably doesn't even think it's a euphemism.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's not a euphemism. Registration lists in this country are a total mess.

[SRG2]

But under the guise of clearing up the rolls, a significant number of citizens legally entitled to vote have been removed. And Bumble wants this to continue because we all know which voters are most likely to be removed.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey fucktard, cleaning up the rolls does not mean removing eligible voters.

[Martinned2]

* wink, wink

[Sarcastr0]

How could it not, Bumble? Sending mail to someone's house and if they don't reply stripping them from the rolls is gonna catch plenty of eligible voters.

Or using change-of-address forms, which do not on their own establish a permanent change of residence. Overinclusive? But you said such things weren't happening!

Did a bit of research for you:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/four-new-initiatives-driving-mass-voter-challenges

All of those will remove some eligible voters.

[Ska]

* wink, wink

The A key is on the opposite side of the keyboard.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd advocate a registration jubilee, to be held shortly after a midterm election: All registrations would be canceled, and have to be renewed afresh under prevailing rules.

[SRG2]

Fuckwit, cleaning up the rolls almost invariably means removing eligible voters. Because if you ensure that no eligible voters are removed you'll invariably leave some ineligible voters on it and I have never seen anything from you or anyone else who is willing to accept that

[Krayt]

This assumes things like +Texas are all Republican. There's the old saw people, tired of California BS and taxes, move to Texas to be free of it, then immediately start voing for similar politicians anyway, re-cutting their own throats, and possibly dragging a whole new state down with it.

[Kazinski]

Texas became more Republican in 2024 than it was in 2020, like just about every other state.

Especially if the trend among Hispanics continues Texas will get redder, as long as the Democrats keep getting more progressive.

[Brett Bellmore]

The usual dynamic is that, while Republicans are in control, the voters gradually forget how awful the Democrats had been. (And, granted, visa versa!) So I'd expect unified Republican government to cause that trend to stall, just for the lack of fresh reminders of how crazy the Democrats have gotten.

Realistically, Trump has just two years to accomplish some things that are big enough to cause voters to give him another 2 years of a Republican Congress. His biggest obstacle in doing that will be... the Republican Congress.

[John F. Carr]

Bush got a Republican Congress in 2002 thanks to the 9/11 attacks. Most popular president in history. Maybe Iran will nuke something and boost Trump's popularity over 50%.

[Kazinski]

Just like in the UK they forget how bad Labour is after conservatives have been in power for a while.

Suddenly they have remembered.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Massachusetts has turned its population trend around. It's now on the increase. I expect likewise shortly from at least New York state, CT, RI, VT, and NH.

The sunbelt will not likely continue rapid growth after real estate insurance price increases preclude more mortgages.

Add the MAGA innovation of partisan hanky-panky with disaster relief, and reasonably cautious people will think long and hard about living not only in CA, but also in FL, or along the Gulf Coast, or in the valleys of the lower Mississippi drainage.

Wildfire hazards in ID, MT, WY, UT, CO, NV, AZ will likely affect growth adversely. Likewise with fire, earthquake, and volcanic hazards in the Pacific Northwest.

There is a lot there to suggest a population renaissance in the Northeast. Doesn't yet seem reflected in the projections.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Chicken Little.

[Frank Drackman]

Who wouldn't enjoy a cold blustery January day in Worcester MA?? 13 degrees as I type this, but hey, high of 23 (don't ask what the low is)

[Riva]

Are we counting illegals?

[Kazinski]

Ill believe it when I see it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

U-Haul suggests otherwise -- MA second only to CA in deficit -- more vehicles leaving than arriving.

mA

[Jmaie]

Earthquake hazards in the PNW?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Earthquake hazards in the PNW?

Yeah. Really big ones. And I forgot tsunamis.

[Kazinski]

Subduction Earthquakes so big they cause Tsunami' in Japan:

"The 1700 tsunami that impacted the Puget sound region was triggered by a megathrust earthquake off the coast of northern California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia on the so-called Cascadia margin. The event happened on the evening of January 26th as documented in Japanese historic records. In Japan, the event was called an “orphan” tsunami because the earthquake was so far away it was not felt. The other significant piece of evidence for the tsunami comes from dead trees in so-called “ghost” forests in Oregon and Washington that can be dated using carbon 14 and tree ring studies. These trees in lush coastal forests are thought to have been instantly killed by the saltwater when they were flooded initially by up to 12 m (36 feet) of land subsidence associated with the megathrust earthquake and then by the tsunami."

The Juan De Fuca plate being subsumed beneath the North American plate is what created Mt St Helens, Mt Ranier, Mt Baker, Mt Hood. All are active or temporarily dormant volcanos.

The Juan De Fuca plate is a remnant of the much larger Farallon plate that uplifted California and created the Sierra Nevada.

The last (not so) big one was the 6.8 Nisqually quake, in 2001, I was on the 18th floor of the Ranier tower in Downtown Seattle when that hit, it certainly seemed substantial enough at the time, but it wasn't the big one which is coming.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1755 Cape Ann earthquake took down all the chiminies in Boston.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Don't worry, the govies in the Census Bureau will "accidentally" overcount Blue States.

There is no way they'll let Red States gain that many seats.

[Stella Link the dog]

"There is no way they'll let Red States gain that many seats."

Sure hope you're right.

[Frank Drackman]

Anyone catch "47" added "Hit the Road Jack" to his playlist at the MAGA Rally yesterday, with just a little twist,
"Hit the Road Joe, and don't you come back no mo no mo no mo no mo"

[Commenter_XY]

This is probably appropriate for today. 🙂

https://youtu.be/g9WvPi5S2BE

Jessica...Thanks for making the perfect meme. Priceless.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'll add part one of "Carry On":
[Part I]

[Verse 1]
One morning I woke up and I knew
You were really gone
A new day, a new way
And new eyes to see the dawn
Go your way, I'll go mine
And carry on

[Verse 2]
The sky is clearing and the night
Has gone out
The sun, he come, the world
Is all full of love
Rejoice, rejoice, we have no choice
But to carry on

[Verse 3]
The fortunes of fables are able
To sing the song
Now witness the quickness with which
We get along
To sing the blues you've got to live the dues
And carry on
[Seque]
Carry on
Love is coming
Love is coming to us all

[Commenter_XY]

Yesterday, incoming POTUS Trump promised to release the full files on the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK. Assume he delivers on this promise.

What do you think we will discover that we did not know before?
What legal repercussions might there be, after all this time?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's got to be something fairly explosive, or else they wouldn't have kept it under cover for this long. My guess would be that there was some sort of intelligence service complicity in the assassination.

But, of course, that's only a guess. I haven't a clue.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe they can open the files on the Trump assassination attempts while they're at it.
Funny how that's almost been completely forgotten.

[Commenter_XY]

Isn't it, though? = Funny how that's almost been completely forgotten.

Not coincidental.

[David Nieporent]

This is a variation on the "How come the media isn't reporting on [this thing I read about in the media]?"

Also: (1) the attempts¹ failed; nobody spends much time talking about Sara Jane Moore either; (2) the second 'attempt' involves an active prosecution, so they're not going to be talking publicly about it; and (3) what do you expect to hear about the first attempt (besides the 'Biden's handlers tasked the CIA with setting this guy up,' I mean)?
​
​
¹As a matter of criminal law, it constitutes attempt if one takes a substantial step towards the crime. So the guy on the golf course is (assuming the facts are as we think we know them) guilty of criminal attempt. But as a matter of ordinary English, when someone never even gets to the "seeing the target" stage (let alone actually taking a shot) it's not normally considered an "assassination attempt." A plot, sure. But an attempt?

[KBeckman]

How much do you remember/care about Garfield's assassin?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, I'm thinking more gross incompetence.

47 is pissed at the FBI, CIA -- why *not* make them look like schmucks...

[Frank Drackman]

At least with JFK “47” told Joe Rogan there was material he couldn’t declassify because it would “blow the roof off” MLKs files are sealed until 2043 because they would show he wasn’t the Saint he’s been made out to be(Rumor is he made a crude remark about Jackie giving JFK oral when she knelt at his coffin, J Edgar played the tape for RFK, who continued to make MLK (and J Edgar’s) lives miserable

[not guilty]

"Yesterday, incoming POTUS Trump promised to release the full files on the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK."

I will be surprised if Trump fulfills that promise. It is unwise to make an enemy of the CIA. Trump may wind up channeling Sir John Falstaff from Henry IV Part 1, Act V Scene 4:

To die is to be a counterfeit, for he is but the counterfeit of a man who hath not the life of a man; but to counterfeit dying when a man thereby liveth is to be no counterfeit, but the true and perfect image of life indeed. The better part of valor is discretion, in the which better part I have saved my life.

[Mr. Bumble]

Now you sound like Chuck Schumer.

[Brett Bellmore]

It may be unwise to make an enemy of the CIA, but since they're already an enemy, that's a sunk cost which shouldn't bear on future decisions.

[F.D. Wolf]

Trump's already made an enemy of the CIA. It's a trash organization and always has been. It wasn't so long ago that leftists were routinely calling for its abolition, but once it set its sights on Trump, they suddenly saw its good qualities. To quote some literature admittedly not as good as your selection:

Who do you think spies are: priests, saints and martyrs? They’re a squalid procession of vain fools, traitors, too, yes; pansies, sadists and drunkards, people who play cowboys and Indians to brighten their rotten lives.

- John le Carré, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1963)

[RedheadedPharoh]

Why would releasing the files of JFK, RFK, and MLK make an enemy of the CIA?

And on what healthy governing Earth should a President fear his intelligence agency?

[not guilty]

The murder of President Kennedy is the greatest unsolved crime of my lifetime. The Warren Commission inquiry was a farce.

There is quite a bit of well informed opinion that the CIA facilitated or at least approved the JFK assassination. Previous presidents have gone to the brink of full disclosure and then withheld significant parts of the documents. I strongly suspect that Trump will do the same.

[David Nieporent]

Counterpoint: that opinion is not "well informed," nor is it rational. Like all conspiracy theories, it relies on scores — if not hundreds — of people willing and able to keep a secret for decades.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gulf of Tonkin incident???

[David Nieporent]

What exactly about the Gulf of Tonkin incident do you think has been kept concealed for 60 years?

[RedheadedPharoh]

So under your working theory of keeping secrets, there aren't any national secrets older than a few decades that more than handful of people know.

Can you come up with some hypotheticals of the kinds of national secrets that are closely held but by only a few people in the government for decades?

[David Nieporent]

I'm sure there are many national secrets older than a few decades that more than handful of people know, because many national secrets are not of general interest, so there wouldn't be any reason to expose them to the public. The JFK/RFK/MLK assassinations do not fit that description, however.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Deep Throat was, although CBS guessed correctly in '94.

[David Nieporent]

"More than a handful of people" did not know who Deep Throat was.

[Sarcastr0]

Agree with DMN. My parents both think there was a conspiracy. I'm more inclined to think it's too big and a secret held too long for that to be a tenable theory.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the counter-argument is that, otherwise, it makes no sense to keep the files sealed after so many decades. Almost everybody involved is long dead.

My assumption, as I've said, is that it makes some institutions look really, really bad, and so it is contrary to their continuing institutional interest that the information be released.

[Sarcastr0]

I got no problem with releasing the files, I just don't expect them to reveal much.

Embarrassment to the government is certainly withing the realm of possibility, but I don't presume you need a reason to overclassify - it's the easy, risk averse response.
Or sources and methods, but at this late date more likely to be cowardice using that as an excuse.

[not guilty]

Counterpoint: that opinion is not "well informed," nor is it rational. Like all conspiracy theories, it relies on scores — if not hundreds — of people willing and able to keep a secret for decades.

Well, it likely does not involve as many people, but what the hell did happen to Jimmy Hoffa? Come to think of it, Hoffa, JFK and RFK pissed off some of the same kind of people.

[Bob from Ohio]

RFK was murdered by a Pali upset at his support of Israel

Jimmy Hoffa was murdered by the mob, which is a criminal conspiracy so congrats, you are right for once.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do your colleagues know you regularly use ethnic slurs?

[Bob from Ohio]

An abbreviation I think you mean.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Just like “Jap” or “Spic” or “Paki” which I’m sure you also use regularly, right?

Come on, no one here will be surprised or think less of you because you want to denigrate Palestinians. The only person you’re trying to convince with this bullshit is yourself, and you don’t even care, so why don’t you just proudly embrace it!

[Bob from Ohio]

"denigrate Palestinians"

No need, they denigrate themselves.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Does this apply to all Palestinians, Bob? Would you hire a Palestinian associate or law clerk?

Also cool how you basically just conceded that you’re using an ethnic slur and went on to denigrate an entire ethnic group. You are a huge piece of shit and a disgrace to the profession.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Seriously if I introduced you to a Palestinian law student, would you shake their hand?

[Commenter_XY]

LTG, I would shake their hand, to be polite. I don't know them.

Hire them? Sure, pending....After a thorough examination of their social media history, criminal background and reference check.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0 — The CIA is an organization full of people willing and able to keep a secret for decades. It is also good at cutting secrets into pieces too small to support confident conclusions, while leaving the fully assembled picture accessible only to a small number at the top.

For a fascinating example of an unsolved, decades-long mystery with Kennedy-assassination associations, and indisputable high-level CIA interconnection, read two Wikipedia articles: one on Mary Pinchot Meyer, and one on Cord Meyer. Readers who do not already know this astonishing-but-equivocal tale of a separate murder at least tangentially related to the JFK story ought to take a look.

To those articles, add others' previous assertions that Cord Meyer said that his murdered wife was the victim of the same people who killed President Kennedy. That part, which I read maybe ten years ago, now seems to have disappeared from the account I read then. But it survives in a Smithsonian Magazine article written by Lance Morrow, who wrote, "Thus in the Stone Solution, popular on the Internet, Meyer was done in by 'the same sons of bitches that killed John F. Kennedy,' as one writer, C. David Heymann, claims he was told by the dying Cord Meyer." The skepticism there is obviously intended, of course.

By happenstance, I knew Meyer's son Quentin fairly well, and once spent an evening talking about the Vietnam War with Cord Meyer and Quentin at the Meyer's home in Georgetown. At the time, I understood only generally that I was talking to a high government official, but did not know then of Cord Meyer's biography, let alone that I was talking to the senior CIA official in charge of covert operations. I then knew nothing about the murder of Quentin's mother; Quentin never mentioned that to me, nor told me about his father's place in government.

In that discussion, it is fair, I think, to say that I exasperated Cord Meyer. We had all been drinking a bit. He kept saying that I would not continue to insist what I was asserting about Vietnam War policy if he could tell me things he knew, but was obliged to keep secret. Over that the discussion came to loggerheads. My retort was to point out that was likely to remain a problem in maintaining public support for the war.

In response, Meyer betrayed anger and vehemence intense enough to surprise me, but stayed within bounds of cordiality. I could not understand why I, as a mere friend of his son—with maybe only a bit more second-hand insight into Vietnam than anyone else who had never been there—could disturb someone obviously so much better informed than I was. It crossed my mind that secrets Cord Meyer was keeping seemed mysteriously charged emotionally.

When I much later spotted a cover story about Cord Meyer (in the NYT's Sunday magazine section, if memory serves), I read it, and then started looking around for more information. By that time I had lost contact with Quentin, so was spared the choice of tactful avoidance of the startling story of his family history, or trying to engage on a subject that might have been an awful burden for anyone.

I remain agnostic on Kennedy's assassination. The part about the official report which troubles me most is the lack of detail to explain how Oswald was so quickly tracked to the movie theater where he was apprehended. I would welcome a full release of everything.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And Lathrop joins the party!

vincemcmahonfallingoutofhischair.gif

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur — Help me out. Were you aware of the story and context of Mary Pinchot Meyer's shooting death on the C&O canal towpath? Or are you just remarking without reading what I pointed you to?

[RedheadedPharoh]

So the President should fear the CIA so they don't assassinate him?

How is this tolerated?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I love it when a seemingly normal person tips their hand by showing how crazy they actually are. This especially good because it appears not guilty thinks the CIA conspirators are the good guys since they are anti-Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

ng is in better company than you and I are.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/514310/decades-later-americans-doubt-lone-gunman-killed-jfk.aspx

[not guilty]

No, I did not say a single word in praise of the CIA. Allen Dulles was a member of the Warren Commission, and I suspect that he had much to do with that body reaching a preordained conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone.

I suspect that the CIA has spooked a succession of presidents out of disclosing the full range of documentation on the JFK assassination. My point above was to predict that Donald Trump lacks the testicular fortitude to stand up to the intelligence community. He caved on that once before, and as Antonio observed in The Tempest, Act 2, Scene I, "What's past is prologue."

[not guilty]

Are you willing to back down, Noscitur a sociis?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Haha, sure: I appreciate your clarification that you do want Trump to stand up to the evil CIA assassins, you just don’t think that he’s brave enough to do it. I hereby formally retract my calumnious accusation that you think the (Illuminati-sponsored?) CIA conspirators are the good guys, their opposition to Trump notwithstanding.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, please assume he delivers.

Now, what are we going to discover we didn't know before, and are there legal repercussions you see from disclosure?

[Brett Bellmore]

Since the whole point of sealing the files was to deny us the ability to answer that question, what's the point in asking it?

We'll know what was being hidden if Trump delivers. Until then, we just know SOMETHING was being hidden.

[not guilty]

Like a blind hog finding an acorn, Brett Bellmore has said something that makes sense.

It is impossible to predict what legal ramifications would flow from full disclosure. The assassinations happened 61 and 56 years ago. It is highly unlikely that anyone personally culpable is still alive to face prosecution.

[Brett Bellmore]

The concern at this point isn't personal liability, it's institutional liability, where the legal consequences would come in the form of legislation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or reputations...

[Sarcastr0]

None of our institutions are not the same as they were in the 60s either.

Best you can hope for is 'let no crisis go to waste' emotional appeal to get some collateral thing done.

[Brett Bellmore]

The fact remains that the files have not been released, and if there's a good reason for that, I've yet to see it.

[Sarcastr0]

Better start speculating!

[Life of Brian]

It is unwise to make an enemy of the CIA.

Does that strike you as at all... problematic?

[not guilty]

Yes, it does. Thank you for asking.

[Life of Brian]

So you'd prefer for Trump to push back and release the full files, but just think he won't?

[not guilty]

Correct.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Any chance he will finally release his full tax returns? (Lol.)

[Frank Drackman]

Where you been? Rachel Mad Cow released them eons ago.

[CountmontyC]

Actually didn't a House committee subpoena his tax returns ( promising the court that they would be kept confidential as required by law) and they were leaked within 24 hours 0f the committee receiving them?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Something like that happened.

The joke, of course, was more that Trump repeatedly promised to release his tax returns, and then repeatedly refused to release his tax returns. Hilarious.

[CountmontyC]

But not criminal on Trump's part correct?
The leader on the other hand committed a felony. I wonder if Biden's pardons include the leaker?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Try to stay on topic.

[SRG2]

I have maintained for a very long time that the JFK conspiracy was not that LHO wasn't the assassin - he was - or that he didn't act alone - he did, but that the police, FBI, etc., who had him on their radar for a while, slipped up and lost him. And then they covered up that they had lost track of him. The conspiracy to cover up knowledge of an event looks very much like the conspiracy to cover up the event itself.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's semi-plausible, but seems like too little to have motivated the cover-up going on this long. That crew having somebody on their radar, and then slipping up and they commit a crime, is pretty much routine.

[SRG2]

It depends how high up the cover-up went, and further, institutions really really don't like their mistakes to be exposed even if time has passed. Still, I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise.

[Dr. Ed 2]

AND what else might have been involved.
What if this was one of the hair-brained attempts to kill Castro?

And what about the woman, carted off to the psych ward, who proclaimed that Kennedy was going to be shot in Dallas?

[Zarniwoop]

A plausible, non—crazy, testable hypothesis that doesn’t reflexively attack “the other side”?

