Midweek Midday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[apedad]

Here's some law enforcement hilarity before we get into the heavy stuff.

Regulatory Roundup: Operation Bear Claw, Rampant Deer, and Key Holiday Coverage

According to a Nov. 13, 2024 news release from the California Department of Insurance, four LA residents were arrested after allegedly committing an insurance fraud scheme officials have aptly dubbed “Operation Bear Claw”. The story goes like this:

On January 28, 2024, Ruben Tamrazian, Ararat Chirkinian, Vahe Muradkhanyan, and Alifiya Zuckerman reported that a bear entered their 2010 Rolls Royce near Lake Arrowhead, CA, and caused interior damage to the vehicle. The men were lucky enough to capture a video of the proposed attack, which they provided in their claim. However, upon viewing the footage, the insurer came to a shocking discovery.

It appeared the car assailant in question wasn’t a bear, but rather a human wearing a bear costume.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/blogs/agentsync/2025/01/15/805897.htm

There's a link to the video in the story.

[Bubba Jones]

That's hilarious. Not to mention the relatively trivial damage to the vehicle.

Bears don't open doors with the handle.

[SRG2]

Bears don't open doors with the handle.

Oh yes they do!

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

[Judge Magney]

I had a cat who figured out how to open doors by the handles (Not knobs.) She would jump up, hang on to the handle, and swing until the door unlatched.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Siamese cat, screen door and of course -- until the day he got a nail caught. Unhooking him wasn't that easy...

One year we had an electronic bird on the Christmas tree. Cat heard it and went after it, and let out a screech and hid upstairs under a bed all day. He never went near it again, and it never sounded the same afterwards.

[Dr. Ed 2]

One year we had an electronic bird on the Christmas tree. Cat heard it and went after it, and let out a screech and hid upstairs under a bed all day. He never went near it again, and it never sounded the same afterwards.

Cat went after parakeet, cage came apart and bird fled while cat's claws got stuck in cage. Bird loose, cat swinging from cage, great fun...

[John F. Carr]

I had a pair of cats who conspired to shut one of them in a dresser drawer 3 feet off the floor. The cat was apparently just missing until the dresser started meowing.

[gVOR08]

We several times saw our late black Burmese, Bonnie, stretched upright with a forepaw on either side of a knob trying to turn it. Without thumbs she couldn't do it, but she knew how it worked. Our other cats would paw at cabinet doors. We saw Bonnie sit and stare at a door for several minutes, then whap it with one paw and get it to bounce enough to get a trimmed claw on the other forepaw under the edge and pull it open.

[Drewski]

An ex of mine had a cat that would bat at the front doorknob and deadbolt together. He figured out that they did the thing but never managed to work them. He did figure out how to unlatch screens one summer, but he was one of those cats that liked to escape roughly 18 inches away and then freeze up.

[Bwaaah]

Coincidentally, I saw this video of a bear opening a car door yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41nJK7el14I&t=88s

Quite handy in the paws, they are.

[hobie]

The pleats in the coat and the Adidas' were suspicious

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Hey, Boo Boo, that isn't an average bear. That isn't a bear at all!

[Dr. Ed 2]

More on the Vermont Border shooting.

What were they up to? Did the dog detect residual odor of bomb making? Hmmmm.....

"The two suspects -- a man and a woman -- were on the radar of authorities before Monday’s incident and were reportedly looking to buy real estate -- in the Northeast Kingdom. The man who was killed has been identified by the FBI as a German national in the U.S. on a current visa. The woman, who was wounded, is an American, and is now in federal custody. Authorities have not released any other information on what prompted the shooting, the identity of the suspects, or if other agents were involved.

The bomb squad was also called in as a precaution after the stop but no bomb or hazardous material was found."

https://www.wcax.com/2025/01/21/suspects-fatal-shooting-border-patrol-agent-were-staying-newport-hotel/

[Josh R]

Removing the ability of asylum seekers to schedule appointments at border crossings (and canceling existing appointments) reveals the not-so-hidden truth that Trump is opposed to legal immigration from the so-called shitholes.

[ThePublius]

Because he recognizes that 99 44/100's % of so-called asylum seekers are full of shit.

Tell me, what are the requirements of a true, legal asylum seeker? Can you pass through multiple countries to apply fo asylum in the U.S., for example?

[David Nieporent]

Tell me, what are the requirements of a true, legal asylum seeker? Can you pass through multiple countries to apply fo asylum in the U.S., for example?

Asked and answered the other day: yes.

[Frank Drackman]

Not anymore

[Mr. Bumble]

Bingo!

[Josh R]

Did Trump sign an EO to that effect? Whatever became of Biden's proposed rule along the same lines?

[Commenter_XY]

Biden was/is cognitively challenged and forgot about it.

POTUS Trump won't forget. 😉

[Drewski]

For those not in the know, referencing 99.44% is white nationalist jargon, usually made as an ostensible reference to Ivory soap but actually a nod to the "purity" they want in America.

That said, the "passing through other countries" argument is nonsense. Who gives a shit?

[Absaroka]

"referencing 99.44% is white nationalist jargon"

Ummm....don't think so. I use it all the time, and know lots of folks who do who don't have a racist bone in their body.

Is this a 4chan joke, like the OK sign?

[Drewski]

Been a thing since those ads were on the air. I'm sure you're unaware and happened to randomly pick an extremely specific number while discussing immigration. Happens all the time.

[Absaroka]

"since those ads were on the air."

Those ads predate television. Here is one from 1923. Page 49. Ivory Soap was trademarked in 1879, dunno when they came up with the 99.44 business.

My Dad used to relate that in middle school or so - early 1930's - a math teacher used 99.44% in some math problem, and Dad piped up "The Guest Soap"[1]. School discipline being rather stricter then, he got a paddling.

To be clear, I'm not questioning that the white supremacists you hang out with say 99.44 and cackle, or interpret 'White Christmas' differently than Bing Crosby. But don't be projecting that on the rest of us.

[1]The marketing blurbs were '99.44%', 'so pure it floats', and 'the guest soap'. Like it was so fancy you'd only put it out to impress guests.

[Jmaie]

I wonder at the need to inject racism into this discussion. Those doing the accusing may enjoy the feeling of denouncing the deplorables, but any true white nationalist isn't going to be bothered and the rest of us will mostly just roll eyes and move on. Seems very unlikely and opinions will be changed...

[Brett Bellmore]

They feel better thinking that the folks who disagree with them are evil people, I guess.

[shawn_dude]

Possibly because there's ample evidence that racism is partly driving the desire to "secure the border" but only really meaning the Southern one. A bunch of tiki-torch carrying white guys shouting "you will not replace us" is kinda a dead giveaway. Trump says they're very nice people. So is the shift from deporting illegal immigrants to just deporting immigrants regardless of visa status. Trump, and the GOP long before him, has been using racist scaremongering as a political tactic to maintain power. That's how racism was injected into this discussion.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Sure. If you think there is only one class of individuals seeking asylum. Such as individuals who actually fit the internationally recognized definition of asylum seeker. But there isn't just one class, is there? There are MILLIONS who are claiming asylum when they are seeking economic advancement and free cell phones, food, housing, medical care, and education.

It has long been said you can have an open border or massive social safety nets. You can't have both.

[Josh R]

You can determine who is eligible at the appointment. Trump doesn't want any of them in the USA, eligible or not.

[Bob from Ohio]

None of them are eligible.

[Josh R]

Do go on ...

[Martinned2]

Except the white ones like Elon, presumably?

[David Nieporent]

There are MILLIONS who are claiming asylum

There are not.

[tylertusta]

Over 2 million pending claims as of last year.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Instead of admitting he was wrong, he'll vanish like a coward.

Garbage. Like most liberals.