Sir, are you new to VC?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yesterday, incoming POTUS Trump promised to release the full files on the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK. Assume he delivers on this promise.

What do you think we will discover that we did not know before?
What legal repercussions might there be, after all this time?

I would be extremely surprised if Trump releases anything (and would be happy to place a bet). Nor, if you’re not a crazy person, is there any reason to think that there’s anything of interest to be revealed that isn’t already known.

However, even if you suppose that a crime was committed, it’s hard to see how anyone who was involved would be younger than about 90. So even in that case, the “legal repercussions” would be… none.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nor, if you’re not a crazy person, is there any reason to think that there’s anything of interest to be revealed that isn’t already known.

Noscitur — That I dispute. What you have there is an all-purpose nostrum to justify complete disregard of history. I cheerfully insist that the only legitimate purpose to study history is to discover what happened in the past. With a corollary that intent to mine the past for information useful in the present is almost always a methodological impossibility. That does not imply however, that continuous inquiry into past records never turns up surprises, or overturns widespread but mistaken previous narratives about what actually happened.

That said, folks who do study history often conclude it makes them wiser to do it. And short of rigorous study, curiosity about the past remains commonplace.

Your nostrum stands against practices so widespread they qualify as nearly universal. That might be worth some thought.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What you have there is an all-purpose nostrum to justify complete disregard of history.

Uh, what? I didn’t say that there’s never any reason to look at historical records. I didn’t even say that there’s no reason to look at the records under discussion. I said that, unless you’re a conspiratorial (hi!), there’s no reason to think that the government has nonpublic information that would change the understanding of how any of these men’s were assassinated.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur — Read what I told you to read, about Mary Pinchot Meyer, and tell me if it affects your confidence at all.

I have one advantage over you. I have done a little bit of serious historical research. It taught me what every novice academic historian has to learn pretty quick: the past was much less like the present than most folks suppose. And the impression you now have about what did happen in the past is likely way farther from the truth than you think.

You do not need any conspiracy theory to understand that. It happens because most of what you think you know about the past you learned from a here-and-now context built almost entirely out of materials which had zero effect on folks in the past. They did not live long enough to experience any part of what you likely think you know. So almost none of what you know—and which so thoroughly permeates your judgment—had no effect on the prior context you are trying to understand.

The Kennedy assassination was not quite so long ago. But I doubt you were old enough to understand much of what was going on when Kennedy was assassinated. Sarcastr0 has remarked that members of my generation seem more skeptical of the Warren Commission conclusions than his generation is. I think he is right about that, and for more reasons than his generation is equipped to understand.

As I said, I continue to withhold judgment about the Kennedy assassination. That means I do not judge whether anything notable might turn up, or not. It also means I judge as naive confidence that notable discoveries will not emerge.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Edit:

. . . had any effect on the prior context, etc.

[bernard11]

What do you think we will discover that we did not know before?

Very little.

[Commenter_XY]

Then why the resistance from the intelligence community, bernard11?

[F.D. Wolf]

Later today, Donald Trump and J.D. Vance will be sworn in as the 47h President and 50th Vice President of the United States, respectively. Of course, as Trump and Grover Cleveland are each counted twice, only 45 different individuals have actually served as President. Imagine if we'd had a 25th Amendment since the beginning; we might be swearing in the 66th Vice President of the United States today.

[Frank Drackman]

Check the White House Silverware, Sleepy Joe just pardoned General Fat Fuck Milley, Dr. Anthony Fow-chee, The entire January 6th Committee,
"Consciousness of Guilt" anyone??

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think this is great -- they no longer enjoy 5th Amd rights not to testify in front of Congress...

[Swede425]

Guys! I'm so excited!
I can finally share with you the big news. As the Executive Director for Project 2025 (West Michigan) we are all set to begin our roundup and incarceration of liberals! I had the town of West Olive demolished (nobody was using it anyway) and had some lovely barracks, with appropriate electrified security fencing, constructed.
There's a church on the compound (you're going to need it) with three services a day (compulsory attendance) with lots of education opportunities! For those of you who identify as women, there will be cooking classes, home economics classes, and child rearing classes. The men will get testosterone treatment and small engine repair classes. So that you can finally be useful to society. Once you've proven that you're "reformed", there will be immediate job openings in ICE, where you can help repair the damage you've caused. And, just so you don't think I'm too cruel, there'll be fruit suspended in jello in the camp chow hall. I've made it as close to Lutheran summer camp as possible. Enjoy!

[Commenter_XY]

Wow...and all before breakfast today. What will you accomplish by lunch? 😉

[Dr. Ed 2]

TRUMP IS NOW PRESIDENT -- 12:00:00 -0500

THE GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA BEGINS RIGHT NOW!!!!

[F.D. Wolf]

Joe Biden has issued preemptive pardons for Mark Milley, Anthony Fauci, all January 6 committee members and staff, and all Capitol Hill and D.C. crisis actors - excuse me, I meant police officers - who testified before the committee.

For what crime were they pardoned? "Biden" - by which I mean the individual actually drafting these things, who I would bet is Lisa Monaco - doesn't say. I would advise Trump to test these preemptive, blanket purported "pardons" for unspecified crimes in court. And I would start with Milley.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is that an admission that they committed crimes requiring a pardon.?
What exactly are they being pardoned for?

[F.D. Wolf]

As Biden &c. desperately try to bury the truth of January 6 and the Stalinist lawfare campaign against Trump, one upshot is that none of these individuals can now plead the Fifth. So, I would start firing off the grand jury subpoenas (and knowing these dumb SOBs, they won't be able not to perjure themselves), but the more important thing is learning the truth.

[Brett Bellmore]

They can still claim that testifying could lay them open to state prosecution, I suppose.

[Commenter_XY]

Since they are presumably immune for their past actions, they can be compelled to testify under oath about them; truthfully.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. I agree with not guilty about this. And FD Wolf. And many others.

Haul their asses in for testimony and let's find out what their version of the truth is. If they lie (they will) during testimony, I could foresee an obstruction charge and perjury. Sounds like a long, drawn-out, expensive process.

I still maintain that the pardon power of the POTUS should be left alone.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Compel them to testify under oath, and when they don't testify the way we want, prosecute them for lying.

Yes, I can see why that plan might be appealing to some...

[Commenter_XY]

Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. Seems relevant.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Shortly followed by, Arbeit Macht Frei...

[Josh R]

What do you think the truth is?

[Commenter_XY]

Let's hear them tell us their version of the truth, with immunity, under oath.

[Josh R]

We already know what they have claimed the truth to be. On what issues do you doubt them and expect them to change their stories under oath?

[Commenter_XY]

Under oath, Josh R. That matters.

[David Nieporent]

Who is being examined under what oath by whom for what reason?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What, like an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"?

[not guilty]

"Haul their asses in for testimony and let's find out what their version of the truth is. If they lie (they will) during testimony, I could foresee an obstruction charge and perjury. Sounds like a long, drawn-out, expensive process."

If and to the extent that you are talking about present or former members of Congress and/or their staff members, inquiry by the Executive Branch and the grand jury is severely limited by the Speech or Debate Clause of Article I, § 6 of the Constitution. See, Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972).

Congress can investigate and compel witness testimony, but that is not unlimited. As SCOTUS opined in Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957):

The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste. But, broad as is this power of inquiry, it is not unlimited. There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress. This was freely conceded by the Solicitor General in his argument of this case. Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial agency. These are functions of the executive and judicial departments of government. No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress. Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to "punish" those investigated are indefensible. [Footnote omitted.]

If members or former members of Congress are called before Congressional committees, I can envision litigation about what scope of inquiry is proper.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, so the answer is....Yes, Congress can hold hearings, call them as witnesses, and compel truthful testimony regarding the 'crimes' they were pardoned for. And if they lie under oath, they are liable.

I would call it a 'Truth & Reconciliation' hearing.

I agree with you that sunlight is the best disinfectant. A 'Truth & Reconciliation' set of hearings might be what the country needs to cauterize the wounds. Just get the truth out there, and the American people can deal with it.

[not guilty]

"And if they lie under oath, they are liable."

The word "if" is doing some heavy lifting there. As Cassandra said to Wayne Campbell, "And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV9U23YXgiY&t=13s

If a witness before a Congressional committee declines to answer one or more questions and is prosecuted for criminal contempt, that calls for inquiry into whether questions were outside of the proper scope of the Committee's activities and not relevant to its work. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957). The burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the questions were proper is on the government. Since the maximum authorized penalty under 2 U.S.C. § 192 exceeds six months confinement, the witness would be entitled to a jury trial in the District of Columbia. Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322, 328 (1996).

As SCOTUS opined in Watkins, "We have no doubt that there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure." 354 U.S. at 200. The Court elaborated:

It is the responsibility of the Congress, in the first instance, to insure that compulsory process is used only in furtherance of a legislative purpose. That requires that the instructions to an investigating committee spell out that group's jurisdiction and purpose with sufficient particularity. Those instructions are embodied in the authorizing resolution. That document is the committee's charter. Broadly drafted and loosely worded, however, such resolutions can leave tremendous latitude to the discretion of the investigators.

Id., at 201.

[SRG2]

the truth of January 6

Well, we know that the Congressional GOP always believed that the Jan 6 insurrection was Trump-origined, and that the rioters were Trump supporters. There will always be lying and dishonest people, or cretinous conspiracy clowns, who will claim that it was a Deep State op or something, but that the Congressional GOP did not want an investigation and attempted to block any that too place, strongly suggests that they at least think that it was Trump and MAGA to blame.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Well, we know that the Congressional GOP always believed that the Jan 6 insurrection was Trump-origined"

For some legally totally irrelevant value of "origined", I suppose.

[SRG2]

The committee was investigating the event, not crimes.

But you at least accept my point that if the GOP thought it was not Trump supporters who were to blame, but other forces, they would have wanted an investigation, not resisted one.

[Michael Ejercito]

There was no insurrection.

[SRG2]

Yeah yeah, but whatever you want to call it, it was not engineered by anyone other than Trump or his supporters, right?

[Michael Ejercito]

Trump had nothing to do with it.

[John F. Carr]

When Trump was hypothetically pardoning himself or his allies many liberals called out Burdick v. United States for the proposition that accepting a pardon made one guilty. Will they stick to their principles?

Burdick notwithstanding, you are still allowed to consider Fauci innocent.

[Brett Bellmore]

The question is, innocent of what?

[SRG2]

They are being pardoned to spare them from harassment by Trump's admin, obviously.

Trump had made it very clear that he was going after his enemies, and most of you Trumpists pretty much cheered - guilt wasn't relevant, opposition to Trump was. Now they can't.

You must be sad.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's the excuse, anyway. But that was the excuse for Hunter, too, and you know how stupid it was of Biden to claim that his own DOJ was persecuting his son.

You're going to feel really stupid if it comes out that any of these guys were murdering hookers in DC for fun. It's bad enough that we know what Milley had to worry about.

[David Nieporent]

Is that an admission that they committed crimes requiring a pardon.?

No.

[Mr. Bumble]

There were two questions.
Why not answer the second one?

[Zarniwoop]

Why didn't you answer any of them, Mr. Sealion?

[Noscitur a sociis]

You realize the pardons themselves are readily available from multiple media outlets and the White House, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

I realize nothing of the sort. Finding the actual pardons, rather than announcements of them, has not been easy.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Don't you think they should start by charging Milley with some sort of crime, first? Oh, never mind...

[F.D. Wolf]

No, you begin with an investigation. Though Milley has helpfully boasted of many potential violations of the Universal Code of Military Justice,

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I was responding to your suggestion that the "pardons" be challenged in court--starting with Gen. Milley's.

If you now want to start with an investigation, that's wonderful!

[RedheadedPharoh]

Not for Gen. Milley. Because it's going to uncover his crimes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's the actual statement, finally.

"Our nation relies on dedicated, selfless public servants every day. They are the lifeblood of our democracy.

Yet alarmingly, public servants have been subjected to ongoing threats and intimidation for faithfully discharging their duties.

In certain cases, some have even been threatened with criminal prosecutions, including General Mark A. Milley, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, and the members and staff of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. These public servants have served our nation with honor and distinction and do not deserve to be the targets of unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions.

General Milley served our nation for more than 40 years, serving in multiple command and leadership posts and deploying to some of the most dangerous parts of the world to protect and defend democracy. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he guided our Armed Forces through complex global security threats and strengthened our existing alliances while forging new ones.

For more than half a century, Dr. Fauci served our country. He saved countless lives by managing the government’s response to pressing health crises, including HIV/AIDS, as well as the Ebola and Zika viruses. During his tenure as my Chief Medical Advisor, he helped the country tackle a once-in-a-century pandemic. The United States is safer and healthier because of him.

On January 6, 2021, American democracy was tested when a mob of insurrectionists attacked the Capitol in an attempt to overturn a fair and free election by force and violence. In light of the significance of that day, Congress established the bipartisan Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol to investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes of the insurrection. The Select Committee fulfilled this mission with integrity and a commitment to discovering the truth. Rather than accept accountability, those who perpetrated the January 6th attack have taken every opportunity to undermine and intimidate those who participated in the Select Committee in an attempt to rewrite history, erase the stain of January 6th for partisan gain, and seek revenge, including by threatening criminal prosecutions.

I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics. But these are exceptional circumstances, and I cannot in good conscience do nothing. Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong—and in fact have done the right thing—and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances.

That is why I am exercising my authority under the Constitution to pardon General Mark A. Milley, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the Members of Congress and staff who served on the Select Committee, and the U.S. Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan police officers who testified before the Select Committee. The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense. Our nation owes these public servants a debt of gratitude for their tireless commitment to our country."

I'll be curious to see the legal text of the pardon; Did any President before Biden ever pardon so many people for completely unspecified crimes?

[Michael P]

Did he also give them ten-year blanket pardons, or were there any meaningful bounds?

[Brett Bellmore]

The actual text of the pardon seems to not be available yet. But I expect there were no limitations.

In the Hunter case, of course, Biden knew which crimes he had to worry about, and when they were committed. In this case, he probably lacks inside information. So the pardon may be even more expansive.

I was a bit surprised that Hunter didn't get another pardon for anything he might have done in the last month; That seems pretty risky, given his track record.

[Michael P]

Hunter is different because Joe Biden was probably the one pushing for that pardon. Today's pardons were probably slipped in a stack of paperwork billed to him as something else, much like that executive order on LNG exports. There would be too much opportunity for him to denounce the latter if they were done before his last day in office.

[Brett Bellmore]

He actually made a personal public announcement about it, so, no, they weren't just slipped into a stack of things he was signing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you sure it wasn't a John Gill announcement?

[Bob from Ohio]

"John Gill announcement"

Good one. Who is Melakon here?

[not guilty]

I remember John Gill serving as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, but that was decades ago.

[Life of Brian]

The warrants have been loaded on the DOJ's website here (scroll to the bottom).

[David Nieporent]

Thank you.

[Life of Brian]

Did he also give them ten-year blanket pardons

No, he also gave them 11-year blanket pardons.

(Sorry, but this reminded me of Jon Stewart's absolutely hilarious segment right after Hunter's pardon: "11 years is a very specific and not rounded amount of time.")

[RedheadedPharoh]

If these people committed no crimes, why are they getting pardons?

Our justice system can't be deployed against innocent people for crimes not committed for political reasons!

[F.D. Wolf]

Of course, no President has ever done anything on a scale like this before. When President Ford pardoned Nixon for "all offenses against the United States" which he "committed" or "may have committed" during his Presidency, a lot of people questioned whether that was legal and urged Archibald Cox to pursue it in court, though, of course, he ultimately chose not to.

[DaveM]

I do not understand what a "preemptive" pardon is as a legal concept at all, much less a Constitutional one. How can someone be forgiven for a crime they haven't even been accused of?

Can one of the sharp legal minds here help me understand how to fit this square peg into the round hole? I get that the President has unlimited pardoning power, but clearly this isn't "pardoning", by any normal definition. We don't have any concept of a "future crime" in our system of jurisprudence, do we?

UPDATE: did just a bit more research, and found this article which explains all this pretty well, I thought: https://www.criminallawlibraryblog.com/preemptive-pardons-constitutional-authority-and-real-world-implications/

[Brett Bellmore]

The pardon power has never been interpreted to allow pardons for future crimes, but it has been for future prosecutions..

But this business of pardoning unspecified crimes seems to be new territory, and I wouldn't mind one bit if Trump tried to legally challenge it.

[DaveM]

Interesting clarifications, thank you.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That would be entertaining: Trump challenging another POTUS' power under the Constitution.

[not guilty]

"But this business of pardoning unspecified crimes seems to be new territory, and I wouldn't mind one bit if Trump tried to legally challenge it."

New territory?? Is that as true as everything else you have said, Brett?

https://watergate.info/1974/09/08/text-of-ford-pardon-proclamation.html/

[Brett Bellmore]

I stand corrected, it is an older abuse than I remembered, though Biden obviously committed it on a vaster scale than any preceding President.

But it's still an abuse, and the constitutionality should be tested.

[Michael Ejercito]

James Madison pardoned Jean Lafitte.

a full and free pardon of all offenses committed in violation of any act or acts of the Congress of the said United States touching the revenue, trade, and navigation thereof or touching the intercourse and commerce of the United States with foreign nations at any time before the 8th day of January, in the present year 1815, by any person or persons whomsoever being inhabitants of New Orleans and adjacent country, or being inhabitants of the said island of Barrataria and the places adjacent . . .

the broadness of this pardon was necessary so that his successors would not try to find statutes Lafitte violated.

[Mr. Bumble]

"We don't have any concept of a "future crime" in our system of jurisprudence, do we?
Entering "Minority Report" territory.

[Dan Schiavetta]

We've never had someone ascend to the presidency who has promised to prosecute those who opposed him. What Biden did is simply a natural (and necessary) reaction to that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, I ask, prosecute for what? Has anybody seen the text of the actual pardon yet? What is it's scope, in terms of time and offenses?

As I said above, in Hunter's case, Biden knew what the crimes were, and when they were committed, it just would have been self-defeating to actually identify those crimes, since he was probably implicated in them, too.

But presumably Biden has no idea what these latest beneficiaries might be charged with, or when the charged crimes might be alleged to have been committed, so I'm expecting a pardon of unprecedented scope.

[Mr. Bumble]

Could Biden pass the Turing Test?

[Sarcastr0]

Again, I ask, prosecute for what?

You've never heard Trump, or any of his supporters, I guess.

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't actually think that was, in any way, an answer, do you?

At least for General Milley we have some idea what he could have been charged with. Promising to commit treason probably is a crime under the military code of justice.

[Sarcastr0]

The Fauci conspiracies. The general lock her up stuff. The Biden Crime Family.

Commenter above is cheering on show trials for revenge. He's not alone within MAGA.

40% of Republicans support Donald Trump using presidential power to go after his political opponents,
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/f548560f100205ef/e656ddda-full.pdf

This is who you're in bed with; don't pretend you care about due process.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Go after them just because they're Democrats?

Or go after them because of the appearance of illegality that should be investigated?

Can you clarify what your position is?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"40% of Republicans support Donald Trump using presidential power to go after his political opponents,"

Lol. You supported Biden prosecuting his political opponent.

"This is who you're in bed with; don't pretend you care about due process."

No one is suggesting anyone be denied due process.

[Sarcastr0]

I think Trump did crimes.
By contrast, note the the lack of crimes in this question. Just pure persecution.

No one is suggesting anyone be denied due process.
Yeah 'using presidential power to go after' sure seems steeped in due process.
And then there are those on this website explicitly invoking Beria because Dems need to be taught a lesson.
Or saying lets ignore the pardon power.

Except for that great comment.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yeah 'using presidential power to go after' sure seems steeped in due process."

You're believing your own bullshit, Sarcastro. "Go after" appears to be your paraphrase, it's not in your source.

"I think Trump did crimes.
By contrast, note the lack of crimes in this question. Just pure persecution."

The closest question in your link to what you're quoting is, "Would you support or oppose Donald Trump using the government to investigate and prosecute his political opponents?" "Prosecute" implies due process, and actual crime.

[Stephen Lathrop]

"Prosecute" implies due process, and actual crime.

Sure, in Garland context.

In Trump context? No such implication.

None at all. Even MAGA fans got that, as anyone could see. They almost never said don't put Trump on trial because there is no evidence. They almost always said this or that technicality, or utilitarian exception ought to be used to suppress the trial. It could not have been more obvious that MAGA tupes, like MAGA opponents, expected that if Trump went on trial, he would be convicted.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"In Trump context? No such implication."

Lol. How would prosecuting people for being Trump's opponents, without any actual crime, work in you guy's deranged minds?

All this because Sarcastro got fooled by his own lie.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Where the accusations made by Trump and his supporters about alleged crimes?

If that many people think these people committed crimes, surely it should be looked into, no?

[Commenter_XY]

Sort of like Ford and Nixon?

[Dan Schiavetta]

?

[F.D. Wolf]

Jack Smith, in his filings, repeatedly assured the courts that political prosecutions were impossible due to all the constitutional safeguards. Later Biden undermined that assertion by claiming the prosecution of his son was political. (Apparently, the only political prosecution during the Biden presidency was that of his son.)

As I have noted before, you seem to support the Democrats as a child might support a local sports team, where they can do no wrong and their opponents can do no right, but most people will view this as disgraceful, and, for the sake of future generations, this unprecedented attack on the rule of law should be challenged. Plus, Congress should get to work on an Amendment to prevent these late-term pardons. Trump's support of such an Amendment would win him plaudits (not from you, but from people who don't watch Rachel Maddow), especially as it would affect his own ability to do this four years from now.

No clemency 30 days before an election until the end of the term, except for temporary reprieves that extend no farther than 30 days into the next presidential term. If these pardons were justifiable now, then they were justifiable in October.

[not guilty]

Per the New York Times:

Among those receiving the pardons were Gen. Mark A. Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the longtime government scientist; and all the members of the bipartisan House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, including former Representative Liz Cheney, a Republican from Wyoming.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/20/us/politics/biden-pardons-fauci-milley-cheney-jan-6.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20250120&instance_id=145234&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=188736&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f

President Biden also extended pardons to the entire staff of the Jan. 6 investigating committee as well as to the Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police Department officers who testified during the inquiry.

These preemptive pardons are unfortunate but necessary. Donald Trump and his minions are coming into office promising to use the Department of Justice in a lawless manner to harass those who have incurred Trump's ire. Biden's action is needed in order to shield the most obvious Trump targets from having their lives unjustly upended.

[Bob from Ohio]

"unfortunate but necessary"

Comment after the January 2029 Trump pardons of hundreds of his officials.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What will be left to say? We already know it will happen--and why.

(If he leaves office, that is.)

[Life of Brian]

Just like everybody "knew" Trump was going to issue a bunch of preemptive pardons at the end of his last term, right?

(Relatedly, in the video Biden says, verbatim: "Well, it concerns me in terms of what kind of precedent it sets and how the rest of the world looks at us as a nation of laws and justice. You're not going to see in our administration that kind of approach to pardons.")

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Do you believe he will not do so?

[David Nieporent]

I would advise Trump to test these preemptive, blanket purported "pardons" for unspecified crimes in court.

Biden: I'm pardoning these people to head off vindictive, baseless prosecutions.
Trumpkins: We'll show you! We'll vindictively baselessly prosecute them anyway!

[not guilty]

"I would advise Trump to test these preemptive, blanket purported 'pardons' for unspecified crimes in court."

F.D. Wolf, pretend you are an Assistant United States Attorney drafting indictments of the folks you wish to see prosecuted for presentation to a grand jury in order to test the validity of the pardons. 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 alleged violation, where and when did the offending conduct occur?

As to each such alleged violation, what supporting facts would you aver?

If conspiracy is to be charged, who are the conspirators (indicted or otherwise)? What is the objective of the alleged conspiracy? What are the manner and means by which the alleged conspiracy was carried out? What overt act(s) would you plead?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, F.D. Wolf.

Challenging a commenter to draft a hypothetical indictment is a surefire way to ferret out the bloviators and smoke blowers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Late breaking pardon news!

Dr. Fauci.
General Milley.
Everyone who participated in any way in the January 6th committee.

This is a breaking story, there may be more pardons besides those; None of the reports have linked to the actual White House announcement, which isn't up at the White House' website yet.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

After allowing them to languish in jail for four years, Trump will finally pardon the J6 rioters today (probably because their incarceration no longer serves his purposes).

In contrast, on his last day in office Joe Biden has apparently pardoned numerous people targeted by the the avowed MAGA Lawfare soon to take place in a show trial near you. (Biden should at least include anyone appearing on KA$H's enemies list.)

[Krayt]

The most astounding thing is the irony of fear of show trials.

You've provided a blueprint of how to weasel-word around that so you can feign disinterested concern for rule of law.

I'm not down with "Clownworld" descriptions, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Are you telling me that our sacred justice system can be deployed for show trials and lawfare?

Are you undermining the faith in our sacred institutions and harming democracy?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Only MAGA has promised political prosecutions. Should we not take them at their word?

[RedheadedPharoh]

What was Letitia James promising when she ran for election as NY AG?

Do you recall?

[David Nieporent]

What was Letitia James promising when she ran for election as NY AG?

Well, not what we're discussing, since the NY AG doesn't do prosecutions.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>While the Attorney General acts independently of the Governor, the Governor or a state agency may request the Attorney General to undertake specific criminal investigations and prosecutions.

https://ag.ny.gov/about/about-office

What's that last word in the quote, and isn't defined differently than your usage of it?

[Kenneth Almquist]

From her campaign web site:
* Protect Consumers from Abuse
* Be a Strong Voice for Our Children
* Protect Our Environment for Future Generations
* Enforce Equal Pay for Equal Work
* Defend Civil Rights for All
* Protect NYers from the Trump Administration’s Unlawful Actions

Were you hoping that nobody would look up the answer to your question, allowing you to imply that Letitia James might have promised political prosecutions during her campaign?

https://web.archive.org/web/20180805223127/https://www.tishjames2018.com/why-im-running/

[Lee Moore]

Presumably the venue for any trials would have been DC for most of these people, making a conviction impossible even in theory. So this super extra double insurance.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>"These public servants have served our nation with honor and distinction and do not deserve to be the targets of unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions."

Wait one second. There is NO WAY our justice system could pursue unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions when there are no crimes that have been committed.

What crimes did Fauci, Milley, and the J6 Committee commit?

[Swede425]

LOL!
Criminals getting their pardons.
At the midnight hour, on the last day.
Even Biden must be ashamed of it.

[PaulS]

Would passing a law having an individual disbarred who receives a presidential pardon violate the pardon? Would that be a reasonable thing to do?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in other news:
New Jersey governor Phil Murphy (D), in an attempt to show true leadership has declared a state of emergency due to a few inches of snow and cold temperatures. This on a day when schools and government offices are already closed due to the holiday.
What a fucking loser.

[Krayt]

I can see southern states curling up in a quivering ball when they get a couple of inches. Many don't even have a decent winter coat, their road crews are woefully inadequate to the task, and drivers have little experience in unplanned rotational physics demonstrations.

But NJ is not such a state. If the road crews are struggling, pols should look in the mirror. You wanted to wield the power. That means more than pay 2 play.

[Brett Bellmore]

These temperatures are hardly unprecedented, at least here in the Piedmont region of South Carolina. We get them, briefly, every few years. The only special preparation we needed to do at our house was to put insulating caps over the faucets, move inside our bay laurel tree, (That pot is HEAVY!) plug in the chicken coop heater, and stock up firewood in the garage so we wouldn't need to go to the woodpile in the cold. The latter was just a convenience, of course.

[John F. Carr]

Yesterday the Weather Service issued an "extreme cold warning" for large areas of the United States. But the meaning varies. In Minnesota, extreme cold is -50 wind chill. In the deep South, extreme cold is +10 wind chill. In Southern Florida the threshold is even warmer.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've experienced -40; If there's no wind, and you're accustomed to cold weather, it's not actually that bad, aside from the need to breath through a scarf. I don't imagine -50 is that much worse.

Wind chill is a weatherman scam to make things seem exciting. It's only accurate if you're stark naked, even ordinary clothing makes it irrelevant.

[Dr. Ed 2]

At -35, a lit match dropped into a can of gasoline will go out.

[Noscitur a sociis]

A lit match will almost always go out if it’s dropped into gasoline.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Krayt -- back when Sears was a major retailer, the Sears in Bangor, Maine and Atlanta, Georgia sold the same number of the same winter coats.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Happy National Deportation Day everyone!

I plan on celebrating by bashing a few pinatas with my kids and taking the family to Home Depot to report some illegals.

What are y'all doing celebrate National Deportation Day?

[DaveM]

At a minimum, every single person who came here to stay without asking first must identify themselves. At a minimum, they must prove that they aren't fleeing from justice, either in their home country, or here. At a minimum, they must prove they are able to support themselves. And at a minimum, they must prove they are free of life-threatening communicable diseases that could harm us.

None of these things must require action on our part. At a minimum, all migrants must petition to remain here, and meet the minimal requirements on their own initiative.

Anyone who is not willing to meet these minimal requirements should be deported immediately. Anyone willing but unable to meet them should be put on a track for automatic deportation. They must then prove they have extenuating circumstances which justify them remaining here.

I do not consider these minimal requirements to be extreme or unkind in any way. If I were migrating to another country, they are exactly the standards I would be willing to meet myself.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Will you provide them with free legal help so that they could properly comply with all these requirements? Will you make sure that the jail they stay in (while they assemble their proof) is clean and safe?

[Swede425]

No.
But they will get one free airplane ticket back, to include a free snack and a free beverage.
Are we not magnanimous?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Don't you have to do a certain number of hours of free legal help each year as part of your Bar?

Maybe you can provide it.

[DaveM]

If by "free" legal help you mean legal help paid for by taxpayers, then no. If by free you mean people can donate their own funds, then of course they may do so.

But the general rule is that anyone who came here to live without going through the legal process must now come clean, on their own, and seek permission after the fact.

[hobie]

As a corporate attorney for a major engineering company, I've watched the dregs of society filter through the fabrication plant. Americans are less that worthless. They come and go weekly. Drug-addled and entitled. Mexican's are incompetent and lazy. But Cubans, Venezuelans and Columbians? Highly educated, competent and will work any hours you give them. They're also illegal because working the Republican-formed, intentionally slow immigration system isn't an option. I'll take any illegal over an American any day of the week. And the parts they make that safely power drill-baby-drill you so care about? You're welcome. Send them your regards

[RedheadedPharoh]

You're a corporate attorney that also lives in the Da Hood and is accepted as a black man by the local coloreds?

lmao, do you not realize that people can remember what you previously wrote?

[hobie]

You try buying what is essentially a mansion for $80,000. Yeah it's in an all-black hood...hence the price. So what?

[Mr. Bumble]

Your answer to affordable housing?

[ThePublius]

What hood is it anyway? Can you walk around at night, or even day, without fear of attack? I would take John Derbyshire's white version of "the talk" to heart.

[hobie]

I got news for all you hillbillies, black people are just like white people. You act kind and polite, and they reciprocate

[Ska]

I would think the police are the bigger problem. I've been on the receiving end of "What are you doing in this neighborhood?" from cops more than once.

20 years later the hipsters took over. The cops and I both should have put some money into property there.

[ThePublius]

"black people are just like white people"

Ha, ha, that's rich. No, they're not! Look at the crime stats. Representing just 13% of the population, they are responsible for 27% of the crime.

[Sarcastr0]

Congrats, you may be the biggest racist on here.

Look up what confounding variables are.

[ThePublius]

Did I say something untrue? It's not at all racist to discuss race, or race in crime statistics; unless, of course, you're a progressive criticizing a conservative. (As you so often do, playing the race card.) Is the US BLS racist? The FBI? What makes me racist in your view???

BTW: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-43

[Sarcastr0]

You abuse statistics to say black people are different than white people.

Yeah, you're a damned liar. In service of out-and-out racism.

Yet again, learn about confounding variables. There's a lot of literature on the Internet about black crime and it's causes. It doesn't have a lot to do with any inherent difference in their race.

You gonna bring up how blacks in Africa didn't build cities next?

Lotsa commenters showing their ass today.

[ThePublius]

Sarcastr0, I didn't say it's because of their skin color, it's about a demographic, and in my opinion, a matter of culture, not "confounding variables." "Confounding variables" is progressive rationalization and excuse.

So far you've called me a racist and damned liar for merely quoting some true statistics, just because you don't like the truth spoken. Got anything else?

[Sarcastr0]

What the fuck does "it's about a demographic" mean?

Demographics don't cause shit; they're just taxonomy.

[Frank Drackman]

Wrong Wrong Wrong,
More like 75% of all violent crime

[ThePublius]

More stats:

Percentage of black single family households: 63%
Percentage of white single family households: 24%

And you can go on. Black people are not just like white people.

[Sarcastr0]

If you control for socioeconomic class, and urban/rural, you will find by and large black people are actually a lot like white people.

Or you could talk to a black person. Pretty normal people, actually.

[hobie]

Give ThePublius a break. He is handicapped by not having lived a black life. Here in black Cleveland we have a lot of black owned funeral homes because no one would accept black bodies. Then off to the cemetery where, next to expansive white cemetery is the tiny, packed plots for Jews and for blacks. Redlining has kept them poor with their big beautiful homes so worthless that even I bought one.

But the Voting Rights act undid all that in an instant so they have no excuse.

Look at Russia. All white. EVERYONE there commits crime to get by. Centuries of repression will do that

[Noscitur a sociis]

Aaaaaaaand there it is.

[Bob from Ohio]

"do you not realize that people can remember what you previously wrote?"

He also talked in the past about hiring immigrants for his factory.

[Brett Bellmore]

You should maybe talk to your HR department, you've got some problems on the hiring end of things.

[ThePublius]

I'm going to call bullshit on that, hobie. A "major engineering firm" that doesn't insist on and check an I-9 for employees? Yea, right.

By the way, your slurs of Americans and Mexicans is reprehensible, and wrong, as generalizations.

[hobie]

I'm unaware of anyone in the energy sector that doesn't operate illegally. Plus there's nothing like a shady temp agency that looks the other way and produces quality illegals. God luv 'em. How do you think Drackman got employed?

[Frank Drackman]

I’m self employed thank you very little, my Boss is both the biggest Asshole and the greatest guy I know, and while my Mom was from East Germany, she was here legally when she kicked me out on July 4, 1962, yes I was “born on the 4th of July” in Atlanta GA, home of Coca Cola, Waffle House, and Chick Fil-A, can’t get any more Amurican than that

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, man, this Trump Presidency is going to be so inadvertently revealing it's not funny.

It's like watching in real time one of those social experiments where people are encouraged by "authority figures" to deliver electric shocks to other people.

[DaveM]

I am speaking from personal experience. I had considered emigrating to another country myself at one point in my life. Anyone living here without permission who refuses to meet these baseline standards poses a danger to us. The risk is unacceptable.

[hobie]

Living in Portugal during a pandemic was a dream. Everyone did what they were told by shopkeepers. No one threw tantrums on airplanes. It's amazing when a country, as a whole, looks out for their fellow man

[Frank Drackman]

So go back, or does INTERPOL still have an APB on you? Explains living in the “Hood” in Ohio

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Going to stock up on tiki torches, are you?

[hobie]

Living in Portugal for 12 years I had no TV and I was fine with that. Back in the states I've been bombarded with clips of all the shows I missed. Based on what I saw, I decided to watch one show: Suits. I must say, Harvey Specter is a badass

[Martinned2]

Time to go out and buy some manilla folders!

[Dan Schiavetta]

It might be great TV, but . . . I recently presented a client of mine for deposition. Beforehand she asked if it's really like you see on "Suits". No, attorneys don't walk out in a huff five minutes in. No, they don't bluster at each other and threaten fistfights across the table. Real-life lawyering would make really boring TV.

[hobie]

Yeah, it's pure soap opera. But I love it

[David Nieporent]

I loved Suits, and I don't mind the liberties a show like that takes with legal procedure. (I do mind it in shows like Law & Order, which are supposed to be realistic-ish. (To be clear, I understand the nature of television, so trivial things like compressing the timeline, I'm fine with.)) On a show like Suits, I demand internal consistency, but not legal accuracy.

But two things that always bothered me:
1) The defending attorney declaring "This deposition is over" and walking out.
2) Lawyers arguing that they had a "noncompete" and so a lawyer can't represent a particular client.

[Bob from Ohio]

"two things that always bothered m"

Not the fact that the one lawyer risked his firm and career and income and maybe his freedom by letting the main character pretend to be a lawyer?

[Sarcastr0]

"On a show like Suits, I demand internal consistency, but not legal accuracy."

I don't even demand consistency. It's a character/vibes-based show.

That's how you can earn settlements by boxing matches with opposing counsel, or ex parte blackmail conversations with the presiding judge.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Law & Order taught me that criminal lawyers can say or ask any outrageous or out of order thing they want, as long as they just say "withdrawn" when the other side objects.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I mean, that one definitely does happen (although it wouldn’t shock me if they got it from these shows!).

[Sarcastr0]

When I first took civil trial practice, I thought I'd made a banger of a closing argument.

Then the judge who was our adjunct said 'great rhetoric. Now let me count the ethical violations....'

[Life of Brian]

No, they don't bluster at each other and threaten fistfights across the table.

Except when they do....

[Swede425]

LOL!
Type II Diabetes will get Milley before justice does.
Certainly sooner.

[SRG2]

So Trump said he was going after his enemies, without saying what crimes specifically they'd committed, his supporters here happily cheered and themselves often enough wanted him to go after them, again, without specifying what crimes they were supposed to have committed, and now that Biden has acted to protect them against promised and cheered-on harassment, you want to know what crimes the pardons implied are being covered.

It is to laugh.

[Michael P]

RedheadedPharoh already addressed your claims above. Why don't you answer any of those comments? Just search for "justice system" to find them -- I see three.

[SRG2]

Addressing claims through the use of a rhetorical device is not truly addressing them.

[Michael P]

He already took the legs out from underneath your argument. Pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.

[SRG2]

Ah, the Westmoreland approach.

[hobie]

What crimes are you talking about, Hillary? Now that the election is over, we said nosucha thing

[Swede425]

Funny, you don't seem to be laughing.
Now there is nothing preventing any president from having cronies, and/or family members, commit crimes on his behalf and simply pardoning them.
Thanks, Biden!

[SRG2]

Well, if Trump hadn't made it clear that this is what he'd do, Biden (or his people) wouldn't have thought it necessary to issue pre-emptive pardons. Look at it as a form of self-defence.

[Swede425]

"Guys, this is Trumps fault!"
Poor Biden, a puppet to the end.
Forced by others to do things he just doesn't want to do.
LOL!
When Trump does the same thing, just remember: It was Biden's fault.
See how that works?

[SRG2]

When Trump does the same thing

If the next Democratic candidate for president threatens loudly and publicly to go after Republican politicians and advisers in the way that Trump did, I would find Trump's pre-emptive pardons legitimate.

See how that works?

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2....Pardon or not, it won't change anything. POTUS Trump will implement his agenda with a Team R congress. They have ~730 calendar days, or ~300 legislative days to get it enacted.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Starting with those H1B visas...

[F.D. Wolf]

This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.

Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79, 94 (1915) (emphasis added)

Anyone who accepts Biden's pardon is confessing the guilt Biden has imputed to them. Should they accept, you can fairly and accurately call them criminals.

[hobie]

Cue all the Trump pardons for cronies in three...two...one...

[F.D. Wolf]

I'm impressed, and honestly a little surprised, that you can count to three - and backwards at that! - but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. (And, to be fair, maybe you don't know either). Are you referring to past Trump pardons or future pardons? And wouldn't those, if you're suggesting a parallel, come four years from now, rather than in 3..2..1..?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Un-convicted" felons?