[David Nieporent]

Hey, nutjob, I am not a liberal. And when I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. I'm trying to determine the validity of tyler's statistic, since he provided no source.

[David Nieporent]

To follow up on this: it appears that my information was out of date; it dramatically spiked in 2023, and is now around 2 million. The original claim by Satchmo — at least insofar as it referred to a data point — was correct. (I am not conceding that they are all fraudsters looking for free cell phones, to be clear.) And tyler's more specific stat appears to be correct as well.

[tylertusta]

Thanks- my apologies for not providing the data sooner as I had some other tasks to do. I provided a more comprehensive breakdown with sources.

[tylertusta]

If you're looking for total numbers who are still on some sort of parole (meaning their asylum claims are not adjudicated yet), some reports say the number is somewhere near 2.7 million, though that figure includes about 600k Afghans and Ukrainians.

DHS reported more than 1 million backlog cases pending determination as of the end of October of 2023. To get the data for FY 2024, you need to add in that fiscal year's data from Customs and Border Protection. The number of people "transfer released" to parole for asylum is listed as "humanitarian release/notice to appear-own recognizance." There were over 860k humanitarian paroles from the southwest border alone from October '23 until September '24. The northern border had another 200k Title 8 encounters that same time period (you will need to filter this data down to northern land border region, title 8 authority).

The CBP transfer figures are obviously incomplete, as they will only give encounter data for the northern border but not the transfer on own recognizance. They also don't include Ukrainian and Afghan parolees under different programs, but I linked to an article that spoke about them. The figure is definitely is over 2 million, possibly over 3 if we include Afghanistan/Ukraine numbers.

[tylertusta]

Let's not do what Mr. Guilty does. We're better than him.

[Martinned2]

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

[hobie]

No illegal immigrant is getting free shit from the federal government. Maybe cities and Christian charities are helping them out. So your beef is with Christ.

[tylertusta]

Incorrect. FEMA spent over $500 billion to house illegal immigrants last year.

They spent so much of FEMA's budget on it that they were running out when hurricane season came.

[David Nieporent]

Both of those statements are wrong.

1. The money was spent for asylum seekers, not illegal immigrants.

2. Those are entirely separate pools of money appropriated, not one large bank account that FEMA could draw from to spend how it wanted.

[tylertusta]

The money was spent for asylum seekers, not illegal immigrants.

One and the same. Illegal immigrants falsely claiming asylum, whose claims ought to be (and will be) denied so they can be deported to their home countries.

Those are entirely separate pools of money appropriated, not one large bank account that FEMA could draw from to spend how it wanted.

You may be correct. But immaterial, since hobie's claim was that no taxpayer money was spent. Which line item it came from doesn't matter.

[David Nieporent]

One and the same. Illegal immigrants falsely claiming asylum, whose claims ought to be (and will be) denied so they can be deported to their home countries.

I lack your precognitive abilities.

Nevertheless, a person who presents himself for an asylum determination is not an illegal immigrant unless and until his claim is denied.

[tylertusta]

Trump is President. Read the room.

[Josh R]

OK. Which means my original point holds. Trump wants no one in the USA who claim asylum, even those with legitimate claims.

[tylertusta]

You may well be correct (I wasn't disputing your point, I was replying further down the thread).

I empathize with those that have legitimate claims, but the gross mismanagement of our asylum system and border under Biden has allowed millions of people to gum it all up. Trump isn't known for his precision when it comes to policy and he's going to take a hammer to the problem.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump is President.

Facts are still facts, and speculation is still not facts.

[tylertusta]

Right now it's winter. That's a fact.

Later this year it's going to be summer. Proving it as a fact- short of having a time machine- is impossible, but given the history of past seasonal cycles, the low probability of a nuclear, volcanic, or asteroid-caused winter in the next few months, there's a greater than 99% chance of us having a summer this year. Chastising someone for speaking on the near certainty of an event happening is a pretty silly way of trying to argue with them, and indicates that you're operating in bad faith.

Trump is President. We know his position on the border. Look at whom he has nominated to run DHS and ICE; they aren't exactly open borders Democrats. Trump has already signed EOs on illegal immigration and the border already, and a GOP Senate will confirm his nominees or someone of the same mold to take their place.

So let me then ask you: Do you actually think that Trump (and his administration) won't deny the bulk of the outstanding asylum claims?

[Sarcastr0]

You made an assertion of fact about asylym seekers. When called out on it, you appealed to the position of the President, as though that was material to the validity of your assertion of fact.

Unless you think Trump is rolling Divine Right of Kings and has a bit of control of reality, you backed up your assertion with something with no probative value.

The rest of your comment is pettifogging.

Do you actually think that Trump (and his administration) won't deny asylum claims?
I actually think you are crabwalking away from your original thesis.

[tylertusta]

I actually think you are crabwalking away from your original thesis.

Incorrect buzzer noises.

You made an assertion of fact about asylym seekers.

I said that illegal immigrants are falsely claiming asylum. I also said that their false claims will be denied.

I also said that the FEMA funding hurt hurricane relief. I may be incorrect in that. It's a sign that I'm willing to concede when shown that I'm wrong, but that's small potatoes, Peanut.

Do you dispute my other point about money being spent on behalf of illegal immigrants by the federal government?

When called out on it, you appealed to the position of the President, as though that was material to the validity of your assertion of fact.

Absolutely. Trump is going to deny the claims.

Unless you think Trump is rolling Divine Right of Kings and has a bit of control of reality, you backed up your assertion with something with no probative value.

Trump isn't king, and he doesn't have a divine right. But he's President, and the executive has a ton of power in deciding how to handle asylum determinations. For example, the President has the power to unilaterally decide to deny all claims made by people who cross the border illegally. That's pretty sweeping.

The rest of your comment is pettifogging.

How ironic that you would say this.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question, Peanut:

Do you actually think that Trump (and his administration) won't deny [the bulk of the outstanding] asylum claims?

[Sarcastr0]

You only just now said: "I said that illegal immigrants are falsely claiming asylum."

Here's your old goalposts:
'[asylum seekers, illegal immigrants] One and the same. Illegal immigrants falsely claiming asylum.'

That's not a statement scoped to being about illegal aliens, it's calling asylum seekers all illegal aliens.

DMN took issue: " a person who presents himself for an asylum determination is not an illegal immigrant unless and until his claim is denied."

You cited Trump and said read the room. As though Trump's position had anything to say about DMN's point.

There are lots of ways to take issue with factual assertions. But you keep just appealing to authority or the populus. Those are both fallacies when applied to arguments, and nigh incoherent when applied to factual assertions.

Power has nothing to do with any of this facts stuff.

[tylertusta]

Ah, I see why you're so confused. Thank you for explaining better. I'll explain why we're at cross purposes:

I didn't answer this point by David: "Nevertheless, a person who presents himself for an asylum determination is not an illegal immigrant unless and until his claim is denied."

That was intentional on my part. David was speaking from a purely legal definitional standpoint, and it's ironically the same sort of pettifogging you're accusing me of doing. Colloquially "illegal immigrant" refers to those who intend to move into the country but are not supposed to be in this country. I'm not going to play David's jenga word games. He knows what I mean despite his attempts to hide from it with a snuck premise that they aren't technically illegal yet, so they don't count for our conversation.

My Trump answer was to David's comment of: "I lack your precognitive abilities."

That was in regards to David not sure about whether the illegal immigrants (aka 'asylum seekers')'s claims would be denied and whether they would be deported.

And yes, Trump is President. Read the room on what his immigration and border policy is going to be. Asylum claims will not be a golden ticket to enter and remain in the United States during Trump's presidency.

Additionally, I find it fascinating that you took that answer I made to apply to something that clearly didn't fit. Logically, of David's two points, the answer fits better with the first instead of the second. And this kind of behavior isn't new to you at all; I'm not the first person to refuse to engage on a topic. Hell, you've done it a bunch already to my points in this very comment thread already!