[SRG2]

Anyone who accepts Biden's pardon is confessing the guilt Biden has imputed to them. Should they accept, you can fairly and accurately call them criminals.

Nope. There may be a presumption of guilt when the pardon specifies the crimes of which the accused has been convicted, but it is not an irrebuttable presumption, as you well know but prefer not to mention.

[F.D. Wolf]

What are we to make of pardons when the crime is not mentioned? I don't know, as these may be the only ones outside the Nixon pardon. Which is why I would challenge one in court, just to get some clarification on all these constitutional norms Biden has been busily restoring.

[SRG2]

You might, I suppose, win with judges Cannon or Kacsmaryk but I don't see any other judges supporting this.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A later opinion had a different view.

Pardons are given for various reasons, including as a way to deal with injustice that could not be addressed in another fashion.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Call it what you want. The fact is, as Biden put it, "Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety and financial security of targeted individuals and their families.”

[F.D. Wolf]

He should certainly know, leading the first administration to run a slew of "baseless and politically motivated investigations."

The sheer volume and patent absurdity of the Biden administration lawfare probably backfired ultimately, as most people saw it for what it was.

As I noted previously, assuming evidence of criminality, I would test one of these purported pardons in court, for clarity and guidance for future presidents, if nothing else. Another upshot is that, being pardoned, none of these individuals can plead the Fifth, which will aid in investigation of the origins of the lawfare campaign. I am more interested in finding the truth than in punishing any of these people. Most Americans already know what type of people they are anyway, and history can enter its verdict accordingly.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Examples needed.

[ThePublius]

Oh, you mean like the several prosecutions of Trump?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, you dumb fuck, that is not what he meant at all.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Do you think Biden knew that when they went after Flynn?

[David Nieporent]

Who do you think was president when Flynn was prosecuted?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Who do you think was investigating Flynn before President Trump took office?

Any ideas?

[Zarniwoop]

Sigh, no. The Burdick dicta is overplayed and misunderstood.

As I’ve said before, this is a non-sensical over generalization that is not reflective of to the way the modern S.Ct. would write an opinion.

Trivial example: a person in prison is pardoned of rape/murder on the basis of DNA-based actual innocence. They walk out of prison, a free person (yes, this happens).

No remotely sane person thinks they just admitted guilt by accepting the pardon.

[ThePublius]

I don't think that's a realistic example. A person exonerated via DNA evidence would have the conviction overturned; no pardon necessary. Pardons are for guilty parties, aren't they?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Supreme Court has repeatedly noted that executive clemency is a check against wrongful convictions where the evidence is not strong enough to result in overturning guilt using the other legal avenues in place.

[ThePublius]

Yea, what does that have to do with what I said, or this example?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"I don't think that's a realistic example. A person exonerated via DNA evidence would have the conviction overturned; no pardon necessary. Pardons are for guilty parties, aren't they?"

Executive clemency has been used repeatedly when the existing legal avenues did not overturn convictions because exonerating evidence came too late, wasn't crystal clear enough to meet the very high standard of proof required etc.

Herrera v. Collins noted: "Executive clemency has provided the "fail safe" in our criminal justice system. K. Moore, Pardons: Justice, Mercy, and the Public Interest 131 (1989). It is an unalterable fact that our judicial system, like the human beings who administer it, is fallible. But history is replete with examples of wrongfully convicted persons who have been pardoned in the wake of after-discovered evidence establishing their innocence."

[David Nieporent]

Pardons are for guilty parties, aren't they?

No. I mean, they can be. But they need not be. That's the whole point of this discussion.

[Michael Ejercito]

They can be for literally anyone.

A pardoned individual can of course still be liable for civil damages to the victims of whatever criminal acts they were pardoned for.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, I agree with that.

[Michael Ejercito]

Not if they had already exhausted their appeals.

In any event, a pardon is a check on the federal judiciary's most dangerous power against us.

It is like how the Bill of Rights is a check against Congress and the President (and in 1868, against the states).

[Zarniwoop]

I don't think that's a realistic example. A person exonerated via DNA evidence would have the conviction overturned; no pardon necessary. Pardons are for guilty parties, aren't they?

Your trust in the perfection of the legal system is so adorable. But unfortunately wrong, as the googs will tell you.

https://innocenceproject.org/cases/david-vasquez/

"The circumstantial evidence strongly suggested that Mr. Spencer also was responsible for Ms. Hamm’s murder. However, there was not enough evidence to test. A pardon was Mr. Vasquez’s only option.

On Jan. 4, 1989, Virginia Governor Gerald L. Baliles granted that pardon. Mr. Vasquez was freed the same day. The exoneration is considered the first in U.S. history to be caused by DNA testing.

In 1990, the Virginia General Assembly approved legislation awarding Mr. Vasquez $117,000."

[Zarniwoop]

Do you think Mr. Bloodsworth "confessed guilt" by accepting a pardon in 1993, after DNA evidence excluded him as the perptrator?

In the early 1990s, Mr. Bloodsworth learned about DNA testing and the opportunities it could provide to prove his innocence. The prosecution finally agreed to DNA testing for Mr. Bloodsworth’s case in 1992. The victim’s shorts and underwear, a stick found at the scene, and an autopsy slide were compared against DNA from the victim and Mr. Bloodsworth. The DNA lab determined that testing on the panties excluded Mr. Bloodsworth and replicate testing performed by the FBI yielded the same results.

Mr. Bloodsworth was released from prison in June 1993 and pardoned in December 1993. He had spent almost nine years in prison, two of those years facing execution.

https://innocenceproject.org/cases/kirk-bloodsworth/

100+ year old S.Ct. dicta that considered only one scenario can not plausibly be so broad that accepting a pardon based on DNA-demonstrated innocence necessarily means and requires that the defendant admits guilt in the process.

This is exactly why overinterpreting the Burdick dicta is so foolish: it can be applied to scenarios the 1915 S.Ct. didn't even dream of. That's why the whole label "dicta" exists! Please ... get real here.

[Michael Ejercito]

This is why I dissented against Jeff Jacoby.

https://jeffjacoby.com/28337/abolish-the-presidential-pardon-power

But why go through the ordeal of amending the Constitution only to tinker around the edges of the pardon power? Better to abolish it outright. As Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, has observed, presidential clemency made more sense two centuries ago than it does now, when "federal jurisprudence has yielded a revolution in the due-process rights of criminal defendants and in Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishments." A gross miscarriage of justice is far less likely in today's legal system, when every defendant is guaranteed a lawyer and convictions are routinely challenged on appeal. And when a rectification is needed, McCarthy wrote in 2021, federal courts are much more likely than a president to proceed fairly.

Yes, the judciary is more trustworthy than Congress or the Presidency.

But we still need a check against them.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"The dream of establishing in the new world a republic whose ideals would be classical, grounded in civic virtue, trusting in the integrity of the public and in the capacity of men of good will and decency, was not mere rhetoric. Republicanism was a word loaded with meaning, and the care of the survival of the republic of virtue, the fear that it would succumb to the corruption to which all acknowledged it was vulnerable, was real."

Linda K. Kerber, Federalists in Dissent

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Congrats to the Commanders.

(And all the other teams though there was a sense of the expected in most of the other games except perhaps the last.)

The losers in various respects show how not to play in a big moment with multiple games coming down to sloppiness. I simplified somewhat, to be sure, and the weather conditions helped.

[santamonica811]

I've been a 'Skins (oops...I mean, Commanders) fan for 4+ decades. Amazing season. I just hope their shitty kicking game doesn't cost them, this season. Win or lose against Philly; it's been a fantastic thing to watch. And the fact that the Cowboys sucked this year is just the cherry on top.

[David Nieporent]

And the fact that the Cowboys sucked this year is just the cherry on top.

You misspelled "Giants," but otherwise, I co-sign your statement.

[hobie]

Presidents always look haggard after four years. I remember Carter looked especially so in 1980. Over the past year Trump has started to look appreciably depleted. Also getting thinner. I guess his raping days are behind him, poor bastard

[Mr. Bumble]

Aren't you one of the people who claimed he was obese? Now he's lost wait and it's a bad sign?
Aside from normal aging he doesn't look the worse for wear.

[ThePublius]

I still don't get preemptive pardons for unspecified crimes. Isn't that just immunity? And why is it even legal? I mean, is Milley, for example, now immune from prosecution or conviction of ANY federal crime? How can that be?

Reading the White House statement, I doubt those pardons would hold up to legal scrutiny. They certainly don't hold up to any ordinary layman's logical scrutiny. I mean, Biden just says he's pardoning them; he never says for what, and for what timeframe. I think it's totally wrong, and quite arrogant.

[hobie]

Manafort, Flynn, Bannon, Kushner. And none have committed further crimes since their pardons....oh...wait a minute...

[ThePublius]

Whataboutism.

[F.D. Wolf]

Do you not understand the word "unspecified"? All those people were pardoned for "specific" crimes for which they were charged.

What crimes did the January 6th committee members commit? Perhaps Biden is privy to information we are not.

[RedheadedPharoh]

He understands it, but they'll continue pretend it's the same because they cognitively are unable to violate dogma.

It's not in their genes.

[Michael Ejercito]

A pirate was pardoned by President James Madison for unspecified crimes.

[Bob from Ohio]

Jean Lafitte!

[Moderation4ever]

I have repeatedly suggested that pardons should only come after a person's case has been adjudicated. The public has a right to know what charges are made and what evidence supports the charge. I also think that there are no real cases to be brought against these people and it would backfire to attempt a charge.

[ThePublius]

Well, I disagree. Fifrst, if there were no real cases to be brought, why the pardons? And, in the case of Milley, it's pretty clear even from his own admission that he broke the law in telling the CCP he'd tell them if Trump was planning anything. That's a pretty serious crime.

[ducksalad]

So you're saying it's a crime to tell them you're going to tell them, even if you don't actually tell them what you told them you would tell them.

[Brett Bellmore]

That would be a great suggestion, were it not that being pardoned doesn't make your legal expenses vanish. But at the very least, there should be a requirement that the crime be identified.

As I keep saying, it's going to really suck if it's discovered that one of the beneficiaries of Biden's unspecific pardons was a serial killer who stuck to killing people in DC.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did he pardon the Jan. 6 pipe bomber?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Well he pardoned the Capitol police, so probably got the pipe bomber too.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, that would probably have required pardoning the FBI.

[CountmontyC]

Still has 37 minutes to do that.

[hobie]

"But at the very least, there should be a requirement that the crime be identified"

Should we hold you to that past and future?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, hold away. I don't think Nixon should have gotten that pardon, either.

[ducksalad]

I'd agree with you about unspecified crimes, except that for any given act (or even omission) there are a couple dozen things the DoJ could charge you with, many of them so obscure or ridiculous that even a good lawyer couldn't think of including it in the pardon, and some of which the DoJ itself hasn't dreamed up yet but will.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, look at the Fauci pardon. It didn't cite the law violated, but it certainly was not a general pardon, such as Biden's family got. If he were my hypothetical serial killer, he'd still be liable, he just can't be prosecuted for violating the law prohibiting gain of function research, for instance.

[Michael Ejercito]

President James Madison understood this when he pardoned that pirate who assisted the U.S. Navy in defending Louisiana.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Milly would be "immune" from prosecution for any federal crime in the past, not the future.

You could argue that a President should not be able to pardon anyone for uncharged federal crimes, as a policy matter. Is that your actual policy preference?

[David Nieporent]

I mean, is Milley, for example, now immune from prosecution or conviction of ANY federal crime?

Depends what his pardon actually says, but regardless of the wording it can of course only be for federal crimes committed before the date of the pardon, not any federal crime.

[Zarniwoop]

While Burdick is often misunderstood and overgeneralized by people, it does stand for the proposition that a person can affirmatively refuse a pardon.

Prediction: Liz Cheney will do so, effectively daring the Trump DOJ to come after her.

And that the Trump DOJ will do so with the same zeal and efficiency they did when trying to “Lock her up” - that is to say, none. Zero, zip, zilch, nada.

The rationale? Mismatch between revenge-pr0n fantasies posted here versus Trump’s motivations now that he’s president. Jan 6 denialism and Lawfare claims were great red meat for the GQP base, and he effectively sold the rubes that bill of goods and got elected. No one can deny he’s an effective salesman.

But now it’s in his personal interest to STFU about prosecuting Jan 6 investigators, and try to sweep it all under the rug of history - which is why he was so focused on getting Judge Loose Cannon to suppress Jack Smith’s Jan 6 report, despite it having nothing to do with the case before her. And trying Liz Cheney or anyone else absosmurfly will be the opposite of that, because prosecution attempts mean more investigations, development of evidence, and lots and lots of publicity for Ms. Cheney.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"he effectively sold the rubes that bill of goods and got elected"

I think earlier in this thread there was a survey where voters approved Trump's policies more than they approved Trump himself. The weird Trumpian antics probably lost him votes, just not enough votes for the Dems to win.

[RedheadedPharoh]

So you're argument, in essence, is that Trump knows, like you do, that Liz Cheney is perfectly innocent and was just "lathering up the rubes" to win the election and he wouldn't dare really prosecute her because all the evidence discovered and publicized would demonstrate he really was guilty and she really was innocent, vaulting her fame and name recognition.

No offense, but that's pretty stupid.

[David Nieporent]

Whether he "really was guilty" is an entirely unrelated question to whether she's innocent. (Of what?) Trump probably isn't smart enough to know that Liz Cheney is innocent, but he knows that there's no basis for going after her.

[F.D. Wolf]

That "GOP base" of rubes just keeps getting bigger and bigger, thanks in large part to sophisticates like you. The rubes see a president with dementia, and, unlike galaxy brains like yourself, can't accept that as normal or acceptable. The Democrats are going to have to reach out beyond Rachel Maddow viewers if they hope to win elections in the future.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, declaring a permanent MAGA majority has no echoes of previous failures.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I question if a person can refuse to accept a pardon.

Biddle v. Perovich noted that "The Solicitor General presented a very persuasive argument that in no case is such consent necessary to an unconditional pardon, and that it never had been adjudged necessary before Burdick v. United States."

Without completely deciding the history of the matter, the opinion noted that pardons are not acts of grace but parts of the constitutional scheme.

"When granted, it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed."

For instance, a blanket pardon of insurgents can be necessary for public peace in a time of public disorder.

"Just as the original punishment would be imposed without regard to the prisoner's consent and in the teeth of his will, whether he liked it or not, the public welfare, not his consent, determines what shall be done."

The argument is that "acceptance" will impute guilt. This is as noted unfounded in various respects. Regardless, even if there is some realistic inference of guilt, it does not override the unilateral power to pardon.

For instance, President Biden argues that "Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families."

Liz Cheney, e.g., does not have the authority to on her own affect the wellbeing of those people by refusing to accept the pardon.

[David Nieporent]

I question if a person can refuse to accept a pardon.

Biddle v. Perovich noted that "The Solicitor General presented a very persuasive argument that in no case is such consent necessary to an unconditional pardon, and that it never had been adjudged necessary before Burdick v. United States."

There's a question of how a pardon works procedurally, though. Is it a bar on prosecution, or a defense? If the latter, then a person can effectively refuse to accept it, by not asserting it if the government tries to prosecute him, post-pardon for the thing for which he was pardoned.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

If they do not assert it, the judge still has to accept a possible guilty sentence, and it is unclear how they have the power to do so in this context without limiting the presidential pardon power.

[David Nieporent]

The judge just has to assure himself that there's a sufficient factual basis for the conviction or guilty plea. The pardon doesn't erase the underlying facts.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The fact that there is a "sufficient factual basis for the conviction or guilty plea" doesn't erase that the president pardoned the person.

The president has Art. II power to make the "determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served" by a preemptive pardon. The judge cannot override that by accepting a guilty plea because a factual basis exists. If that happens, the judge is unconstitutionally interfering with the president's judgment.

The pardon is not just about the person pardoned. It can have wider public welfare purposes. A personal veto is problematic.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The different precedents seem to point in different directions, such that I suspect the Court can't have been right each time.

Whether a pardon needs to be accepted by the beneficiary or not, at least we should say that acceptance doesn't suggest guilt unless of course the President *requires* an admission of guilt as a condition of the pardon.

I'm not saying this from any love of Biden, or from the assumption that the people he pardoned are all innocent lambs. Rather, I reject the idea that pardons, which are ideally suited to protecting the innocent, are only available to benefit the guilty.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In fact, perhaps it would be a good idea to allow the President to impose pardons regardless of the beneficiary's consent, simply in order to destroy the "he must be guilty, he accepted it" talking point.

[David Nieporent]

And that the Trump DOJ will do so with the same zeal and efficiency they did when trying to “Lock her up” - that is to say, none. Zero, zip, zilch, nada.

There's this myth that Trump dropped it. But he didn't; he ordered his DOJ to look into prosecuting her. And they told him there wasn't anything there.

[Dan Schiavetta]

These right-wing myths are so easy to knock over. There's about two dozen of them just in the comments here today.

[F.D. Wolf]

Justice Department: Jan. 6 defendants who accept pardons will make ‘a confession of guilt’

The Justice Department sent a message Wednesday to Jan. 6 defendants: Accepting a pardon from Donald Trump is “a confession of guilt” for your crimes.

“[A] pardon at some unspecified date in the future ... would not unring the bell of conviction,” federal prosecutors argued in a Jan. 6 case before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols. “In fact, quite the opposite. The defendant would first have to accept the pardon, which necessitates a confession of guilt.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-department-jan-6-defendants-205743689.html

There you have it. The Biden Justice Department says acceptance of a pardon is a confession of guilt.

[RedheadedPharoh]

F.D. Wolf,

You have to understand the mindset of a Democrat. Of course guilty conservatives accepting pardons is a confession of guilt. And of course innocent liberals is accepting pardons isn't a confession of guilt.

You're not understanding their real, underlying principle that is motivating them. Conservatives are guilty no matter what, and Liberals are innocent no matter what.

Every other argument or statement made is just goal seeking that conclusion dressing up their reasoning with the appearance of propriety.

[Jerry B.]

"Of course guilty conservatives accepting pardons is a confession of guilt."

Or they know that the fix is in, and they can plead guilty to a minor charge, or plead innocent to a dozen major crimes and end up with 50 years in jail.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Thank you for the additional clarification, what I was trying to express, clumsily, that Democrats default position is a conservative is guilty.

Regardless of the facts.

[Sarcastr0]

I honestly don't know if "federal prosecutors argued" is any indication of administration policy.

[Bob from Ohio]

No other comment Mr. Norms?

Norms don't matte anymore, I guess.

[Sarcastr0]

This is the thread about whether you need to admit guilt to accept a pardon, Bob.

You take a wrong turn somewhere?

[Bob from Ohio]

No, just wondering where your comment is about how it is a terrible norms violation to issue all these preventive pardons of politicians and cops and family is.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump stating he's going to use the DoJ for revenge seems relevant.

But drop a separate conversation if you want to change the subject; this is abuse of threading.

[Bob from Ohio]

"abuse of threading"

Sorry, I didn't know you were in charge of the laws of threading.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not, but I'm also in charge of what I reply to, and in the interests of keeping a bit of chaos away, I won't reply to any more on this thread.

[Commenter_XY]

Bob, you can't move the goalposts, or change the topic, or whatever.

The family pardons merely punctuate what many have been saying for years. Biden was corrupt AF.

As for the others, subpoenas await.

[David Nieporent]

I do not think Biden should've pardoned his family. But in what way does a pardon show that Biden was corrupt?

[Commenter_XY]

David, please. You live in NJ. Biden pardoned the rest of the family because they all got money from the drug addlepated son Hunter hawking the Biden 'brand' to various scumbags around the world, paid for through a network of LLCs. Don't try to sell me the story that the Biden is as pure as the driven snow. Not after Archer's testimony.

That is fine. What is done, is done. However, the standard has been set. Expect future POTUS' to live down to it.

[David Nieporent]

Biden pardoned the rest of the family because they all got money from the drug addlepated son Hunter hawking the Biden 'brand' to various scumbags around the world, paid for through a network of LLCs.

(1) What crime do you think that is?
(2) Assuming some crime was committed by those people, how does that make Joe Biden corrupt?

Not after Archer's testimony.

Devon Archer, the first star witness for Comer, exonerated Biden.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I mean, if he knew they committed crimes and pardoned them anyway because they’re his family members, I think it would be fair to characterize that as “corrupt”.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

So, you have a news article with a quote from a judge that includes a confused summary of a case that talks about an "imputation" of guilt. We don't quite "have it."

President Biden's pardon statement noted: "The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense."

But those who talk about a "Weekend at Bernie's" presidency will "mistake" some things, to be sure.

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do amending the Constitution.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

President Biden (in office at time) supplied a statement that he believes the ERA was ratified, which the ABA and various legal and historian experts argue is the case.

(FWIW, I disagree with them.)

He did not purport to instruct the archivist, who has the authority to formally announce an amendment was ratified, to do so. A president does not have a formal role in the amendment process.

[David Nieporent]

The archivist, however, plays no more role in determining whether an amendment was ratified than the president does. As I noted the other day, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. I guarantee that the Court would not consider it a political question.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The archivist, however, plays no more role in determining whether an amendment was ratified than the president does."

1 U.S.C. 106b seems to say otherwise.

[David Nieporent]

1 USC § 106(b) gives the archivist certain duties once an amendment has been ratified. But the performance of those duties isn't what causes the amendment to be ratified. (Indeed, the text of the statute explicitly imposes those duties after a proposed amendment "has been adopted.")

[Bob from Ohio]

"has been adopted."

This means she has to determine if there are ratifications from a necessary number of states.

[David Nieporent]

That is not what the statute says.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and Records Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States."

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/united-states-code.html

The president does not have the ministerial duty to receive office notice. So, yes, the archivist has a (minimum) additional role.

The archivist relied on OLC's opinions. Yes, courts have a role & reference was made to a court of appeals ruling upholding the refusal to declare the ERA was ratified.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I think you may have just discovered that propaganda is not an exclusively MAGA tool...

Whatever it does say about the Administration's view on the meaning of a pardon (seemingly in contradiction with Biden's own press statement), it does not actually determine the meaning of a pardon. That is up to the courts.

[AtR]

Biden had a wonderful opportunity to eliminate all crime in the country! All he had to do was pardon everyone.

[Bob from Ohio]

He eliminated crime in his family.

[RedheadedPharoh]

So it turns out President Trump is going to sign his 200+ Executive Orders in front of a huge crowd of 1776 style patriots at the Capitol One Arena.

I hope the one he signs when I'm hooting and hollering my loudest is the one that mandates govies have to start working from the office. lmao get fucked you subhuman evil bastards!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Isn't the wholesale dropping of inhibitions wonderful to see?

Yes, we can now see clearly who you are. Do you?

[RedheadedPharoh]

What are you suggesting I should be ashamed of?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Where should I start?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Right here:

>Isn't the wholesale dropping of inhibitions wonderful to see?

>Yes, we can now see clearly who you are. Do you?

Thank in advance!

P.S. Happy Liberation Day

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You have already answered my question.

[Zarniwoop]

Personally I think frantically fapping away to revenge pr0n fantasies is weird, but I'm not gonna kink shame.

[Bob from Ohio]

"fapping away to revenge pr0n fantasies is weird,"

No such comment by you about not guilty's incessant posts about Trump prosecutions.

[Brett Bellmore]

There has been, conspicuously, still no release of the actual text of Biden's preemptive pardons of Fauci and company. His address on the topic fails to specify duration or scope.

I wonder if there's any chance they screwed up, and forgot to go through the formalities?

[Mr. Bumble]

Like the Japanese ambassador just prior to Pearl Harbor?

[Sarcastr0]

Conspicuously!

Good lord it takes so little for you to go off.

[RedheadedPharoh]

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

[Michael P]

None. He just wanted to distract from Biden giving his whole family 11-year pardons to match the one he gave to Fauci and presumably to all the other miscreants and leftist insurrectionists.

[Life of Brian]

The warrants have been loaded on the DOJ's website here (scroll to the bottom).

[Zarniwoop]

But will Brett now call them "conspicuously uploaded"?

[Life of Brian]

Well, since you went there I will say there are some columns conspicuously missing from that table that appear in every single one of the others (e.g., the actual pardoned offenses). Even Hunter's included some specific examples....

[JoeFromtheBronx]

James David Vance being sworn in by fellow "bro" Brett Kavanaugh seems quite appropriate.

[Ska]

Then they exchanged beautiful leather bound journals, and did shots of Fireball.

[hobie]

Hopefully Trump won't give a 'America is a nightmare' speech like last inauguration

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Maybe it will be the one about not having to vote again?

[Mr. Bumble]

Better a "nightmare speech" than the four year nightmare of Biden's presidency.

[Dan Schiavetta]

My last list of summaries posted during the Biden Administration. I have a feeling there will be a lot of new SCOTUS cases on next year's pass.

Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., 355 U.S. 373 (decided January 20, 1958): Robinson-Patman Act (prohibiting underselling to destroy competition by use of means unavailable to competition) does not provide private right of action; it’s not an “antitrust” statute as defined by the Clayton Act and therefore Clayton remedy of treble damages is not available (plaintiff restricted to basic Clayton Act claim)

Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (decided January 20, 1969): Akron, O. ordinance allowing housing discrimination based on race is not saved from Fourteenth Amendment attack by the fact that by its terms it wouldn’t take effect until the voters approve it (which they did)

Beal v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Corp., 312 U.S. 45 (decided January 20, 1941): civil lawsuit can’t stop criminal prosecutions (here, railroads facing prosecution under Nebraska’s Full Train Crew Law claimed it would have been financially ruinous to comply with it) (statute had been in force since 1929; from the opinion it appears that railroads were hiring dual-role black workers at lower wages than white)

Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. 108 (decided January 20, 2016): jury considering death penalty doesn’t have to be instructed that mitigating factors don’t have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt (then how they hell are they supposed to know that???)

Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255 (decided January 20, 1999): subcontractor barred by sovereign immunity from asserting lien as to proceeds that were never paid to it by general contractor and still held by Army

[John F. Carr]

As I understand it Hunter v. Erickson is akin to Romer v. Evans. The authority that is ordinarily superior to a municipal government – city voters in Hunter and the state in Romer – is not allowed to take away the authority to pass certain types of laws. The charter amendment in the first case required certain ordinances to be put to the voters before they became effective.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I will do a JB and note that on 1/20/75, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld was argued.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-1892

[Brett Bellmore]

And here it is, right under the wire:

Biden pardons himself and his family.

For all non-violent federal crimes after January 1st, 2014.

Hm, interesting choice of date. I wonder what they did that year?

[RedheadedPharoh]

What a piece of shit Biden is and always has been. Everything we've been saying about him and the Biden Crime Family is true.

Fuck him, and fuck you Democrats for supporting him and the disintegration of our norms and our democracy.

[Roger S]

The history books will say that Joe Biden pardoned six family members, for all crimes.

[ThePublius]

I don't think he pardoned himself. Read the declaration.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I guess you're right, just his family.

Not much point in pardoning himself, he probably won't be around long enough to need it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Got a little caught up in the moment, eh?

Anyway, Biden has immunity, thanks to Trump (and SCOTUS), so he doesn't need to pardon himself.

[tylertusta]

Immunity only applies for official acts. Biden would only have Presidential immunity from 2021-2025, but it would not extend to before then. He might have some sort of VP immunity from 2014-2017, but he would still be at legal risk as the courts will have to test any specific invocation of immunity he would make.

No, he didn't pardon himself probably because it's not clear that a President can do that, and because he isn't worried about standing trial because he's mentally unfit to stand trial anyways.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I was thinking more about Biden's alleged criminal liability as President, but you're right, the Trumptice Department could seek to prosecute him for actions taken when he was Vice President from 2009-2017.

[not guilty]

ObviouslyNotSpam, for what particular actions taken when Joe Biden was Vice President from 2009-2017 do you posit that he is now subject to criminal prosecution? What statutes arguably apply? When and where did each such culpable act occur?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, ObviouslyNotSpam.

[tylertusta]

Why do you write comments like this?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't always walk with ng, but his comment style regularly puts people to the question and some folks regularly disengage when that happens.
This names and shames.

[Mr. Bumble]

In a thread with hundreds of comments things get lost.
An improvement for the comments system might include a notification that there had been a response to your comment.

[tylertusta]

An improvement for the comments system might include a notification that there had been a response to your comment.

Or at least bump the comment up to the top so people can see it!

Asking people to scan multiple threads manually for replies, with some threads being multiple days old is just asinine.

Did ObviouslyNotSpam see the comment and decide not to reply? Did he not see it and Mr. Guilty is just screaming into the ether?

I for one personally dislike how Mr. Guilty feels entitled to castigate others for something they may not even see.

[not guilty]

"Why do you write comments like this?"

To call attention to another commenter's running away from a relevant question like a scalded dog.

My unspoken point above is that prosecutions for conduct occurring during Joe Biden's tenure as Vice-president would in all likelihood be barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a) or some other federal statute of limitations. I am unaware of any suggestion that Biden committed any federal capital crimes while Vice-president.

Sort of like asserting that the Marines, after all these years, are still looking for a few good men -- the point being that they haven't yet found them.

[tylertusta]

To call attention to another commenter's running away from a relevant question like a scalded dog.

You may have that impression of yourself, but you instead come across as a wanton troll with nothing better to do than F5 a page while you impatiently wait for another's comments. It's a pathetic look.

But if that's how you interpret it when someone doesn't reply in a timely fashion to you, then you're the one who is running away like a scalded dog. ONS made his reply three hours before your reply to me, and there's nothing from you towards him 14 hours later.

I think you doth protest too much.

ONS's reply: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/20/monday-open-thread-89/?comments=true#comment-10879059

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Did NG perchance miss the words "alleged" and "seek" in my comment, in addition to missing the entire point of my comment (not allegedly)? I really didn't think I would need to explain that the "Trumptice Department" under Trumpista A.G. Barbie is no doubt capable of "seeking" to prosecute Biden for all manner of crimes allegedly committed during his Vice Presidency. I glaringly did not say that doing so would be legal, moral or successful.

In fact, the only reason I haven't replied to NG's munificently misguided missile is because I haven't been back to this thread to see it.

His style is intentionally annoying. But so is mine, so I can hardly complain!

[Brett Bellmore]

Still sticking to that misinterpretation of the Supreme court's ruling, eh?

No, Biden only has immunity for his exercises of Presidential powers, per the Supreme court. Just like Trump.

Sure, you can't use things involving such exercise to establish some other crime, but Biden would certainly be liable for tax fraud during most of those years, because tax fraud isn't an exercise of Presidential power, and he wasn't President most of that time anyway. And you'd hardly have to call his cabinet as witnesses to try him for tax evasion in 2018.

[tylertusta]

He wasn't fit to stand trial before, so he's not worried about it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"just his family."

Poor Jill, no pardon. I guess she'll get the investigation and prosecution now.

She had intimate knowledge of Biden being non compos mentis and hid it. Gotta be some fraud angle there. Conspiracy to defraud the US under 18 U.S.C. § 371?

[not guilty]

ThePublius, do you expect anything Brett says to be accurate and reliable? I tend to apply a rebuttable presumption of falsehood.

Thank you for the link, though, Brett.

[tylertusta]

The year 2014 was chosen because that was when Biden's family were starting to fudge their tax returns due to their overseas "business."

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's probably it.

[Longtobefree]

Not restricted to non-violet crimes.
Not restricted to any dates.
Just a get out of jail free card with no limits.

[hobie]

"Throughout his campaign last year, Mr. Trump threatened to prosecute Democrats, election workers, law enforcement officials, intelligence officials, reporters, former members of his own staff and Republicans who do not support him, often without identifying any specific criminal activity."

I agree. Biden and Garland have been saying the exact same things publicly over and over, so it seems fair Trump should as well

[hobie]

"“As soon as you take a pardon, it looks like you are guilty of something,” former Representative Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois who served on the Jan. 6 committee along with Ms. Cheney, said on CNN this month.

“I am guilty of nothing besides bringing the truth to the American people and, in the process, embarrassing Donald Trump. Because for 187 minutes, he sat there and did absolutely nothing and showed how weak and scared he truly was,” he added, referring to the former president’s inaction during the attack on Jan. 6. “So no, I don’t want it.”"

[Zarniwoop]

This is probably the best concise summary of Burdick: "it makes you look guilty of something, so we'll let people refuse to accept it."

That doesn't mean we know what the "something" is, just that it looks bad. So a person can refuse on the basis that they look bad, as Kinzinger suggests.

Nixon accepting Ford's pardon is a good recent example: it looked bad, but it wasn't an admission that he committed all the factual elements of ... well, what crime, exactly? Did he admit to ordering a coverup? Or did he admit to actually ordering the plumbers to break into DNC HQ? How does a prosecutor take "Nixon accepted a blanket pardon" and turn it into factual proof that a particular Fed statute was violated on such-and-such a date? Hunter B. accepted a blanket pardon; does that mean he admitted ... being the Jan 5, 2021 pipe bomber? That's obviously ridonkulous.

And also why all the blathering about Burdick is mostly useless - from any party, from the right or the left. It's a rhetorical device, not a prosecutorial one, except for suggesting the right of refusal. But the 100+ year old dicta does not, and cannot, adequately define factual admissions.

See prior example about DNA exoneration --> pardon --> accepting pardon does not "admit guilt" to pardoned offense. Because DUH. And the same argument applies to the DOJ regardless of who is in power.

[Michael Ejercito]

This means that if a pardoned individual is sued for civil; damages by the victims of the alleged offense, the pardon is not evidence that the defendant committed the tortious act in question?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The plaintiff would have to explain why it would be evidence. Are we circling back to the Burdick dicta for that?

[Zarniwoop]

I mean, we'd have to get into a more specific hypo here.

Let's say the DNC tried to sue Nixon in civil court for the Watergate break-in to DNC HQ.

Taking the Burdick dicta as far as it can possibly go, let's assume that Nixon "confessed guilt" in some manner. So. What facts did Nixon allegedly admit to by accepting a the Ford pardon? And then, do those facts make the DNC's lawsuit more likely to succeed?

Again, Nixon accepting the Ford pardon "generally looked like he might have been guilty of something". But what, exactly? Ordering the break-in itself (i.e., some tort against the DNC)? Or just orchestrating a coverup (i.e., some flavor of obstruction of justice)?

The fact that Nixon couldn't be prosecuted hardly means the DNC's lawsuit is a guaranteed winner.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Vice President Vance.

Former Vice President Harris.

It's in the books.

[RedheadedPharoh]

President Trump '47

Former President Biden.

It's in the books.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Mrs. Vindman is on twitter crying about not getting a pardon.

Someone has to take the fall you idiot and it isn't going to be the leaders.

lmao get fucked you traitor.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Isn't Noon a bit early to be on the sauce?

[Longtobefree]

It's five-o-clock somewhere

[Michael P]

Big Brother knows what is best for you to know.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/20/keir-starmer-police-covered-up-southport-terror-farage/

[Sarcastr0]

Long as we're just quoting politicians for truth, here's one who isn't an established liar:

Starmer defended his record as chief prosecutor, saying he had reopened closed cases and “changed the whole prosecution approach” to child sexual exploitation.

He also condemned language used by Musk about Jess Phillips, a government minister responsible for combating violence against women and girls. Musk called Phillips a “rape genocide apologist” and said she deserved to be in prison.

“When the poison of the far-right leads to serious threats to Jess Phillips and others, then in my book, a line has been crossed,” Starmer said. “I enjoy the cut and thrust of politics, the robust debate that we must have, but that’s got to be based on facts and truth, not on lies.”

Musk has also called for the release of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, a far-right activist who goes by the name Tommy Robinson and is serving a prison sentence for contempt of court.

Starmer said people “cheerleading Tommy Robinson … are trying to get some vicarious thrill from street violence that people like Tommy Robinson promote.”
https://apnews.com/article/keir-starmer-elon-musk-far-right-84d1813442f8f155a59b7349fac47db7

[Michael P]

It's funny that you claim Two-Tier Kier is not a liar, and close by quoting him lying about people he sees as his enemies. And not at all surprising that you overlooked that.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe he is a liar - I certainly do not know.

But he has a better track record than Farage, given how Brexit went.

[ThePublius]

"Starmer and police 'covered up' Southport terror links.

That's kinda like lying, don't you think?

https://x.com/stillgray/status/1881365888815001615/photo/1

[Sarcastr0]

Of course you read that shitlord.

He doesn't like to the story, just the headline. Which has 'covered up' in quotes for some reason.

Do you have some religious objection to double checking the stories fed to you by partisan twitter accounts?

That's how you end up defending Haitian pet eaters. Same source, I believe - this Malaysian guy who isn't a huge truth fan.

You still haven't admitted you were wrong about that, have you?

But then racists gotta get the sources for their shit beliefs somewhere.

IMC is just a shameless idiot:
https://x.com/MattBinder/status/1302237751761416196?

[ThePublius]

It's from a Telegraph story:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/20/keir-starmer-police-covered-up-southport-terror-farage/

[Sarcastr0]

It's Farage bloviation with no actual facts established.

And the screenshot from the twitter post clipped out the subhead that indicates that.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Two Scoops
Two Terms
Two Genders

It's official US policy now. lmao

P.S. I can't wait to visit the Gulf of America!

[LawTalkingGuy]

No one else is going to call it that. He might as well rename the Pacific Ocean the Trump ocean. It’ll have the same effect.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Every Patriot that respects the government's institutions and norms will.

So that excludes people like you.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The world doesn’t have to pay attention to that. And they won’t. And what does respecting government institutions and norms have to do with trying to rename an international body of water that’s has the same name for centuries? There’s nothing normal or institutional about the act that is worthy of respect.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump's very own "nine-dash line"...

[Dan Schiavetta]

LTG

Don't feed the troll.

[Frank Drackman]

Sure they, just like the Arabs call the Persian Gulf the Arabian Gulf and the Iranians call the Arabian Gulf the Persian Gulf

[Longtobefree]

Take a very warm coat if you go now - - - - - - - -

[Voize of Reazon]

Let's see if we get the tsunami of executive orders we were promised today.
The one I am most interested in is the one that he claims will end birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. Incoming White House officials said

Trump will sign an order clarifying language in the 14th Amendment and stating that the federal government "will not recognize automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens born in the United States."

Ordering executive branch officials to ignore the Constitution on his first day!

[LawTalkingGuy]

That’s going to be enjoined super quickly.* This could also be up at SCOTUS very quickly, and the plaintiffs will have every incentive to move it along 1) before citizens get deported 2) before an even worse justice (like Ho) potentially replaces Alito or Thomas.

*yes I know the official(s) responsible will be enjoined, but sometimes the appropriate remedies lingo is clumsy.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m sure it’ll be okay. There’s definitely no historical example of some great atrocity happening that started with revoking the citizenship of millions and the legal system going along with it. Lemme know if someone thinks of one!

[ThePublius]

Many people believe that birthright citizenship for children born here to parents who were present here illegally is wrong. Like ill-gotten gains.

Interpretation of the 14th is not clearly one one side or the other, and is subject to interpretation, and, ultimately, SCOTUS opinion.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Conservatives: all life is sacred from conception!

Also conservatives: those babies have ill gotten gains and we should use state violence to remove them from the only home they’ve ever known.

[ThePublius]

No contradiction there.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah there is. You’re asserting that human life is born innocent and warrants protection but also is born guilty and can be subject to state violence. Inherently contradictory!

[M L]

Going back to your home country isn't a punishment. It just is what it is.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If you’re born in America that’s your “home country.”

Also being forced at gunpoint into a van isn’t punishment! It is what it is!

[M L]

Not really, if you're a child then you're just part of a unit with your parents. Do you want the kids to be separated from the parents or something? Why would you want that?