I look forward to you ignoring most of this comment to pick one or two things to be incensed about.

[Sarcastr0]

Illegal immigrants falsely claiming asylum

Your utter lack of need to establish this reveals quite a bit about what you care about.

You threw in: "They spent so much of FEMA's budget on it that they were running out when hurricane season came" which DMN established was incorrect. Seems a relevant thing to call you on.

[tylertusta]

Yawn.

[RedheadedPharoh]

*arf arf* eViDEnCe! goes the sealion.

[Frank Drackman]

You're correct Hobie-stank, most of the murderers/rape-ists, cat/dog eaters are in State Prisons.

[Kazinski]

Thats not the way legal immigration works.

My Mother in Law a legal resident (LPR) has applied for a visa for her 17 year old daughter to get a visa, and the whole process will take 17 months.

When she applied for a tourist visa to come visit her mother for a month or so, she was told she didn't make enough money and have enough assets to qualify for a tourist visa, this to a teenager.

When my mother in law got her green card she had to submit a police report showing a spotless record.

[Armchair]

"appointments for asylum seekers..."

This always seemed a bit...odd. I mean, these are asylum seekers. They are fleeing persecution from their government. That government is going to come and kill them. And they....sit peacefully making an appointment on an app, while waiting for their turn to be called?

If my house is on fire, I don't make an appointment on an app and wait for the fire department to come. I call immediately, and if they don't come, I run or try something else. If my kid is having a deadly allergic attack, I run to the hospital. I don't make an appointment on an app and wait around. And there might be a line at the hospital...but I'm not sitting around on an app.

If your government is coming to kill you, you run for the border. There might be a line to get in...but you're sitting there begging to be let in. It's life or death. And if you're sitting there begging to be let in, and someone comes in with their iphone and an app saying "well, it's my turn for my application, I've been waiting at my friend's house nearby peacefully for my turn"...you kinda look at them and say "Is your case really life or death?"

[shawn_dude]

One of the more common complaints is that migrants come to our Southern border having traveled through more than one other country to get here. A Venezuelan on the app in Mexico has done just what you've described. Or, if they've entered the country and presented themselves for asylum they can also use the app while residing in the US. Heck, they could start using the app as they flee and slowly walk a thousand miles North. This sitting peacefully story seems like a strawman.

[Swede425]

Press: Hey guys, guess what? Pete Hegseth beat up his ex-wife!
Ex-wife: Uh, no he didn't.
Press: Bitch, shut up. We're working here.

The reason the press enjoys the reputation that they have, somewhere between a telemarketer and a pedophile, is because they so richly deserve it. You really don't hate them enough.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm walkin here! Great Scene, totally adlibbed by DH

[SRG2]

Whether he did or he didn't, he's a drunken lecher massively unqualified for the position. The willingness with which Trumpsuckers such as yourself embrace any and all nominees regardless of how unqualified they are shows just how cravenly authoritarian you lot are.

(Still, authoritarians are necessary for society. Someone has to obey orders.)

[Frank Drackman]

It's well known that Dustin Hoffman adlibbed the "I'm walkin Here!" scene in "Midnight Cowboy" and being a drunken lecher is a pre-requisite for most big time Hollywood jobs, so what's your point Jerkey?

[hobie]

Frankie 'wounded warrior' Drackman, America's neediest veteran, sexual predation seems to be a virtue in conservatism the past few years, so why single out Hollywood?

[Bwaaah]

You, and your ilk, are why the "bad guys" are now in charge. Too many people heard too many people like you, Hobie, and couldn't help but reconsider who the bad people are.

Keep it up.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/8/1786532/-Cartoon-You-made-me-become-a-Nazi

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm a bit curious: Are the claims that he's a drunken lecher at least as well documented as Biden's hair sniffing and showering with minors?

[SRG2]

Yes.

[Jerry B.]

Trot them out, then.

[not guilty]

Here is a sworn affidavit from Danielle Hegseth, who was married to Pete Hegseth's brother: file:///C:/Users/JohnE/Downloads/818537716-Hegseth-Affidavit.pdf

The allegations are disturbing.

[Bob from Ohio]

Mostly heresy. Denied by the ex-wife.

She only observed some alleged drinking. Unverifiable. Oh yes, he yelled at her once. Brought in the race card too for good measure.

Before I read her name, I assumed it was the wife's sister but it turns out it is the disgruntled ex-wife of Pete's brother. No bias there!

Collins and Murkowski might fall for it but no one else is likely to.

[David Nieporent]

Mostly heresy.

Trump, no matter what you guys think, is not god, and criticizing him — let alone his mere servants — is not heresy.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m happy to check it out on your hard drive if you want to give me remote access, but otherwise you might need a better link.

[Michael P]

https://www.scribd.com/document/818537716/Hegseth-Affidavit is probably the one being referenced. This sister-in-law was formerly married to Hegseth's brother, she's not related by blood to Pete Hegseth's ex-wife in question.

[not guilty]

Sorry about that.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Dear John E.

You can't hyperlink to files from your downloads folder.

lmao, what are you like 900 years old? wtf

[tylertusta]

From what I've gathered in the past year + change I've been in the comments sections, he's retired. Whether he's a new Methuselah is something I am unable to answer.

[not guilty]

I'm 69 years old. Thank you for asking.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Yikes, is it even worth living at that age?

[not guilty]

I'm enjoying life. I get up and go to bed when I choose to. I read online (plus an occasional novel) and watch old tv shows on YouTube and Hulu. I cook, play my instruments, play with my cat and go out to eat with my daughter. It's all good.

[Jmaie]

Not quite 69 but I plan on adopting your lifestyle fairly soon. Curious what instruments you play? I just acquired a cittern and am bingeing on videos of Scandinavian folk music.

[not guilty]

I have several guitars, both acoustic and electric, and two electric basses.

[Jmaie]

Unable to reply to your reply below for some reason. I also play bass, currently have a 32" scale Alembic. I had a Tobias five string that I sold (which move I've regretted ever since).

What sort of music do you play?

[hobie]

Ain't the last part from a diary stolen from Biden's daughter by conservative operatives?

[David Nieporent]

It's allegedly from that diary, but even assuming it is, and is reliable, the page does not say anything about showering with minors.

[tylertusta]

"Hyper-sexualized @ a young age."

"Was I molested?"

"I remember having sex with friends @ a young age; showers w/ my dad (probably not appropriate)."

Are you're saying that "young age" doesn't mean "minor?"

[David Nieporent]

It does not; that is an inference. Also, you note how it says "@ a young age" for two things, but not for the showers?

[Michael P]

I guess "maybe Joe Biden showered with his daughter when she was an adult" is *a* distinction. I don't think it says what you think it does, though.

[tylertusta]

Yeah, David isn't exactly covering himself with glory here. Splitting hairs on whether Joe sexually assaulted his own daughter as a child or as an adult is an odd way to try to defend him.

[Sarcastr0]

No, the molestation is sure not established, even if the source is legit.

It's pretty fucked up to leap from 'it's a reasonable inference' to declare not only is such an awful thing true, but any who say it isn't are immoral.

You, who love to point out what's popular and what's not, may need to check whether your interpretation is widely shared.

[tylertusta]

but any who say it isn't are immoral.

Do you have a source to where people say that it isn't true are immoral?

You, who love to point out what's popular and what's not, may need to check whether your interpretation is widely shared.

Do you have a source for this?

[Sarcastr0]

"Yeah, David isn't exactly covering himself with glory here" is you saying anyone who doesn't agree with your 'reasonable inference' is behaving immorally.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Um, am I missing something, or are you guys missing something? I find David and Sarcastro's "defense" of Biden very confusing.

[Michael P]

TIP, I don't think you are missing anything.