Why force anyone into a van? Just give them a free greyhound ticket. We'll pay the 65 dollars. Even give them a care package for the road.

That's if they need it, I guess. The folks doing ritzy "birth tourism" and flying here to check in at posh "maternity hotels" presumably already have their return flight booked. The only change here is just not issuing them a senseless free citizenship ticket. Even a brain damaged leftist like yourself should be able to understand this common sense.

[hobie]

Them kids will get used to it. Most kids in Gaza no longer have a home and they'll be fine. Some well-heeled ravers across the fence swore they saw some playing nintendo the other day

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's been settled law for well over a century. You are an ignorant dipshit and your 'many people' claim is the same idiocy Trump employs when he's spewing bullshit.

https://youtu.be/knH3v5aEe_g?si=yxepDtFOyhL3y9GL

[Voize of Reazon]

That many people believe something makes it popular, not correct.

[M L]

True. If you could make the law whatever you wanted, what would it be? What would make sense to you?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/03/05/the-shadowy-world-of-birth-tourism-at-californias-luxury-maternity-hotels/

[Sarcastr0]

2015 story. I guess pickings are slim, eh?

[Sarcastr0]

Interpretation of the 14th is not clearly one one side or the other, and is subject to interpretation, and, ultimately, SCOTUS opinion.

It is clear in the text, and has a SCOUS opinion already.

I see others have noted youtried for a 'many people are saying' dodge. Never a sign you have a lot of faith in your argument.

[hobie]

So long, Baron.

[ThePublius]

His father was a citizen and his mother was here legally. Get it?

[LawTalkingGuy]

We sure about those things? Could warrant an investigation into paternity and legal status of mom.

Cause that’s what you’re asking for if you mess with birthright citizenship!

[Commenter_XY]

The POTUS and family already had DNA testing. 😉

The USSS needs DNA samples, just in case.

[ThePublius]

Yes, I'm sure about those things. Trump was born here, and is a legal citizen. Melania was here legally when she gave birth to Baron. What's the mystery?

[LawTalkingGuy]

The mystery is you not grasping how bad this is going to make life for the citizens who you think are here legally too. Actually that’s not a mystery, not realizing the implications of your preferred policy positions is pretty standard stuff.

[Swede425]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
The whole Biden crime family gets a pardon on his way out the door.
What an absolute piece of shit Joe Biden is.
And always was.

[Commenter_XY]

He was corrupt AF.

[hobie]

Pardoning millionaire family members and cronies churns my stomach af. I'm with you on this one XY

[Commenter_XY]

Despite all of this, I believe the pardon power of the POTUS is absolute, and should not be changed.

We will have other POTUS' not named Trump or Biden. They might need that tool, one day.

[Brett Bellmore]

The text of the pardons earlier in the day have started to surface.

Fauci's pardon is from January 1st, 2014, (This is the year the ban on gain of function research was enacted.) and is specifically limited to topics related to his government service. Just a "grade B" pardon, not the "good for all rides" one Biden's relatives got.

[Michael P]

Sure, but it's still "any offenses against the United States he may have committed or taken part in during" that 11-year span that were "arising from or in any way relating to his service".

Perjury, bribery, honest services fraud, conspiracy, malfeasance in office, misprision of felony, and more -- all wiped clean!

[hobie]

I wonder what the terms were for Bannon's or Roger Stone's. I'm not sure Bannon's latest indictment for that charity scam is covered under his pardon

[Martinned2]

I guess we'll never know...

[Zarniwoop]

Bannon is being charged by NY State for charity fraud, which a Federal pardon can't address:

Steve Bannon’s trial on charges of duping conservatives into donating for a “border wall” project has been pushed back to February [2025].

Bannon, 70, had been set to stand trial beginning Dec. 9, but Manhattan Supreme Court Justice April Newbauer moved the date to Feb. 25 in a hearing Monday morning.

The case against Bannon began in late 2020, when federal investigators accused him and three associates of fraud and money laundering. Bannon and his partners set up a charity called We Build The Wall, Inc. and encouraged conservatives and Donald Trump supporters to donate and help complete Trump’s promise of a border wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The group raised more than $25 million with a promise that “all the money” would go to a border wall, investigators said. But a lot of the money instead landed in the pockets of Bannon and his co-conspirators, according to authorities.

https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/11/18/steve-bannon-new-york-trial-build-wall-scam/

Keep slurping, Trumpists!

[Sarcastr0]

The text of the pardons earlier in the day have started to surface.

Well, then I guess your conspiracy above is yet again exploded as bullshit, eh?

You gonna learn anything about jumping to speculation?

[Joe_dallas]

Jan 1 2014 was probably selected as the 10 year statute of limitations for most criminal offenses.

Along with the pardon of others in the Biden family, one has to wonder what crimes needed be pardoned.

gain of function
10% for the big guy
What else

[David Nieporent]

There is a five year statute of limitations for almost all federal criminal offenses.

Also, "10% for the big guy" was not a thing and would also not have been a crime if it were a thing.

[Armchair]

"...and would also not have been a crime if it were a thing"

That depends. If there WAS a "10% for the big guy", some people might consider that "income." And if that income was hidden or misreported, some others might can that tax evasion or tax fraud.

[David Nieporent]

There was no "10% for the big guy." Even if it means what Biden's detractors claim, it was related to a deal that never happened.

[Armchair]

Back it up.

You said "would also not have been a crime if it were a thing." Your words.

Assume there WAS "10% for the big guy" on a deal that occurred. Would there potentially be a crime there?

[David Nieporent]

"Potentially be a crime?" No, except in the stupidest literal interpretation of that phrase. Potentially, on Joe Biden's way to a lawyer's office to sign some paperwork relating to the deal, he could have run over a pedestrian and driven away. Hit-and-run is a crime, and that could potentially happen, so potentially there's a crime! Joe Biden could have planned to take the money and send it to ISIS. Providing material support to terrorists is a crime, and that could potentially happen, so potentially there's a crime! And yes, Joe Biden could have planned to hide income from the deal and not pay taxes on it. Tax evasion is a crime, and that could potentially happen, so potentially there's a crime.

But a private citizen (which Joe Biden was at the time) getting 10% of the profits from an investment in a private business deal is not a crime. Nothing about that is illegal.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 21 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
There was no "10% for the big guy."

A response from the same guy that
Denied Biden's mental incapacity
denied the significant decline in student performance during the school shut downs
Denied the rapid decline in vax effectiveness after 6 months (denied the robustness of the israeli study)

yep partisan destroys your credibility

[Life of Brian]

There is a five year statute of limitations for almost all federal criminal offenses.

Anton Chekhov would gently suggest that, whatever "almost all" might actually leave on the table, they felt like they needed to cover it.

(And I have to say that looking at the list of offenses with 8-10 year SOLs here doesn't really engender warm and fuzzy feelings about what they might have felt like they needed to cover.)

[Michael P]

January 2014 was 11 years ago. January 2015 would make sense for a ten-year statute of limitations. Either there was a different reason for the start date, or this was yet another example of incompetence.

[not guilty]

"Jan 1 2014 was probably selected as the 10 year statute of limitations for most criminal offenses."

Joe_Dallas, is that as true as everything else you have said?

The period of limitations for most federal crimes -- the only offenses to which a presidential pardon can apply -- is five years, per 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a).

[Joe_dallas]

Most - but not all - thus the 10 years

[not guilty]

Joe, you affirmatively stated upthread that "the 10 year statute of limitations [applies] for most criminal offenses." That is a falsehood. Don't crawfish away from it when you are called out.

[Joe_dallas]

Issuing blanket mass pardons for unknown crimes for family members isnt very kosher - but you want to argue a trivial issue as to whether its a 5 year vs 10 statute.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Don't worry he'll argue next that Joe's actions are de facto proof of all their innocence.

And he'll dress it all lawyerly with $10 words sprinkled in and a citation or two, but it will be goal seeking partisan garbage like all his analyses.

He's a confessed irredeemable racist and hyper-partisan.

[Joe_dallas]

But But But - 10% for the big guy can be ignored!

Why the need for blanket mass pardons ?

[Sarcastr0]

ObviouslyNotSpam 5 hours ago
No, let's not. Please explain how that phrase relates to a specific crime, and the evidence in support of it.

David Nieporent 3 hours ago
Not only that, but the MAGA loons kept citing that as evidence of Joe Biden's corruption. But Joe Biden wasn't pardoned!

Keep fucking that chicken, Joe.

[not guilty]

I have asserted many times on these comment threads that I regard Hunter Biden as a scoundrel. I have no opinion as to other Biden relatives.

"He's a confessed irredeemable racist and hyper-partisan."

That, Redhead, is a flat out lie. I have said time and again that I am a proudly partisan Democrat. You have Prick Nixon to thank for that. When I began voting in 1974, I decided that no political party that would nominate a sleazebucket like him at five separate national conventions was undeserving of my vote. I have seen nothing since that has persuaded me otherwise, although I have once voted for a Republican judicial candidate in Nashville. (She was nominated by a Republican governor to fill a vacancy and had done a good job in office, and I was unimpressed with the Democratic nominee.)

I have never "confessed" being either racist or irredeemable. I have no need of redemption, and I am a strong supporter of racial equality -- thus my contempt for quislings in the struggle therefor.

[not guilty]

Correction: I meant to say: "You have Prick Nixon to thank for that. When I began voting in 1974, I decided that no political party that would nominate a sleazebucket like him at five separate national conventions was deserving of my vote."

Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

[Commenter_XY]

For Biden's defenders....just remember, the shoe can always be on the other foot. I expect a raft of controversial pardons from POTUS Trump.

[Martinned2]

I expected that anyway, and so did you.

[David Nieporent]

I expect a raft of controversial pardons from POTUS Trump.

Um, he already did that!

[Armchair]

Not like this...

Let's be clear. Every President has issues pardons that some people find controversial or disagree with. These pardons however have always specified the crime that was being pardoned.* (* the one exception is Ford's pardon of Nixon, which I'll get to). The pardon power is being used as an act of mercy.

This is different. These "broad unstated crime" pardons are not being used as an act of mercy, but to hide the truth, hide the corruption, and prevent investigation. They are being used to escape responsibility. They are unprecedented in scope and purpose. Even with Nixon's pardon, it was clear that the malfeasance was related to Watergate. Here, this broad, ugly scope basically says "we don't trust the US legal system to give us a fair trial. We're guilty of something, but we won't say what it is."

It is disturbing and wrong.

[tylertusta]

Nitpick:

Hunter Biden's pardon was for all federal crimes for a specific time period. We'll call this one an "A."

The others in the Biden family were pardoned for that same time period, but their pardon only extends to "nonviolent crimes." We'll call this pardon a "B."

Fauci got a pardon, but only in connection to his government service. This is a "C" pardon.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair enough.

Evidently Hunter potentially has some violent skeletons in his closet, not just the drug use and financial crimes. Maybe he did murder a prostitute in DC, after all? Who knows what he was up to on one of those drug binges? Apparently even he isn't certain. So he needed total immunity.

The rest of the family were just on the take.

And Fauci just gets immunized for his work related crimes.

[David Nieporent]

You forgot the scare quotes around "crimes."

[tylertusta]

I think some folks are confused as to what the statute of limitations means here, and what it means that Biden pardoned people for acts that took place over ten years ago that were ostensibly outside the statute of limitations.

The reason why it it still matters because of the Federal conspiracy statute. Ordinarily, once the statute of limitations for a crime expires, that's it- no prosecutions. However, if that crime was part of a criminal conspiracy, then the statute of limitations is calculated after the last act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

If Hunter Biden conspired with his father to file a false return in 2014, and they met to continue to cover up the false return in 2019, then the statute of limitations would start counting from 2019, not 2014. This is probably why Hunter Biden was so eager to get his 2014 tax returns snuck into in the plea deal/diversion agreement that went south- his attorneys likely knew he still faced criminal exposure.

For someone like Fauci, who allegedly gave grants for gain-of-function research in violation of Federal law in 2014, if that was part of a conspiracy then his acts to conceal the conspiracy could reset the statute of limitations every time he tried to hide it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The preemptive pardon thing is not something to celebrate. It was dubious in the 1970s, and it's not looking much better now.

It's easy for me to say this, not being in the line of fire myself, but I think it would be better for democracy and the future of the Republic if the Trump Administration had been allowed to create the dozens of martyrs it has promised. The people need to see it for what it is.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean it’s not like we’re lacking in GOP AGs who will do such a thing. If there’s a Texas or Florida or Missouri connection to anyone they’ll figure out a way to go after them.

[Roger S]

Will anyone defend Biden's presidency again?

[Joe_dallas]

Most likely bidens presidency will be defended.

Axios & siena's presidential poll as recently as 2022 had Carter ranked as 16/19th best president. Lots of leftists without any connection to reality , very similar to many of the leftists posting here.

[Roger S]

Carter was a much better President than Biden. Terrible ex-president.

[Joe_dallas]

Carter was still a bad president , that being said, Obama was far worse and will be judged so by honest historians.
Reversal of steady improvement in race relations
Funding and promoting a terrorist regime
Serious degration of military competence.
Acceleration of DEI concepts and CRT
Again Obama's ranking will not hold up with honest historians

[Sarcastr0]

Third parties calling for martyrs is kind of awful.

I'm also not at all sure the people would have the scales fall from their eyes THIS time Trump did something nakedly authoritarian.

[hobie]

All the lawfare the hillbillies decried is now unavailable. You think they'd be happy

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m in two minds on this. And it sort of goes with my thinking on criminal justice generally and about the Trumpist camp complaints about Jan 6 prosecutions.

The criminal justice system sucks and even bullshit cases can be life ruining (often it’s those case that ruin lives the most). So if there is a legal way to not let people go through it that should happen.

On the other hand, pardons for friends, families, and allies, is something the vast majority of people don’t have access to. Most victims of a Trumpian criminal justice system aren’t known yet and probably will never be widely known. They’ll suffer a lot too. So having an elite group get a pass still leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The pardons are to people specifically targeted by Trump, which includes "the Biden crime family". So pardoning family members is o.k. in this case.

[Joe_dallas]

Lets ignore 10% for the big guy!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, let's not. Please explain how that phrase relates to a specific crime, and the evidence in support of it.

[David Nieporent]

Not only that, but the MAGA loons kept citing that as evidence of Joe Biden's corruption. But Joe Biden wasn't pardoned!

[RedheadedPharoh]

According to the DOJ, he's just too senile and lovable to knowingly be a criminal.

But not too senile to be President, mind you.

[tylertusta]

It turns out that the emperor wasn't wearing clothes after all.

But our amazing national media establishment thought otherwise.

[Sarcastr0]

Good news is the right will get to polish that conspiracy snausage forever now.

Bad news is y'all were planning to do that anyway, and now it'll not amount to much.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The danger is that Biden may have (let's say inadvertently) pardoned people who actually did commit federal crimes. For which they will now never enjoy justice.

It may indeed be "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”, but I can't help but think that Biden has expertly fallen into a trap.

By playing the game by Trump's rules, Biden has effectively admitted that the American justice system cannot survive Trump's assault upon it. To save it, he has wounded it.

[tylertusta]

It would have been better for everyone if Biden pardoned Trump today.

Biden's goose is already cooked, at least as far as his own party is concerned. He had the opportunity to turn down the temperature... but he didn't.

[John F. Carr]

The Trump White House web site is already live. While the Biden site featured both the first and second spouses, the Trump site omits Vance's wife. I infer from previous reporting that she is not a MAGA type and wants no part of this ride.

[Commenter_XY]

We have a POTUS and VPOTUS.

No cabinet yet. Senator Thune needs to step on the gas. POTUS Trump needs his team in place. We have just suffered terror attacks, and there are some pretty serious foreign policy matters that need addressing as well. The Pentagon needs leadership and direction.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I wonder if there might be a reason for picking experienced people for critically important jobs? Hmmm...

[Bob from Ohio]

No nomination to vote on until the new president sends it

Rubio will be confirmed tonight. Most of the security posts will be done by the end of the week.

Thanks to Harry Reid, you can't filibuster nominations. Pete H. should send some beer to Mrs. Reid as a thank you.

[hobie]

From the new whitehouse.gov

"America Is Back
Every single day I will be fighting for you with every breath in my body. I will not rest until we have delivered the strong, safe and prosperous America that our children deserve and that you deserve. This will truly be the golden age of America."

I guess we're no longer a failing shithole. That didn't take long

[Riva]

If it makes you feel better, you can still be a shithead.

[SRG2]

I didn't realise that Melania was part of the Trump admin. But there it is.

[SRG2]

American landmarks will be named to appropriately honor our Nation’s history.

Translation: we will reinstate Confederate traitors' names on Federal property.

If you approve, you're a racist cunt.

[Zarniwoop]

If you approve, you're a racist cunt.

Hey hey, that need a correction. That should be "racist, traitorous cunt".

[SRG2]

My bad. 🙂

[Riva]

Confederates? Would those be the traitorous Democrats that started a civil war to preserve slavery?

[Sarcastr0]

Those traitors exactly!

So lets not name our stuff after those traitorous Democratic bastards, eh?

[David Nieporent]

It's such a fucking stupid talking point by mindless partisans — or bots programmed to repeat talking points of mindless partisans.

"Great Britain is our ally."
"Would that be the same Great Britain who we had to fight two wars against for our independence? Gotcha!!!!!!!!!!"

[Sarcastr0]

Lazy knee jerk types assume everyone is as lazy and reflexive as they are.

[SRG2]

Yes. The modern Democratic party, however, has not only rejected them, but wants to take down the monuments and memorials to the traitors that those Democrats erected. and remove their names.

Curiously, it's modern Republicans who want to preserve them - or in Trump's case in all likelihood attempting to restore the names,

I assume that you agree with modern Democrats and disagree with modern Republicans and Trump on this, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

It is perhaps understandable that the modern Democratic party wants to get rid of all conspicuous evidence of its past perfidy, but I don't see why Republicans should cooperate in running the memory holes.

[Sarcastr0]

You think wanting Confederate monuments to come down is a coverup of the fact that they were Democrats?

[SRG2]

Brett, don't be a fuckwit. We already have enough of them here.

Do Germans keep statues of Hitler to remind people how bad the Nazis were?

[hobie]

Correct. Our 'history' as a nation was what happened in the Union states. The south was at a traitorous war with the US. So I guess monuments commemorating southern defeats would work. But statues extolling the traitors shouldn't fly. Speaking of traitors, just swap out all the R.E.Lee's for Trumps. Pretty much the same thing

[Michael P]

Good news for those who worry that Joe Biden might issue preemptive pardons or do things like Twit that the Equal Rights Amendment is the law of the land:

Jake Tapper: "President Trump is reportedly considering a wave of preemptive pardons. Does this concern you? All these preemptive pardons?"
Joe Biden: "Well, it concerns me in terms of what kind of precedent it sets, and how the rest of the world looks at us as a nation of laws and of justice. You're not going to see, in our administration, that kind of approach to pardons. Nor are you going to see, in our administration, the approach to making policy by Tweets."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/flashback-biden-pledged-he-wouldnt-issue-preemptive-pardons/vi-AA1xx1an

[RedheadedPharoh]

Biden, and his bootlickers, are pieces of garbage.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Biden was telling the truth and has stuck by his word. By "that kind of approach to pardons" he meant Trump rewarding people who kept him out of legal trouble or might implicate him if they're indicted. He had a conflict of interest in doing that. Biden's pardons are not of that type.

[Bob from Ohio]

"might implicate him if they're indicted"

That describes his brother, no?

[Zarniwoop]

"No" is in fact the correct answer.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Have you no shame?

[Michael P]

"No" is in fact the correct answer.

[SRG2]

Do you accept that there is a difference between a policy of pardoning someone so that they cannot later be victimised by a politicised DoJ, and a policy of pardoning someone who will commit crimes on your behalf?

[tylertusta]

Has CREW filed their emoluments lawsuit yet?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Book recommendation: Playing Possum: How Animals Understand Death by Susana Monsó.

https://susanamonso.com/publications

[John F. Carr]

Public Citizen et al. have already filed a lawsuit to neuter the DOGE. According to the lawsuit DOGE must comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. I think the lawsuit is premature. As of its filing Trump had merely threatened to take the advice of the Department. Once the controversy is ripe plaintiffs have a good argument.

https://www.citizen.org/news/public-citizen-sddf-and-afge-sue-trump-administration-over-doge/

Case 1:25-cv-00164 in the District Court for the District of Columbia.

[Bob from Ohio]

Can Congress constitutionally limit how the president obtains advice? Or from whom?

[Zarniwoop]

I just went and read 5 USC 1001 et seq., and I'm curious about this too.

I would hope there's no disagreement that Congress can't regulate pillow talk from Melania on the grounds that it's "advice about govenment", and then regulate how Melania has to be "open" and "fair". Just off the cuff: very significant issues with both protected 1st Amd speech and separation of powers.

But, "I appoint this billionaire who supported my election to be able to directly fire individual people, eliminate spending, etc." (as opposed to saying "Hey Donald, maybe you should fire this guy, and ask Congress to cut this budget item, etc.") might not be mere advice; it could arguably be vesting Executive power in individuals/committees in violation of the Appointments Clause.

I'm not an expert here! But my gut sense is that there's some line between those two examples.

[Bob from Ohio]

I don't think Musk is going to fire anyone, just recommend it.

[Zarniwoop]

Well, to quote the immortal F.Zappa, that's the crux of the biscuit, right?

If Musk's sole role is "I whisper my billionaire needs into fellow billionaire Trump's ear" ... I happily agree the statute (and lawsuit) is not constitutional.

Heck, he probably spends more time whispering in Trump's ear than Melania does.

[Ridgeway]

That hat makes it hard for her to get close to his ear.

[Mr. Bumble]

That outfit reminded me of the Black Spy from Mad Magazine's Spy vs Spy.

[Voize of Reazon]

The Act only regulates advisory groups, not advisory individuals.

[Zarniwoop]

Sure, but that begs the question. If it would be unconstitutional for Congress to regulate Dogeboy 1 or Dogeboy 2 from whispering their billionaire needs into Trump's ear individually, what's the Constitutional hook that allows Congress to regulate Dogeboy 1 and Dogeboy 2 from whispering their billionaire needs into Trump's ear together?

[David Nieporent]

Why do you think it would be unconstitutional to regulate that? Do you think that all laws controlling lobbying are also unconstitutional?

[Longtobefree]

A couple of average citizens commenting on social media platform(s) about government waste need permission from exactly who?

(OK, they are a little bit richer than some, but equal rights and all that jazz)

[ducksalad]

Anybody commenting on any form of media doesn't need permission and Trump doesn't need any permission to listen to it.

As long as we're clear that Trump hasn't "appointed" them to any actual position, Trump hasn't "created" any government department, no federal employees work under their supervision, they don't get a federal budget, and if someone threatens or assaults them it's a purely local crime with no federal hook and if they want the police to look into it they can get in line with the rest of us.

[Absaroka]

FWIW, I think there is historical precedent for presidents having quasi-official people with a fair amount of actual authority, for example Harry Hopkins:

"“Under my new responsibilities,” Hopkins wrote to Churchill, “all British purchasing requests are now routed through me.” Hopkins still lacked an official title, but he had become, in the eyes of many journalists, the “Deputy President.”
...
Such a vague job description gave Hopkins nearly free rein for the task of preparing the armed forces and private business for war production. “Under my new responsibilities,” Hopkins wrote to Churchill, “all British purchasing requests are now routed through me.” Hopkins still lacked an official title, but he had become, in the eyes of many journalists, the “Deputy President.”
...
...Hopkins, quite simply, got things done. His trademark tool was the telephone, and he never hesitated to call and berate high-ranking military officers for failing to meet production deadlines"
...
"Hopkins was, nevertheless, still capable of making quick and insightful decisions. Late in 1944, with the tide of war now in favor of the Allies, Churchill and Stalin were preparing for a meeting to discuss control of southeastern Europe. Busy with his reelection campaign, Roosevelt was unable to attend and decided essentially to let Churchill represent U.S. interests. Hopkins foresaw trouble with that arrangement and ordered the transmission of Roosevelt’s cable to Stalin stopped. After further thought, the president rewrote the cable and thanked Hopkins for preventing him from making a serious mistake."

When he talked, whether to Churchill, Stalin, or some American official, people knew he was speaking Roosevelt's will, even if Roosevelt didn't always know it yet.

[ducksalad]

FWIW? Let me state a few objections.

We're talking about a president who, during the same general time period, put American citizens in detention camps according to ethnic background, tried to pack the US Supreme Court, and violated norms that had stood since the Revolution with respect to federalism and term limits. Those precedents sucked hard and so does this one.

As for Hopkins himself, he was a full up cabinet secretary until 1938. People claim he had no official position but he was Chairman of the Combined Munitions Assignment Board. I'd say that's as "official" as representing the US at the UN or NATO.

[Krayt]

The smell of fresh-cut grass is a distress signal. It signals injury, attracts animals which may disrupt the attack, and other plants to bolster defenses.

Your shot glasses of wheat grass are you savoring misery like a serial killer rolling around in blood in a horror film.

[Krayt]

There are voids in the universe where there are almost no galaxies. The Bootes Void is 300 million light years across, or 100 times the distance between the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy.

It's so big that, if the Milky Way was in the middle of one, humanity might not have discovered other galaxies until the 1960s.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Krayt, the shot glasses 'of misery' are most likely to be drunk by Polish tank battalion commanders in perhaps the near future, as you have previously, repeatedly intimated.
But congratulations! There were never any plausible reasons for any of the Trump prosecutions right?
Na zdrowie!

[M L]

Way too much news and stuff happening for anyone to keep up with these days if you have a real job . . . you know, where you have to actually work. Anyway, here's my vaguely formed thoughts.

I heard TikTok was banned, but then Trump promised not to enforce the ban so they are back. How's that legal? The President isn't supposed to make laws or decide which ones are going to have effect.

In a shameful spectacle, Trump launched a crypto meme coin. Of course, why not. I'm not against crypto or the merit of the idea in theory, but the whole thing feels like fraud on stilts and like it's heading in the direction of 1929 stocks.

As far as shameful spectacles, it doesn't come close to Biden pardoning his corrupt family members and Fauci among others. A righteous spectacle would be Fauci going to prison.

[hobie]

Bible, sneakers, meme coins, NFTs, Trump Media, perhaps Trump himself. All backed by assets and solid financials. Nothing false or empty. No house of cards here. Move along. 3D meme chess being played. You'd be anything other than a rube to think otherwise

[Stella Link the dog]

I learned the other day (from a Youtube video -- the modern source and repository of all modern knowledge) of the Trump guitar. $1500 for a plywood acoustic guitar though it is said to have a solid spruce top. Country of manufacture is unclear but it's not the US. China or Korea are likely candidates.

So, what happens to all the Trump mania stuff when the Donald (aka El Puerco) goes belly up? Can the $Trump coin, whatever that is, maintain value after Trump? How about the value of shares in the money losing venture that is DJT?

Question for Brettmore: which is likely to become valueless first, US Treasuries or DJT stock?

[MoreCurious]

When I was a child -- about a million years ago -- parents taught their children that if they studied hard, developed a good sense of character and ethics, treated everyone fairly and with kindness, and behaved well, they could grow up to be president. Now I wonder at what age children who want to grow up to be president should start committing felonies. And when should they begin to practice being stupid, mean, greedy, unethical, misogynistic, vulgar, homophobic, prevaricating bigots?

[Roger S]

Yes, Biden is setting a terrible example.

[MoreCurious]

That's all you got, Roger?

[M L]

The U.S. granting citizenships is like a corporation issuing additional shares of stock, or a government printing additional fiat money supply - it debases and devalues the existing citizenships/shares/dollars unless something of like or greater value to the issuer and its shareholders is received in exchange.

[Sarcastr0]

No it’s nothing like that what zero sum world do you live in?

I mean you already want to break up the union, so dunno how you square this take with that one.

[ducksalad]

Perhaps like his idol, he believes value is all in the branding.

Under that belief system, as long the part he's in keeps the USA brand name, then he wins by throwing away whole states, even if he throws the land, resources, industry, and wealth along with the people.

[M L]

There's nothing "zero sum" about corporations issuing stock. You're blurting out buzzwords you don't understand, and making things up, as usual.

[ducksalad]

What did we get in exchange for granting you citizenship, ML?

Based on the only evidence at hand - your comments here - I tend to agree that your status "debases and devalues" it for the rest of us. But maybe you do something useful offline....

[M L]

Maybe nothing. That's a possibility, which is my point. See?

No surprise that you as a leftist find the presence of Americans with conservative opinions unwelcome. That's why many leftists are rather open about replacing Americans with others that agree with their leftist views.

[Armchair]

Further thinking on pardons....

There are two decisions on Pardons made.

Ex parte Garland (1866) basically says the president can pardon offenses, even if there's no indictment or conviction (related to Garland's participation in the Civil War).

Burdick v. United States on the other hand wrote that that an individual who accepts a pardon is confessing guilt because a pardon carries an imputation of guilt.

There is a question however, can there be such a confessing of guilt when the crime is completely unknown? If one accepts a pardon for "any and all nonviolent crimes between date A and date B"...what is one confessing guilt to? The entire system becomes ambiguous.

Perhaps, instead, there is a limitation on the Presidential pardon power. That it must specify a crime for the individual to be confessing guilt to. And in the absence of such a crime to confess guilt to, the pardon may be considered invalid.

[Zarniwoop]

Perhaps, instead, there is a limitation on the Presidential pardon power. That it must specify a crime for the individual to be confessing guilt to. And in the absence of such a crime to confess guilt to, the pardon may be considered invalid.

I mean, sure, that's a position one could take. But it sounds more like a description of "my desired outcome" than a constitutional argument on how to get there from text, history and tradition, living constitutionalism, etc.

It might even make a lot of sense as a real-life limitation on the textually-not-limited pardon power, if we were writing the Constitution from scratch ... which we're not.

In other words, if that's the constitutional goal, what's your argument for actually getting there?

[Armchair]

"what's your argument for actually getting there?"

I think the argument comes down to "What is a pardon?"

Merriam Webster defines it as...

"a release from the legal penalties of an offense"
"an official warrant of remission of penalty as an act of clemency compare commute"
"excuse or forgiveness for a fault or offense."

Law dictionaries define it as

"An act of grace, proceeding from tlie power intrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed"

Inherent in the concept of a pardon is a crime or offense. One cannot have a pardon without the crime or offense.

[Armchair]

Let's further discuss.

Let's say a President gives someone a "pardon" for all past and future actions. Is that actually a pardon? Or is it actually "immunity" being granted?

Can a President do that? Grant immunity at will to anyone for anything? I would say, no, he cannot.

[Zarniwoop]

Let's say a President gives someone a "pardon" for all past and future actions

Well stop right there. "Past" and "Future" are two massively different concepts in the pardon universe, and your attempt to seamlessly conflate them is bool and sheet disingenuous.

If you want to have a conversation, by all means do so ... without being obtuse about the fundamentals.

[Armchair]

""Past" and "Future" are two massively different concepts in the pardon universe, and your attempt to seamlessly conflate them is bool and sheet disingenuous."

True...but keep in mind, that is exactly what this administration did.

On December 1st, 2024, Joe Biden issued his son a pardon for offenses against the United States from January 1, 2014 through December 1,2024, That pardon was issued well before 11:59 PM on December 1st.

So for both past and future actions, a pardon was issued.

So, let's have the conversation there on the fundamentals. Are only the past actions pardonable? Or also the future actions?

[Brett Bellmore]

A point which would only matter if the government wanted to pursue an offense that took place during those few hours. At which point Hunter would find that the pardon actually only extended to the moment of signing.

[Zarniwoop]

Burdick v. United States on the other hand wrote that that an individual who accepts a pardon is confessing guilt because a pardon carries an imputation of guilt.

I don't want to dunk on non-lawyers too much here, but y'all really need to consider and understand the difference between the holding of a case, and dicta present in the case.

The holding of Burdick is the decision that was rendered, based on the facts of that case. And that holding was 1) Burdick refused a pardon that he contended/believed/argued would make him look or appear guilty; 2) a pardon can be refused because reasons of associated "imputations" (i.e., public perceptions/belief) of guilt; so 3) Burdick couldn't be held in contempt for refusing to testify while citing 5th Amd rights.

"Granting, then, that the pardon was legally issued and was sufficient for immunity, it was Burdick's right to refuse it, as we have seen, and it therefore not becoming effective, his right under the Constitution to decline to testify remained to be asserted, and the reasons for his action were personal." (emphasis added)

The best way to read the "imputation of guilt" stuff is about public perception of moral character, not admitting specific factual predicates to specific offenses. Which indeed were not at issue in Burdick, because Pres Wilson purported to give a general pardon to any offenses related to anything Burdick testified to.

The dicta helps explain why the 1915 court made the decision, but it's not necessarily true for every case. The S.Ct. made it clear that Burdick's reasons were his own:

"Indeed, the grace of a pardon, though good its intention, may be only in pretense or seeming; in pretense, as having purpose not moving from the individual to whom it is offered; in seeming, as involving consequences of even greater disgrace than those from which it purports to relieve."

Reading the whole case (and considering the stilted, antiquated 1915 language) is fundamental to understanding what's a holding, and what's dicta.

[tylertusta]

Thanks for this explainer.

If only some of the other lawyers here would do the same regarding how they brandish Burdick like it means more than it actually does.

[Zarniwoop]

Thanks. I know we don't always agree, but FFS it's easy to pull a short quote from an antiquated opinion like Burdick as a rhetorical device, without bothering to think how any remotely rational court would.

And I see that happening on both the left and the right, depending on whose ox is gored. Sheesh, when both sides get it absosmurfly wrong ... sometimes the correct answer is "you're both wrong".

[Commenter_XY]

I also want to add my thanks for the explication, Z. Very readable.

[Armchair]

That's why I didn't cite this as a holding, as it's not particularly useful in this case. Yes, you can refuse a pardon.

But the logic behind the case....that may be useful in looking at it may be argued in the future.

[Zarniwoop]

Please do explain - I'm fascinated, really! - what your thoughts on how 1915 dicta should influence the current era. What is this "logic behind the case" that you find so compelling, and to what end?

[Armchair]

Please explain to me why the logic used in the dicta by past Supreme Court Cases SHOULDN'T influence the current era. Let's not just stop at 1915. Let's go all the way back to 1803, and Marbury v Madison.

Should the logic used by John Marshall influence current thoughts on jurisprudence? Or should it be ignored, the dicta cast to the winds? It's just all the way back in 1803, surely that logic shouldn't affect current day thought processes.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Why should a President fear a the civil servants who work at a federal agency like the CIA?

[RedheadedPharoh]

If anyone wants to taste the sweet salty tears of a bunch of Blue Anon Sarcastr0 types, go check out this community of losers:

https://old.reddit.com/r/somethingiswrong2024/

lmao

[RedheadedPharoh]

Holy Cow fellow patriots, ICE is offering $750 per illegal captured.

You can call the ICE hotline at 866-DHS-2-ICE (866-347-2423).

It's a Patriot Payday! Hell yeah, what a time to be alive!

[Life of Brian]

Is there a source for the $750/head other than Twitter engagement farmers?

[Zarniwoop]

yeah, I thought about asking for an actually-reputable source, but decided not to bother.

RHP probably thinks that everyone with non-pasty skin is "an illegal" ... so I look forward to their tales of massive fiscal success.

[Zarniwoop]

You sound like someone who would have boasted about turning over Jesus to the Romans for 30 pieces of silver. Even Judas felt guilty about that.

Oh wait, hey, do you also self-identify as Christian? Just curious here.

[Longtobefree]

Self identify?
You know them by their works.

[Frank Drackman]

Even when Judas hanged
himself there was a storm too

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure your average illegal alien is strictly interchangeable with Jesus.

[Zarniwoop]

Nor are actual followers of Christ interchangeable with a vindictive asshat who gleefully sells out human beings for 30 pieces of silver (er, cough, $750 if that can even be believed).

But absent other evidence, I'd assume RHP still thinks he's a "Christian" while violating Christ's teachings.

Explain how I'm wrong.

[SimonP]

Plenty of Anne Franks in that number, though.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure your average illegal alien is strictly interchangeable with Jesus.

"Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me"

[Brett Bellmore]

Something which was not, so far as I know, meant to imply that ordinary laws would no longer be enforceable.

[Martinned2]

No, just that the people who enforce unjust laws go to hell.

[Sarcastr0]

ANA has plenty of discretion, as you know. And the way you want that discretion to be enforced includes plenty of cruelty.
All super necessary, of course. To encourage self-deportation. And red meat for the nativist base, politics being what they are.
And the targets are not like us. I mean, illegals are all inherently more prone to criminality, right?

Yeah, not exactly hitting the Christlike life here, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, I don't think telling people who aren't citizens, "We don't care where you live, but it can't be here." is cruelty. Nobody but a citizen of a country has any right to be in a country. For everybody else it's a privilege which the citizenry are under no obligation at all to extend to any given person.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, you never ever take the misery of the illegals or asylum seekers into account.

To the point that performative cruelty like child separation or barbed wire are things you defend as good policy.

"the citizenry are under no obligation at all" is just right outta the Gospels.

[Frank Drackman]

Nice parade Ham-Ass had on January 19th, everyone looking well fed, Fags Vouging with like new Kalishnikoffs (“Never Fired and only dropped once”) let’s see the one they have with “47” back in Orifice. Anyone see the Israeli hostage with chopped off fingers? Yes, she “lost” her fingers on October 7th, “where did I put my fingers!?”

Frank

[Riva]

Can't make up my mind. Should I climb Mt. McKinley or go fishing in the Gulf of America? If President Trump brings back Ft. Bragg, I might enlist.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You know people in Alaska call it Denali and Alaska’s Senators and US reps have been strongly against calling it anything other than Denali and successfully told Trump not to do it last time. The state park and state of Alaska use Denali on their official documents and the national park has been named Denali since 1980. A handful of Ohio republicans who apparently had nothing better to do kept opposing the change until the Obama years. And even then when it happened future Ohio Senator John Husted said it actually didn’t matter to him if people in Alaska wanted it called it something else, it’s the mountain in their state.

So this “name change” is simply red meat for reactionary dipshits who don’t even live in Alaska. If you actually go to Denali to climb it…you’ll be climbing Denali no matter what some bureaucrats in Washington say.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because Alaska has been SO supportive of MAGA...

[Martinned2]

The state that gave us Sarah Palin?

[LawTalkingGuy]

See what Someone who doesn’t even live in Alaska wants to rename things there because he doesn’t think they’re team players. How much more of a reactionary dipshit can you be?

[David Nieporent]

FTR, the executive order renames the mountain but not the park.

[SRG2]

Trump has pardoned all the 1/6 rioters - including those convicted of crimes of violence - except the sedition lot, who got their sentences commuted.

[tylertusta]

I'm seeing reporting that those with commuted sentences will be evaluated for possible pardons later.

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter said he'd condemn Trump if he pardoned those convicted of violent crimes.

Lets see if that happens.

[SimonP]

something something Biden did it blah blah blah, I'm sure.

[Estragon]

You can’t expect these people to keep these things straight.

[Estragon]

Maybe if he’s courageous enough to respond we can give him a “Roman salute”

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Like they would be anything other than empty anyway.

[Commenter_XY]

Indeed, lets see what happens, Sarcastr0. I would not be in favor of releasing anyone with blood on their hands or property destruction, willy-nilly, at this stage.

The precedent I have suggested is Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion participants. Washington spoke to the rebels personally, as I recall. That was a distinctly 'American' thing to do.