DMN's argument seems to be "Joe Biden did not necessarily shower with his daughter in a 'probably not appropriate' manner when she was '@ a young age' -- she might have instead been ___ age, which would be morally acceptable." I don't know how to fill in that blank to make a true statement, or even how DMN thinks it should be filled in.

Sarcastr0 seems to be pulling his usual gag of ripping a phrase out of context, misinterpreting it, and insisting his confused mind-reading about its ackchyual meaning proves somebody else's fundamental errors. He sure doesn't offer any way to complete DMN's argument, only an implication that there is a "widely shared" answer. (Query who shares that answer.)

[David Nieporent]

DMN's argument seems to be "Joe Biden did not necessarily shower with his daughter in a 'probably not appropriate' manner when she was '@ a young age' -- she might have instead been ___ age, which would be morally acceptable." I don't know how to fill in that blank to make a true statement, or even how DMN thinks it should be filled in.

For the record, I have no idea what Joe Biden did. I don't know if this page was actually written by Ashley Biden or is a forgery. If she wrote it, I don't know if she was purporting to record actual events at all. (Although it's been commonly described as a "diary," it was more akin to a journal, where she was writing down her thoughts, including about things long in the past, not recording contemporaneous events.)

The only thing I am saying is that even taking it at face value, people are reporting it as saying things it didn't say. It did not say that Joe Biden molested her. It did not say that he showered with her as a child.

[Michael P]

Well, that's very lawyerly pounding of the table.

[Mr. Bumble]

What would you expect?

[tylertusta]

It does not; that is an inference.

A reasonable inference based on how normal Americans communicate. I bet even you could sell that to a jury.

Also, you note how it says "@ a young age" for two things, but not for the showers?

David the robot doesn't understand human communication again.

You may be surprised to learn that most people are not lawyers, and this isn't some statute you're trying to interpret.

When someone writes a whole page about their experiences about being young and the things that happened to them when they were young, they don't repeat the same words "when I was young" over and over again. It's implied that the words describe the entire paragraph at the very least. Contextually it may apply to a chapter or even an entire series of works.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It does not; that is an inference."

I'm really not sure how this helps.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Sir and/or madam, you are going to have a very long four years.
And I'm here for it.

[SRG2]

"Sir" will do. "Stephen" works.

It will be, but I have an advantage in that having voted consistently Liberal or Liberal Democrat in Britain until I moved to the US in 1997, I am entirely accustomed to a country being run by cunts.

[Commenter_XY]

Can we use: Sir Stephen? 🙂

[SRG2]

LOL indeed. I have made that joke myself as appropriate.

[Swede425]

Very good, sir.
One Peter Hegseth shall be our next SECDEF.
Jolly good show.
Pip pip.
What what.

[SRG2]

At least by implication you concede he's unqualified. Thanks.

[Super Scary]

Is English your second language? That's not what the post says.

[Brett Bellmore]

Being at least a bit of a lecher is a normal consequence of having a Y chromosome and being past puberty.

I looked up some of the news accounts. An awful lot of reliance on anonymous and/or contradicted accounts.

[hobie]

As long as he didn't sniff scalps, he should be good

[Frank Drackman]

Like the late great Fred G (Gone to Heaven) Sanford told his son, when accused of being a Dirty Old man,
"And I'm gonna keep being a Dirty Old man, till I'm a Dead Old man!"

[Noscitur a sociis]

My impression is that most people, even those with Y chromosomes, manage to avoid ending two different marriages by having affairs, to the point where we can even call that an expectation for moral behavior. But perhaps I missed the most recent memo.

[Frank Drackman]

You need to get out more, in the Marine Corpse, the married Marines had way more sex than the single ones, at least when deployed, and when back in the states there was more wife-swapping than the early 70's Yankees

[TwelveInchPianist]

"My impression is that most people, even those with Y chromosomes, manage to avoid ending two different marriages by having affairs,"

Sure. Bill Clinton, for example, didn't end any marriages by having affairs. Hegseth chose to marry people with the judgement to leave him when he cheated.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I seem to remember that some people took issue with Bill Clinton’s character as well!

[Bob from Ohio]

"massively unqualified"

He probably knows to inform his Deputy and the White House know when he is in the hospital. So better qualified than the last office holder.

[Frank Drackman]

and can probably do more pushups than Austin and Milley combined

[Commenter_XY]

Sir Stephen...you've been banging on the massively unqualified drum for awhile now. The man has a Bronze Star and smelled the smoke. Inside the Pentagon, that goes a long way toward qualification; namely, killing the enemy.

The SecDef set the tone, culture, priorities; he has a very capable team to effectuate the Trump agenda (increased lethality).

The requirement is that you are a civilian. That's it.

[Swede425]

Look, before you go too far in lauding Hegseth I want to remind everybody that he's not perfect. He's goddamn Norwegian.

Fucking norgies.

[Commenter_XY]

I know, I know. Couldn't they have picked a nice Jewish boy from Williamsburg for SecDef?

[Sarcastr0]

Inside the Pentagon, that goes a long way toward qualification; namely, killing the enemy.

Saying this doesn't make it true. I did a bit of time over there, and respect is not accorded for stuff like bronze stars.

I think those predicting his failure and doom are overdetermining things - the military is a weird place.
But so are you, in the other direction.

[Commenter_XY]

Cleaning the latrines?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Wow, such a powerful anecdote!

You totally disproved his claim with your strong data.

Good work, The Great Contribut0!

[Mr. Bumble]

Danang Douche?
A bit of time where and in what capacity. Where you a Jag-off or just a tourist?

[Sarcastr0]

Why would I share that with any of you who like to speculate about what I do and for what agency?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The man couldn't name a member country of ASEAN.

Your 'qualification' standards are that of a child who knows nothing about the importance a SecDef plays in our national security.

[Swede425]

LOL!
I hope you lay awake at night worrying about that.
We have a SC Justice who doesn't know what a woman is and yet I can sleep like a log.
Hope you get better soon!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm going to put you in a grey box for a dozen or so more years until you are closer to maturity.

Be gone, child.

[RedheadedPharoh]

That whole "I'm not a biologist" is the lasting legacy of that AA Queen isn't it?

And that's given you a case of the SADS and the MADS apparently.

[Mr. Bumble]

Now tell us about your service?

[Frank Drackman]

How about "Who-Gives-a-Fuck-Stan?" "Western-I-done-give-a-shit"?, "Upper Blow Me"?

Frank

[not guilty]

The last time a president nominated a womanizing drunkard to be Secretary of Defense was George H. W. Bush's nomination of John (Thousand Pints of Lite) Tower. That effort failed in the Senate.

[Bob from Ohio]

Democrat majority in Senate.

[shawn_dude]

In defense of the MAGAts... they aren't embracing Trump's picks because they're yearning to be serfs. They knowingly elected a drug-addled lecher, adulterer, grifter, and social bore to the presidency. Even the whiff of statutory rape isn't enough to dissuade them. They see these things as qualifications in themselves.

[gVOR08]

Hegseth reportedly made a public denial saying he never physically abused her. Why did he add the qualifier "physical"? We're talking about a job interview here, not a criminal case. No presumption is owed him.

[Kleppe]

Waiting for any acknowledgment from the libertarians at the VC of Trump's pardon of Ross Ulbricht. This realization of a major libertarian objective has been met with resounding silence by the party who claimed to care.

[Frank Drackman]

Some of us have jobs

[SRG2]

I approved of it on the main Reason comments.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, great for his family, but as a libertarian I'm a bit more concerned with the laws themselves. And I would hope any libertarian would be a bit more happy with Biden's commutation of thousands of sentences of non-violent drug offenders than one guy.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I checked out the thread on the Reason page in response to a partial criticism of Trump's blanket pardons/commutations.

Ah. Sort of a cesspool. So sad I didn't join the site to comment too.