Recall that POTUS (lol) Trump did state he would pardon the J6 rioters. He has delivered on what he said he would do. 😉

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It already happened, though I can understand with your yellow streak why you'd pretend like it hasn't so you can run away yet again.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/granting-pardons-and-commutation-of-sentences-for-certain-offenses-relating-to-the-events-at-or-near-the-united-states-capitol-on-january-6-2021/

The law no longer matters, which in a way is quite liberating.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason, I am not supportive of letting people out with blood on their hands (or property destruction), at this stage.

Push against a line of riot police....not 'violent', can be pardoned
Hit a cop with a baton, fire extinguisher....NFW, needs a review

As I understand it, roughly 30-35 people were not pardoned and did not have their sentence commuted. They remain imprisoned for their actions.

[Estragon]

“As I understand it”

Can I ask where you got this understanding from?

[Commenter_XY]

From linked article.

Instead, Trump granted maximum clemency by ending all of the prosecutions, freeing everyone from prison and pardoning about 98% of the convicted rioters.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/21/politics/what-to-know-pardons-january-6-trump/index.html

2% of 1,600 = 32

[David Nieporent]

That is not what it says. He says that he pardoned about 98%; the rest were merely commuted, not pardoned. There were no exceptions.

[Estragon]

I agree this article words things confusingly but it’s often better to go to the source— cited above— than doing this back-of-the-envelope extrapolation. There are no 30-35 people who will be remaining in jail.

There were 14 grants of clemency— everyone else was granted a full pardon.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/granting-pardons-and-commutation-of-sentences-for-certain-offenses-relating-to-the-events-at-or-near-the-united-states-capitol-on-january-6-2021/

[Estragon]

What David said.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I already provided that link.

C_Bitch ignored it for some reason to go to CNN instead and try to do math as a dodge to pretend like he didn't know what was going on.

[Estragon]

Daniel Rodriguez, who had been sentenced to 12 and 1/2 years was pardoned. Here’s what he had to say to his buddies, via text, on January 6:

“Omg I did so much f—ing s— r[ight] n[ow] and got away […] Tazzed the f— out of the blue”

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, Daniel Rodriguez's commutation is problematic in my book, Estragon. If reports are true, this guy has blood on his hands.

I'd want to see exactly what he did or did not do. He pled guilty.

[Estragon]

He was not commuted. He was pardoned. Here is the sentencing memorandum.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.229256/gov.uscourts.dcd.229256.189.0.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

The doc was helpful. It is a problematic pardon for me, personally, Estragon. I don't agree with POTUS Trump doing this on Day 1.

[Estragon]

“Problematic”

You said that twice. I would pay good money to watch you say to Officer Fanone’s face that fully pardoning the man who repeatedly tased and assaulted him, and was sentenced to 12.5 years for it, was “problematic”.

How about “wrong”? Can we bring ourselves to that, at least?

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/06/monday-open-thread-87/?comments=true#comment-10857727

Commenter_XY
SRG2...Anyone with blood on their hands or who did property damage won't be getting anything in the initial round of pardons.

SRG2
And will you criticize Trump if they do?

Commenter_XY 2 weeks ago
Hell yes.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

C_Bitch has already demonstrated multiple times what his promises mean.

He had ample opportunity to call them wrong already. He didn't.
He can't even avoid qualifications about calling them "problematic," as they are only such on "Day 1."

Among other things like celebrating ethnic cleansing and the death of women and children, he is a coward and a lying piece of shit.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, I think it was wrong, Estragon. The Court docs you linked indicate this man has blood on his hands.

I do not agree with POTUS Trump's decision to pardon Daniel Rodriguez on Day 1. This pardon needed more review. I don't think POTUS Trump was well-served here, but he is the POTUS, and he signed off on it, so he owns it.

[SRG2]

That is already more than pretty much any other Trump supporter has managed, I will say.

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2, I called like I saw it.

[Estragon]

This is actually an example of someone here being willing to own up. It’s a low bar but kudos to you CXY, and I mean that genuinely, FWIW. Well done.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I still think a commutation is a form of pardon.

[tylertusta]

"...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States..."

I'd call it a reprieve instead of a pardon, but you do you.

[Frank Drackman]

You mean he actually did what he said he would do? Wow, he's not a "Normal" Politician, is he?

[Riva]

J6 protestors who were victims of Biden’s pogrom. And you do know that, in addition to other abuses, some committed suicide? Could you be any more of an a-hole?

[not guilty]

Biden's pogrom??

I don't think that word means what you think it means, Riva.

Some words should not be trivialized.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Nah. He'll make some balloon animals out of that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.wcax.com/2025/01/20/authorities-investigating-fatal-shooting-border-patrol-agent-i-91/

There's more here, starting with what is that column of steam...

Yes, I-91 replaced US Route 5 so there is an alternate route, but keeping it closed 8 hours after a shooting?

There's more here....

[Commenter_XY]

5am...The DC federal workers are probably starting their commute now into their office, sitting and collecting dust, after working very inefficiently and ineffectively from home for years. One of the exec orders last night ended that farce.

Enjoy the commute. For as long as it lasts.

[Sarcastr0]

What is wrong with you.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He’s a miserable bastard. And when he gets exactly what he wants he’ll still be miserable.

[Sarcastr0]

Conjuring up fake people so he can celebrate their also conjured unhappiness is unhinged behavior.

He used to be a pretty normal dude.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I suppose what constitutes normal conservative really shifted over the last 8-10 years. He’s probably still “normal” but our society appears to have way more miserable bastards than we used to

[Bwaaah]

Commenter_XY doesn't sound at all miserable to me. And Republicans in general don't sound miserable to me either.

Not too many people are above enjoying a little setback for people who seem to be receiving undeserved benefits. And especially when that setback is the loss of those undeserved benefits, is it so wrong to enjoy that?

Maybe you disagree with C_XY and think those benefits are deserved. But that difference of opinion doesn't support your misread of C_XY's expressed emotion, which is quite reasonable under the circumstances, and obviously more joyful than miserable.

[Commenter_XY]

Since DEI just DIED today, courtesy of POTUS Trump, I am pleased as punch. 😉

[David Nieporent]

As C_XY's comment makes clear, the BTO has nothing to do with the work of the federal government; it's just designed to make federal workers unhappy so they quit, because that's easier than trying to fire them without cause.

[Sarcastr0]

For him at least, 'so they quit' isn't part of the calculous.

Misery for misery's sake.

[SimonP]

It's going to turn into a stupid self-own, for exactly the same reason that some private employers are having a hard time pushing RTO.

The reason is: WFH is a costless benefit that employers can provide their employees. It helps reduce costs on office space and support staff, it allows employers to recruit from wider regions, it takes pressure off of wages and salaries as employees can live further from work, and on and on. Competing for labor, employers are finding that employees with options to go elsewhere treat WFH flexibility as a valuable benefit, and perhaps in some cases an absolutely essential demand.

So a federal government-wide RTO order will just mean that competent people who might be able to live with a salary and prestige cut working for the government, as long as they can WFH one or two days a week, will start to look elsewhere for work. The federal government will become less competitive for labor, and public services will suffer as a result.

Now - I appreciate that you're a moronic cunt, so all that you're really interested in is hollowing out the federal bureaucracy, whatever the consequences. But the reality is that executing even on Trump's agenda will require competent bureaucrats. Making the federal government even less competitive as an employer than it already is will only mean that the people who look for jobs with the federal government will be people who have no better option or people who derive value from other sources (e.g., exerting power for its own sake, bribery, ambitious career opportunism within the political branches, etc.).

[ThePublius]

You speak as if there are no negatives associated with working from home. I worked at companies for the last 20+ years or so that had work from home policies, and as a senior manager I can tell you that many of those people supposedly working from home were doing close to nothing. I even had people who spent the morning taking care of their kids and doing house work, or going to the library, come in to the office to use the gym, and then eat in the cafeteria, and then go home! I had cases where I called an employee and they answered from Home Depot or Stop and Shop or another place, and even had the audacity to ask me if we could speak at another time!

The point is, the efficiency, the output is much, much lower for people working from home, and the benefits of face to face collaboration are gone.

[Sarcastr0]

as a senior manager I can tell you that many of those people supposedly working from home were doing close to nothing

I'm also a manager, though of a small but mighty office so perhaps YMMV.

Nevertheless, next to no work from teleworkers has not been my experience. And I say this as someone who does not personally work well at home and has to go into the office most days to get anything done.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...and has to go into the office most days to get anything done."
Does getting anything done include your constant presence here?
Is that part of your job description?

[Sarcastr0]

Rest assured I do my job well and take great pride in it.

If your workflow is purely time-based, that seems bad management.

[David Nieporent]

The point is, the efficiency, the output is much, much lower for people working from home, and the benefits of face to face collaboration are gone.

That you have trouble managing your subordinates does not make that a fact. It makes it your personal experience.

Of course employees can goof off if they WFH. They can also goof off at the office, spending all day shopping online, or on Facebook, or gossiping with coworkers. Of course employees might decide to go to Home Depot during the day if they WFH. They also might decide to work until 8 p.m. to get something done instead of cutting out of the office on the dot of 5 p.m. Or — on the other side — start their work at 8 a.m. rather than spending from 8 - 9 in traffic on the way to the office.

Maybe if a manager identifies subordinates doing "close to nothing" he should fire those subordinates for lack of productivity rather than just making these irresponsible people show up to a building to kill time, along with the responsible people.

I don't deny that there are some jobs requiring face-to-face collaboration — though I think almost all of that collaboration can be done via Zoom (or the like) — but that certainly doesn't describe all jobs, and it makes no sense to have a blanket BTO policy for everyone just because some jobs require it.

[Estragon]

This is quite well stated.

Additionally, RTO is a tax on workers. Lost time commuting, gas, lunch near the office— these things add up.

But what I really suspect is going on here under all the howling about workers taking 15 minutes of their home workday to walk the dog or whatever is management ego. As Tom Wolfe so elegantly described years ago— it’s about “seeing em jump.” What fun is being in a position of power if you’re not there to personally exercise it over your subordinates? Poor Publius has no way of evaluating productivity without stalking around the office trying to catch people on overly long bathroom breaks!

It is, of course, unsurprising that a Trumpist would endorse such a sentiment, after all— the man himself loves seeing em jump… see for example his longing commentary about North Korea.

[ThePublius]

Why do you make this personal, attack me and impugn me? Can't you just keep it objective and rational?

All that I'm saying is that people do take advantage of working from home, and I suspect it's more prevalent amongst federal employees, that's all.

[Estragon]

“Publius is a gormless gobshite.”

See, now there’s a personal insult.

Larger observations about the relationship between management and subordinates are not personal, even if they are applicable to you. Which is why I cited an author from 40(!) years ago.

Second, yes— I am sarcastically questioning your (dubious IMO) assertion that it’s impossible to gauge worker productivity remotely.

Finally, Trumpists whining about personal attacks after being called out on their flimsy “just so” assertions here is so rich I can’t even. If I could roll my eyes any further back I’d be checking out my own ass.

[Estragon]

Now, if you are construing “trumpist” as a personal insult maybe you have a point. But I would be surprised if that were the case, given your body of work. Res Ipsa, as they say in the biz

[ThePublius]

"That you have trouble managing your subordinates does not make that a fact. It makes it your personal experience."

Why do you always have to be so snarky, and resort to personal attacks? You and many others on here, all progs/liberals?

I didn't have trouble managing my team, and these were observations of not just my team, but the companies at large, even to the extent of engaging in management discussions of what to do about it. Sometimes it resulted in terminations. I had one guy take his termination call from a retail store!

Working from home is fine for some people, but not for everyone. And given the apparent inefficiency of federal employees, it's likely it's not for most of them.

[David Nieporent]

I didn't have trouble managing my team,

I'm no Warren Buffett, but I'd characterize a situation in which many of my subordinates were "doing close to nothing" — your words, not mine — as a management problem.

Working from home is fine for some people, but not for everyone.

And if you had only said that, rather than saying that WFH was inefficient and unproductive, I wouldn't have even bothered to respond the first time to that unremarkable statement.

I agree with it; not everyone can be trusted to work from home. And of course not all jobs are suitable for it even if the employees are reliable. But there's no reason to make it a categorical statement about government employees.

[ThePublius]

"...but I'd characterize a situation in which many of my subordinates were "doing close to nothing" — your words, not mine...."

No, I didn't say that. You're manufacturing a quote. I said:

"I worked at companies for the last 20+ years or so that had work from home policies, and as a senior manager I can tell you that many of those people supposedly working from home were doing close to nothing. "

"Those people" does not mean "my subordinates."

Don't make stuff up.

[Sarcastr0]

I find that a fair distinction, though I also get how the assumption was made you meant your own people.

So did you just have all your subordinates come in? Or track their productive hours some other way? Or don't track hours, just deliverables?

I'm just academically curious about your staffing strategy.

[David Nieporent]

Don't make stuff up.

First, it's unclear why you would've specified that you were a senior manager if you had no role in managing the people. Second, even if that weren't the obvious implication, you then added specifics to make it clear that you were talking about your subordinates:

I even had people who spent the morning taking care of their kids and doing house work, or going to the library, come in to the office to use the gym, and then eat in the cafeteria, and then go home!

Not "I even heard about people," but "I even had" them.

And

I had cases where I called an employee and they answered from Home Depot or Stop and Shop or another place, and even had the audacity to ask me if we could speak at another time!

Again, not "I heard about." These were your subordinates by your own description.

[ThePublius]

Calling an employee doesn't mean that that employee necessarily reports to me. I worked in highly matrixed organizations and dealt with people who had other managers. That's all. I didn't mean to imply that I had people, or other phrases, meant they reported directly to me. My mistake for not being precise enough.

[Commenter_XY]

SimonP, I think you are just beginning to get it. I'll give it another week or so. These DC-based bureaucrats are simply not wanted; the DC-based bureaucracy is bloated and needs to be right-sized. And it will be. Employment is 'at will'; unhappy bureaucrats are free to leave (please do, and make yourselves happier elsewhere).

A BTO requirement is perfectly acceptable for a public sector employee. It should have been done years ago.

[Sarcastr0]

the DC-based bureaucracy is bloated and needs to be right-sized.

You love to say this, but it's all inchoate hostility and vibes; you've brought no evidence, much less proof.
I'm sure there are specific areas that could use a cut, but as a general proposition this is just knee-jerk ignorance.

But look at your first comment. This isn't about any policy improvement push; this is about you just drowning in spite. To the point you make up imaginary people to revel in their misery.

As I said, unhinged behavior. Your OP shows how the rest of this is pretense, and at least for you in particular the cruelty is the point.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, the bureaucracy will be right-sized. You don't have to like it. We do not want, or need, the bloated-ness of the bureaucracy and frankly, the sooner bureaucrats leave government service, the better. If a commute makes employment life intolerable, they're free to leave.

[Sarcastr0]

You can keep asserting that without support all you want; doesn't make it any less thoughtless.
And your OP betrays your actual, more spiteful, motive.

[David Nieporent]

1) Government employment is not at will.
2) Even if your made-up claims were right, that would not justify doing it this way.
3) Your claims are just dumb. If you don't like what a particular agency does, then change the laws/regulations that the agency enforces. Getting rid of a bunch of the agency's staff makes it operate worse, not better, from the perspective of the public. It's possible that after eliminating laws/regulations, one may determine that some or many of those workers aren't needed. But getting rid of them first doesn't help anyone. It makes the government less efficient, not more.

[Commenter_XY]

David, one way or the other, the federal bureaucracy will be right-sized. If a morning and afternoon commute is too much for their delicate sensibilities, they can leave for alternative employment. No hard feelings. That is how the world works, outside of DC.

You don't have to believe me. You don't have to like it, either. You can even say I am heartless and cruel and it is dumb to do. Right-sizing will happen, regardless. I am not wrong about that.

DC-based Federal bureaucrats are about to lose their haughtiness and sense of entitlement.

[David Nieporent]

David, one way or the other, the federal bureaucracy will be right-sized. If a morning and afternoon commute is too much for their delicate sensibilities, they can leave for alternative employment. No hard feelings. That is how the world works, outside of DC.

I mean, no. WFH is now common (though of course not universal) nationwide.

And again: you don't even understand what "right sized" means in this context or how it would work. Firing government employees does not make the government more efficient.

[Riva]

They work effectively and efficiently at the office?

[SRG2]

It's still the Gulf of Mexico, regardless of what Trump has ordered.

This is one of the sillier EOs, but may serve to show just how craven Trump supporters are, because I will bet most of them will defend the purported renaming rather than admitting that this is silly, unnecessary and goes too far.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’ll call it the Gulf of America and Mt McKinley when republicans stop deadnaming trans people.

[Martinned2]

It wouldn't be the only place where people argue about naming.

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

[Riva]

Biden’s weaponization of the legal process went too far. You’re getting too hysterical too early. Pace your BS.

[David Nieporent]

The flurry of executive orders on day one illustrates what many of us were concerned about: Trump et al. have learned the lessons of his last presidency: that government is not run via tweet. Rather than Trump just saying stuff and then assuming it will happen (the way Trump handles his business affairs), Trump tasked actual competent (if evil) people to get working on this stuff before the inauguration, and they put together (at least superficially) legal orders in appropriate form to get the ball rolling.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Hindsight is 20/20 but Trump winning in 2020 would probably have been better for everyone.

[David Nieporent]

If you're going to rewrite history, why not have Trump be convicted in his impeachment trial in 2021?

(Or go back in time and kill baby Hitler?)

[Mr. Bumble]

Why not address the premise as presented?
If Trump had won on 2020 he would have continued to be hamstrung by a Democratic controlled Congress and still forced to play defense in any attempt to push forward his objectives.

[David Nieporent]

1) He wouldn't have had a Democratic controlled Congress; at most the House. It would have been at best 50-50 in the senate, and with Mike Pence as the tiebreaker, it'd have been GOP controlled. And that's at best; it's likely that the Dems picked up the two Georgia seats because of Trump's shenanigans and whining; without the latter, the GOP might have held them, making it as much as 52-48 GOP.

2) I didn't see a whole lot of evidence of this hamstringing in the first place, and Trump surely would've been emboldened if he had won.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That too. Just saying that the four years to stew in anger and resentment and cultivate more competent staffing among true believers in Trumpism is probably worse than him barely squeaking by in 2020 and being saddled with Bush level unpopularity by late 2021.

[Martinned2]

Well, let's not exaggerate the quality of these EOs. They're still pretty shoddy quality. But they exist, that's true.

https://bsky.app/profile/mjsdc.bsky.social/post/3lg7uvbogds27

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, what do you expect from "evil" people?

[David Nieporent]

I… would not rely on Mark Joseph Stern's legal analysis. (Or dignify this by calling it legal analysis.)

I certainly haven't reviewed every one of Trump's inauguration day EOs, let alone carefully analyzed them for legal validity. But they are actual EOs, not tweets. To take a trivial example — the renaming of Denali — several people before seeing the order had pointed out that there was a legal process to go through, that the president can't just say, "I hereby declare that its name is changed." And it turns out that his EO actually does initiate that legal process, rather than just declaring it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The reason for calling it the Gulf of America is to counter China's claim to the South China Sea.

[not guilty]

And just how does it do that, Dr. Ed 2?

[David Nieporent]

That is not in fact "the reason" for calling it the Gulf of America, if for no other reason than so doing does not do anything about China's claim to the South China Sea.

[Bwaaah]

It is the beginning of The Great Disappointment.

Day one is over, and he's still not a dictator. Who knows what else this guy won't do?

We should've listened to them.
[whimper][whimper]["our democracy"][whimper]

[ThePublius]

The D.C. prison won't release the Jan. 6 protesters jailed there, despite their pardons.

[Mr. Bumble]

Time to send in US Marshals to force their release and arrest those blocking it.

[David Nieporent]

Insert "That's not how this works; that's not how any of this works" meme.

Prison wardens are not lawyers. They do not pore over legal documents to decide when to release inmates. Judges do.

[ThePublius]

That's a good point. I guess a judge has to review the pardon order and issue the release order? And the jailers can't release anyone without the judge's order?