I'm with DN -- if that is a "major libertarian objective" as compared to things Biden did (and multiple non-libertarian things Trump is doing), that is rather a curious line to take.

[Commenter_XY]

Promise made and kept by POTUS Trump.

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY — Not on birthright citizenship. Not on anything, really, until Trump gets it past his own corruptly partisan Supreme Court.

Or tries to do it without the Court, and gets past impeachment. But if that happens, it will take an especially stupid MAGA to brag about it:

"How great is this! We're past rule of law! We're headed for anarchy! They had a Republic they couldn't keep. It was us who stopped them!!"

[Commenter_XY]

Trump's pardon of Ross Ulbricht = promise made (to LP at convention last year), and promise kept.

[ducksalad]

It's great that Ross Ulbricht got pardoned.

He is one person who happened to be the poster boy. Tens of thousands (at least) of others are still in prison and thousands more are arrested daily. Addressing that is the "major libertarian objective".

If forced to choose between the thousand plus Biden pardoned for crack possession, or Ross Ulbricht, I'd have to go with the thousand plus. But fortunately we got both.

[MoreCurious]

Sorry to be so ill-informed, but is it the Libertarians' argument that Ulbricht didn't do what he was convicted of? Or is it their argument that the sentence was too harsh?

[Frank Drackman]

It's like prosecuting the guy who invented the B-29 for war crimes.

[ducksalad]

Can't speak for libertarians in general, but

- There's a belief - reasonable IMO - that the main reason he was targeted was that he provided a way to conduct trade that the government can't track. Most of us consider options for privacy and anonymity to be a good thing; maybe not an absolute but certainly not worth sacrificing for the war on drugs.

- A belief that when someone commits a real crime, e.g. robs a bank with a gun and body armor purchased using encrypted online trading, that the person solely responsible is the robber. Not the gun maker, not the body armor maker, not the encryption coder, and not the website manager.

- He was accused of attempted murder-for-hire, but it was never prosecuted. Instead the prosecutors and judge used lesser charges and then used the unproven attempted murder charge to jack his sentence up to life without parole. Most libertarians, and for that matter anyone who thinks trials should mean something, believe sentencing someone for stuff they were not convicted of is fundamentally wrong.

[shawn_dude]

Largely see and agree with your take except... I'd add track and tax. Even illegal commerce is taxable and you can be charged for not paying it. Privacy is fine but if you're trying to be so private even the IRS cannot know what you're making, that's an issue.

IANAL but I'm pretty sure that if a company sells an item like a gun to someone they know (or reasonably expect) is going to use it in a crime then they're also guilty. I think knowingly facilitating crime should be a crime in itself and the nature of those crimes committed should matter regarding sentencing. "I'm not an assassin. I just supply weapons to assassins" should not be a reasonable defense.

[hobie]

I'm for the pardon. He was a good guy who created a monster he shouldn't have, and couldn't have dealt with

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nearl 48 hours after their pardons, the infamous DC Jail is still holding Jan 6thers.

What's it going to take, a storming of the Bastille?

[David Nieporent]

I reiterate for the legally illiterate: that's not how it works.

[Frank Drackman]

Jails are mostly run by actual illiterates, and the release process is exactly what Jake Blues went through except they don't give you your used Condom back.

[Life of Brian]

If you're actually deigning to bestow your infinite wisdom on the ignorant unwashed masses, a few words on how it supposedly DOES work would be in order.

[David Nieporent]

Do you remember when Hunter Biden was pardoned? The judge did not say, "Oh, I saw in the paper that you were being pardoned, so… case dismissed. Everyone go home." Hunter Biden had to make a motion to dismiss. After he made the motion, the judge's response was, "You didn't attach a copy of the pardon certificate to the motion." Biden had to supplement his filing with a copy of the document. Only then did the court dismiss the case.

There's a process.

For the J6 pardons, Trump issued a blanket pardon to a class of people. That had to be turned by the DOJ into individual pardon certificates identifying each person who was a beneficiary of the pardon. Then — for any who were actually incarcerated — an application could be made for that person's release. Each such person's file would need to be reviewed to make sure that his sentence was only for offenses covered by the pardon; if a prisoner was serving time concurrently or consecutively for other crimes, the pardon doesn't entitle him to be released at all. Notably, none of the above process involves ranting on social media.

For the J6 dismissals — that is, anyone whose trial was pending — the DOJ has no ability to unilaterally dismiss a case. Fed Rule Crim. Pro. 48(a) requires leave of court to dismiss a case. That means that the government must file a motion for dismissal, and the judge must approve it, separately for each individual defendant. 99% of the time that's a rubber stamp, but it's still a process. Again, it takes time. We're talking hundreds of cases to process. Assuming the defendant is being held in pretrial detainment (which is the people that Dr. Ed is ranting about), once the judge dismisses the case he will order the person's release. Only at that point can/will the jail release the person.

This isn't Starfleeet; there's no "Make it so" that Trump can order and have things immediately happen. His power to pardon is plenary, so it will happen, but it's not instantaneous.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Related, saw this in the news:

"Enrique Tarrio, the former head of the Proud Boys, and Stewart Rhodes, the head of the Oath Keepers, were released Tuesday from prison following President Donald Trump's sweeping pardon of those convicted in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol riot."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/oath-keepers-proud-boys-leaders-prison-after-trump/story?id=117940370

[David Nieporent]

Note that their sentences were separately commuted, by individual name, as opposed to them being part of the blanket pardon.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

That's fine. Hunter Biden is also an individual name. Seemed quick to me.

[Life of Brian]

Thanks, but not sure what relevance the pending-trial-dismissal paragraph had to a discussion about releasing prisoners.

As to the prisoners, it's a nice effort to pile up enough bureaucratic cover to set the expectation that they can gum up the release process as much as they choose to, but the fact that a good number of prisoners actually were released yesterday by less recalcitrant BOP facilities sorta takes us past the "gotta carve individual certificates out of stone tablets" sand in the gears, so apparently we're down to the "gotta sort through bankers' boxes full of paper files, squint to read the handwriting, and form a committee to determine whether the individual was serving more than a single sentence for the pardoned offense."

Those that actually do this sort of work for a living, on the other hand, seem to think there's a big effin' problem indeed.

[David Nieporent]

Thanks, but not sure what relevance the pending-trial-dismissal paragraph had to a discussion about releasing prisoners.

Um, because many of the people being held in prison are in this category?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia is a Presidential Appointee, and the USMS is part of the Justice Department. So, what is apparently happening now is the Trump DOJ has directed the USMS to go into the DOC and physically remove those J6 defendants still being held."

I assume that a USA has the authority to so instruct the USMS, and the Interim USA for DC is Ed Martin. (See below.)

So, apparently, there are issues with the BoP...

[David Nieporent]

I assume that a USA has the authority to so instruct the USMS,

Why would you assume that? Besides that you're Dr. Ed, I mean.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I view it as a separation of powers issue -- the BOP answers to the PRESIDENT and hence if the President says "release Nieporent", they have to do it. The court gives them permission to imprison someone, it's the executive who does it.

That said, there is this: "Not only did they get to work, but they put the wheels on their new position. After President Trump's pardon of more than 1,500 J6 patriots, [interim USA-DC] got a move on in requesting dismissals for all remaining cases....Make no mistake, there's much work happening and still much to be done. Prisons are holding up the release still of many of the J6ers, and the work is yet to be complete.[emphasis added]

The extent to which the BoP is playing games will come out with the snowdrops (first flowering bulb of spring). https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/22/breaking-j6-investigation-to-move-to-judiciary-committee-to-help-republicans-uncover-fbi-abuses/

[ducksalad]

Do we know if they have documentation in hand?

If Trump's people haven't finished the work of sending out the paperwork, then it's on them and not the jailers.

If the way it works is they have to show the jailer the paperwork, and then the jailer promptly initiates contact with higher authority to verify and get release instructions, I'm fine with that.

If the way it works is that the pardon is equivalent to a claim of new evidence of innocence, and they have to hire a lawyer and then go through all the same weeks-long process of asking for a judge to grant them a hearing, and then get in a year-long queue to actually have the hearing, then the way it works is unjust and defeats the purpose of having pardons.

If someone in the jail or the jail supervisor is sitting on it on purpose to lengthen their detention (not that Dr. Ed has presented any evidence of that) then that seems like it ought to be a criminal offense in itself.

But like LoB says, it would be nice to have someone who knows explain how it actually does work.

[hobie]

Pardoning your personal mob-army doesn't equate immediate release. There's paperwork, Ed

[shawn_dude]

"What's it going to take, a storming of the Bastille?"

Yes, that's right. Just go ahead and do what got them into prison in the first place a second time to prove how innocent they are!

You win the comment thread for unintentional transparency.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Pardon notwithstanding, can Milley be reduced in rank to a 2LT and his pension equally reduced?

[Frank Drackman]

No, Stupid

[David Nieporent]

Do you think Criticizing the Dear Leader is an offense?

[Mr. Bumble]

Telling the ChiComs he'd give them a heads up is.

[David Nieporent]

Why? I mean, I can see the argument that actually doing so would be one, but surely trying to verbally soothe an adversary cannot do any harm to the U.S.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"aid and comfort"?

[ducksalad]

aid AND comfort

[Brett Bellmore]

I mean, if he'd done it after consulting with the President, with the understanding that he was, of course, lying to the ChiComs, that would be one thing.

But as it is, he just went ahead and did it, and I don't think that when a general promises an adversary that he will commit treason, we actually have to wait on his delivering on the promise to sanction him.

[David Nieporent]

Even were your argument not frivolous on its face, we don't need to "wait on his delivering" anything. This isn't about preemptively firing him before he could do it; it's about punishing after the fact when we know that in fact he didn't do it.

[Brett Bellmore]

But he did, in fact, do "it", where "it" was promising an adversary that he'd commit treason.

[David Nieporent]

1) He did not in fact promise any such thing.
2) But again, so what? How is lying to China an offense against the U.S.?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Are you really trying to argue that a high level Defense official telling his Chinese counterpart that they will get a heads-up if there is any surprise attacks is totally legal?

[santamonica811]

Of course it's legal. In fact, we have spies and agents and double agents routinely (falsely) promise to do far worse things to adversaries. Zero problem with that. Actually *doing* what you've promised is, as David has pointed out multiple times, is an entirely different matter.

[not guilty]

"Are you really trying to argue that a high level Defense official telling his Chinese counterpart that they will get a heads-up if there is any surprise attacks is totally legal?"

What federal statute(s) do you claim were violated?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Both of y'all, santa monica & DN, are claiming Milley was lying to the Chinese.

That's massive cope.

Not guilty:
Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution & 18 U.S.C. § 2381

[not guilty]

Redhead, treason is a wartime offense. When did Congress declare war on the Peoples Republic of China? While that country is an international rival, (and a huge trading partner,) it is not an enemy.

And a hypothetical and contingent statement about something that may or may not occur in the future hardly qualifies as aid and comfort.

If you don't know squat about parsing a statute, man up and say so.

[RedheadedPharoh]

1. Treason (Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution & 18 U.S.C. § 2381)

Definition: Treason involves "levying war" against the U.S. or "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Application: A promise to warn an adversary about a sneak attack could easily be interpreted as "adhering to the enemy" and providing "aid and comfort." Even if no attack has occurred, the promise itself signals intent to help the enemy.

Punishment: Treason is punishable by death or imprisonment and a fine, with the additional consequence of being barred from holding any U.S. government office.

2. Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 793–798)

Provisions: The Espionage Act criminalizes the transmission of defense-related information to foreign governments that could harm the U.S. or benefit a foreign nation.

Application: Even if Milley hasn’t yet provided information about the sneak attack, the promise could be seen as a preparatory step toward espionage. Under U.S. law, intent to commit espionage (or conspiring to do so) is itself a crime.

Punishment: Penalties range from years in prison to life imprisonment, depending on the severity of the act and whether it occurred during wartime.

[David Nieporent]

Application: A promise to warn an adversary about a sneak attack could easily be interpreted as "adhering to the enemy" and providing "aid and comfort." Even if no attack has occurred, the promise itself signals intent to help the enemy.

In addition to everything else stupid and wrong with that, treason requires the testimony of two witnesses to an overt act. Even if this phone call were treason — it can't be, because we're not at war with China — what two witnesses are testifying to it?

[not guilty]

Redhead, none of that shows that the Peoples Republic of China is an enemy. The word "enemies" is not defined in Article III, § 3 of the Constitution nor in 18 U.S.C. § 2381. As a penal statute, § 2381 must be construed strictly. Indeed, SCOTUS has repeatedly opined that "the crime of treason" in particular "should not be extended by construction to doubtful cases". Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1, 47 (1945), quoting Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 127 (1807).

The Supreme Court has stressed repeatedly that when choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before choosing the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite. Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, 214 (1985). The Court there quoted Chief Justice Marshall:

"The rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly, is perhaps not much less old than construction itself. It is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department. It is the legislature, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment."

United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95 (1820).

Congress has elsewhere defined the word "enemy" as limited to wartime. For example, for purposes of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4302 states in relevant part:

The word “enemy,” as used herein, shall be deemed to mean, for the purposes of such trading and of this chapter—

(a) Any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals, of any nationality, resident within the territory (including that occupied by the military and naval forces) of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident outside the United States and doing business within such territory, and any corporation incorporated within such territory of any nation with which the United States is at war or incorporated within any country other than the United States and doing business within such territory.

(b) The government of any nation with which the United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision thereof, or any officer, official, agent, or agency thereof.

(c) Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term “enemy.”

Per 50 U.S.C. 2204(2), "the term 'enemy' means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States".

To suppose that the third largest trading partner of the United States is an "enemy" is nonsensical.

[hobie]

Regarding Trump's first private meeting with Putin in Hamburg:

"Trump had taken the unusual step of taking notes from his own interpreter after the meeting and instructing the employee not to discuss the details of the meeting"

You're carrying water for a traitor, Bumble

[bernard11]

You've outdone yourself, combining stupidity, toadyism, and baseless malice in just a few words.

[Commenter_XY]

I would've added a Mast Hearing into the mix. 😉

[Riva]

Better yet, ignore the illegitimate preemptive blanket pardon and court-martial the creep.

[SRG2]

Given all the EOs being vomited out atm, and their purported range, I wonder whether the SC will come to regret Loper Bright - or perhaps they'll find a way to weasel around it.

[Josh R]

I'm hoping for an Adler post on some of the EOs along these lines. Unlike posts from He Who Will Not Be Named, I'm likely to learn something.

[Commenter_XY]

Did someone say vomit?

You must mean MAGA-mesis....[MAGA + emesis] defined as the vomiting out (headcount reduction) of DC-based non-essential bureaucrats (Deep State). See: DEI. 🙂

[Noscitur a sociis]

You may have noticed that precisely zero bureaucrats, essential or otherwise, based in DC or elsewhere, have been vomited anywhere.

[Commenter_XY]

Tell that to the non-essential bureaucrats who get a package this Friday. 😉

[Noscitur a sociis]

What’s your over/under on how many that will be?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

C_Bitch doesn't care whether they are actually valuable employees fulfilling important jobs or not.

He is an ignorant child, so anyone who works for the government is someone who can and should be fired until his arbitrary number is reached.

To answer your question on his behalf: "Yes."

[shawn_dude]

Yeah, like the federal employee unions aren't already mobilized and ready for Trump's dipshitery. He's not the only person who can drag a lawsuit out for years. At-will employees are another matter. But the vast majority of what MAGAts refer to as "deep state" are your run-of-the mill union employee who've spent years doing their job and following the law without regard for the party of the person in the oval office.

On a side note, the news media is probably already designing graphics for the expected lawsuit coverage.

[Reallynotbob]

I like how Deep State somehow became "useless functionaries," further refined to mean the non-male non-white ones.

[Drewski]

So far, Trump's purge has removed (checks notes) negative four bureaucrats from each and every federal agency.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See https://x.com/edokeefe/status/1881882794105958449/photo/1

[Noscitur a sociis]

What is it you would like people to observe when they see that?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump needs to repeal Clinton's Executive Order 13166 that requires services be provided in languages other than English.

If the UN can live with just six languages (English, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, and Arabic), the US doesn't need more than that -- and actually should be English-ONLY.

[David Nieporent]

It's all racism and spite.

[Mr. Bumble]

Languages are race?

[David Nieporent]

No. People who speak other languages are.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

Which other languages qualify?

[hobie]

Ibo, Portuguese, Hindi

[Dr. Ed 2]

The UN only has six languages -- there are schools teaching in 97...

[David Nieporent]

So? What problem are you trying to solve here, other than too many dark skinned people in the country?

[Voize of Reazon]

He's after the Albanians. The Belushi brothers were only the thin edge of the wedge.

[bernard11]

Do you think there might be a difference between the linguistic abilities of UN diplomats and those of the average person?

[Longtobefree]

More like affording staff to translate - - - - - - -

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Congrats to C.C. Sabathia, Billy Wagner, and Ichiro Suzuki. Boo to "that guy" who was the one person to not vote for Ichiro & voted for Chase Utley instead. I didn't know Alito was a HOF ballot voter.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/43414814/mlb-baseball-hall-fame-2025-ichiro-suzuki-stories-mariners-yankees-marlins

The one unanimous HOF-er remains Mariano Rivera who is unfortunately in the news for another matter.

[Bob from Ohio]

He was getting in for sure. Who cares if it was not 100%?

The voter just didn't want to waste his vote. An alternative explanation, and equally valid IMHO, is that he is not better than the hundreds of HOFers elected without unanimity.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Right. He didn't "waste his vote" by voting for Chase Utley instead.

Not sure what that means. His vote wouldn't have been "wasted" -- if he agreed with the rest, it would have reaffirmed Ichiro is uniquely a special player. If he disagrees, that is his right, though even then as a Mets fan I "care" about who he voted for.

[Bob from Ohio]

Chase Utley got 39%. The higher the vote early on, the better chance you can eventually get to 75%

[Josh R]

Ichiro had 4367 hits counting his Japanese-league stats. He became a regular at age 20. It would have been close for him passing Rose had he started in the USA. And he has one advantage over Rose: he isn't a shithead.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Nor did he become player-manager and put himself in the lineup to break the record even though it hurt the team. Or use corked bats.

[David Nieporent]

Or PEDs.

[Ridgeway]

Not to compare Ichiro w Rose, but Ichiro was definitely an odd bird.
An odd bird that was one of the top-5 greatest pure hitters of all time, though. And his hitting overshadows the fact that he was a Roberto Clemente-like in the outfield.

I always thought many of Rose's problems stemmed from his being really, really dumb. I'd be surprised if his IQ was much over 80.

[ThePublius]

Elon musk's supposed Nazi salute.

This is why the general public doesn't trust the mainstream media, and most don't trust the most extreme progs/liberals.

Such B.S.

[tylertusta]

Yup.

It's like when the media claimed that Trump was a Russian agent, or that Trump was involved in a grand conspiracy with the Russians to get elected in 2016, or the "fine people on both sides" lie that they keep retelling.

When it's shown to be false the broader public just tunes them out in the future.

[David Nieporent]

But the Russians were working to get Trump elected in 2016, and he knew it — indeed, they told him so, repeatedly! — and welcomed it. And he was acting on Putin's behalf whether as part of a quid pro quo or just part of his fascination with authoritarians. And he did call neo-Nazis very fine people, even if afterwards he said the opposite so that his sycophants could pretend that he didn't say the original thing.

[SRG2]

To adapt Yogi Berra, Trump didn't say many of the things he said.
And he didn't mean them if he did.

[tylertusta]

Repeating the lies until they become true might work.

But I doubt it.

Here's a fact for you, one that I'm sure you'll pretend doesn't exist three seconds after reading this:

A CNN exit poll of the 2024 election showed that of the voters who thought that our democracy was threatened, a majority of them voted for Trump (51%)

https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/exit-polls/national-results/general/president/0

Have a great day.

[Sarcastr0]

What does an election have to do with whether a factual assertion is true or not?

We live in reality, not some consensual construct.

DMN made a number of factual assertions. You've addressed none of them.

[tylertusta]

What does an election have to do with whether a factual assertion is true or not?

It doesn't, and I didn't say it did.

Keep up, Peanut.

DMN made a number of factual assertions. You've addressed none of them.

And I don't plan on it, at least not with David.

Don't hold your breath.

[Sarcastr0]

So you took issue with some factual assertions DMN made, cited irrelevant information, and then said actually you didn't plan to engage.

Weird behavior.

[Commenter_XY]

You live in a glass house. Would you like me to shatter it for you?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If we put you on the spot and say "yes," will you just run away like all the other times you've been called out and somehow conveniently disappear?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah dunno what your threat is, you played too coy.

[SRG2]

Yup, that's why people are now pointing to Falling Down as an unintended but now current satire, with Michael Douglas as the Trumpists.

I am sure that there are people who voted for Trump who genuinely believe that we have to destroy democracy in order to save it.

[ducksalad]

Trump held a press conference to claim credit for some private investors putting $500B into AI. Within a day Musk publicly pissed on Trump's accomplishment by saying the investors don't have what it takes.

So don't worry. Trump's relationship with Musk will cool, and then the media's interest in Musk will cool as well. He will (I hope) go back to running his excellent businesses, and stop making a fool of himself by prancing around at rallies like a male cheerleader at a special school for nerds.

[Absaroka]

That is both pithy and I suspect accurate.

[Sarcastr0]

We'll see. He seems a fame addict.

[SRG2]

As I've said before, Trump is a starfucker.

[hobie]

I got news for you, pal. Apart from about 5 newspapers and three networks, the entire media ecosystem worldwide is conservative. I know it's hard for that to sink in. Unless you're dumb enough to count magazines these days

[Reallynotbob]

He definitely made the gesture. What's b.s. about the coverage? The label?

He's the world's richest person. If he doesn't have a handle on how his actions will be perceived, that's his problem.

Puts me in mind of Antonin Scalia giving a reporter the under-chin Italian "salute" then playing it off as a different expression.

[Bob from Ohio]

"What's b.s. about the coverage? "

Falsely claiming it was a "Nazi" salute, when it was not.

[Reallynotbob]

How do you know it's false? The gesture is pretty similar.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/21/the-gesture-speaks-for-itself-germans-divided-over-musks-apparent-nazi-salute

More importantly, most media just said it "resembled" one, or used other words to hedge the comparison.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not similar at all. The Nazi one was straight out, not on an angle.

Neither you, the US press or the Germans quoted in the article have ever seen pictures or film from the Nazi era I guess.

[SRG2]

The Nazi one was straight out, not on an angle.

Bob, how about checking first.

https://media.gettyimages.com/id/122130411/photo/adolf-hitler-giving-nazi-salute.jpg?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=F7knI3T_u95i1WJ6F7Vj0esyNdRuPbSkaIWTg2aPELM=

Plenty of other examples here, you moe-ron.
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/nazi-salute

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look up the Bellamy Salute...

[Absaroka]

Ummm....I did a google image search of something like 'hitler nazi salute', and straight out was pretty rare. Up at a slight angle was the most common, some were bent elbow, forearm vertical, some were up at a 45 degree angle. I don't think those were all deepfakes quickly ginned up by google as a liberal plot, because they match the pics in my decades old WWII books.

(and I think the 'Musk was doing a Nazi salute' stuff is nonsense, but not because the Nazis kept their arm horizontal)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Any gesture where someone extends their arm can be said to resemble a Nazi salute.

But as the deluge of pictures on social media of Democrats extending their arms shows, it usually isn’t a story.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Lyin' TIP says something is true, but provides no evidence for it.

Hrm.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That’s all you’ve got?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Did you have trouble understanding my comment? You seem to have trouble actually responding to it with any substance.

Let me go to the store and get some crayons and I'll come back to draw you a picture to see if you're capable of comprehension.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I gave your comment all the substance it deserves.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Well you've had two more opportunities to actually provide any evidence of your so-called equivalency, and you've come back with nothing at all.

Based on that alone, I'd question the veracity of your claims. Based on your history, it's safe to presume that you're full of shit.

Nice try though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

TIP -- See _WVA v Barnett_ for tapdancing about how Belamy wasn't a Nazi salute.

[Sarcastr0]

I do think this is silly to get really specific about.

If Musk is so deep into Nazi stuff he's saluting, this will not be the only example; he's pretty far down on a slippery slope.

If he was trolling, he succeeded and that means he'll do it again or try and top it.

If it was an accident, then we'll not see much more like this.

[Bob from Ohio]

It wasn't a Nazi salute at all. They weren't on an angle nor were they proceeded by a chest thump.

Musk is just a target right now.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. As far as I know, the Nazis did say”My heart goes out to you” and then gesticulate like they were throwing love from their hearts to the crowd. That’s what Musk did.

People saying it was a Nazi salute, including the legacy media, are just showing that they don’t want to be taken seriously.

[David Nieporent]

Nazi salutes were on an angle. What are you talking about?

[SRG2]

Bob was just pulling shit out of his capacious arse to try to defend Musk.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you read my comment?

Take it up with someone who cares.

[shawn_dude]

Well, the neo-nazis think it was a nazi salute; you'd think they'd be an expert at it. Germany, which has speech laws prohibiting such things, also came out saying it would be sufficient for charges under that law. But if you want to tell both real Nazis and Germans that they don't know what they're talking about, have at it.

What got me was the ADL defending Musk. I mean, sure, I get the Israeli politics around Trump and Musk right now--squint and ignore his nazi-loving supporters just long enough to officially absorb the West Bank into Israel and expel the current landowners. And, if you're lucky, you can take Gaza too. A mass deportation for thee and me!

[Commenter_XY]

During his inaugural speech on Monday, POTUS (lmao, that has to hurt right now) Trump made mention of using the liquid gold beneath our feet to address our fiscal problems.

What legal impediment(s) would there be to America starting a sovereign wealth fund, for the purpose of retiring national debt?

[Brett Bellmore]

I can't think of any, but there would certainly be practical problems: In what form would the money be invested? Past performance suggests federal bonds, rendering the whole exercise pointless.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump seems to have an affinity for cryptocurrency. And I don't see why we cannot invest the proceeds into low cost index funds for total US stock market, like TSP.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would say that it would be more efficient to just use the money to pay off and not reissue federal bonds, given the savings in carrying cost that would provide, were it not for the fact that, at present, the important part of that formula is politically impossible.

[bernard11]

It's not clear to me where this extra money is coming from, but assuming it's there I agree with Brett.

Just use it to reduce debt. There are probably higher expected returns elsewhere, but retiring debt both offers a risk-free return and avoids the (inevitable) political machinations as to where to invest the money otherwise. I doubt that the decision would be based on objective analyses of investment opportunities.

[tylertusta]

Not a legal impediment, but a practical reason why we should think long as hard about it: we don't want the Dutch disease.

Cheap energy has all kinds of great economic benefits all by itself. No need to ruin our economy in the process.

[SRG2]

practical reason why we should think long as hard about it: we don't want the Dutch disease.

They already don't understand the most basic ideas of international trade. No chance of understanding that.

[apedad]

1. Congress (Dems or Reps, Senate or House) aren't really interested in reducing debt.

2. Trump loves deficit spending so that's a dead issue with him.

[hobie]

Where's all the money for the fund supposed to come from? The oil companies and banks? Is Texas gonna happily give up some of its mineral royalties?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Oil on Federal land should have Federal royalties.

[bernard11]

Where's all the money for the fund supposed to come from?

Excellent question.

[Krayt]

What legal impediment(s) would there be to America starting a sovereign wealth fund, for the purpose of retiring national debt?

Legal? Don't know.

Practical, no chance. The critters in congress spend according to what they can get away with, a loose formula tied to GDP. They've prove that, when they get a rare, unexpected windfall during the Internet boom of the 90s, they will quickly increase spending to get back in the red.

This is why you fight tax increases. It doesn't lower spending in the long run, it's just an excuse to borrow even more.

One could make a case with a balanced budget amendment, but without it, creating a large income stream from oil on government land just gives the pigs more to spend, and borrow, and will not have that effect. And even if it could be tied to paying down debt, again useless if you're still piling it up

[bernard11]

They've prove that, when they get a rare, unexpected windfall during the Internet boom of the 90s, they will quickly increase spending to get back in the red.

You are rewriting history a little, or a lot, here. Somehow the story has spread that the only reason revenue increased in the 90's was the Internet boom, and the 1993 Clinton tax increase had nothing to do with it. I realize that's what conservatives have to believe to avoid extreme dissonance, since they claimed loudly that those increases would produce economic disaster, but it's far from the whole truth.

Further, spending did not explode. Real outlays increased at an annual rate of about 1.5% from 1983 to 2001, and decreased as a percentage of GDP. It was the Bush tax cuts that gave us the later deficits.

Again, a blow to GOP orthodoxy, but still the case.

[Absaroka]

It was more than a tax increase; congress held spending flat for the only time since WWII. See the chart labeled 'Federal Outlays per Capita, 1945-2014'.

[Sarcastr0]

Neat chart - I don't know how I haven't seen it before!

[Martinned2]

Apart from the fact that the national debt is worth more than the oil? Nothing.

If you're going to start a SWF as a permanent separate pot, instead of paying down the debt, you can do that regardless of whether you have oil. The US is basically the strongest borrower in the world, it could easily borrow a trillion dollars over a period of a few years and invest that money in Bitcoin or Tesla stock. Private citizens can do levered investing, and so can the government. The constraint is simply whether you think it's a good idea.

[bernard11]

It's a terrible idea. Terrible.

First, the government shouldn't be holding equity in individual companies for any long period of time, at all, for obvious political reasons.

Second, there's a reason you get a better return on other investments, in general, than on government bonds. It's called risk. So if you really want to invest like that, stay away from bitcoin and the like.

Third, money is fungible. If you think the government overspends then if it has that sovereign wealth fund "dedicated to reducing the debt," it will just borrow more on the regular budget. So it borrows more, spends the SWF on debt reduction, and all it's doing is moving money from one pocket to the other.

[Brett Bellmore]

I find myself in agreement with you on all three points.

If the federal government has the discipline to do something about the deficit, it doesn't need a sovereign wealth fund, and if it lacks it, a sovereign wealth fund is, at best, futile.

[M L]

For anyone who's interested, here's some decent primers on the birthright citizenship issue.

What Did the 14th Amendment Congress Think about "Birthright Citizenship"?
https://lawliberty.org/what-did-the-14th-amendment-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/

The End of Birthright Citizenship
https://americanreformer.org/2024/08/the-end-of-birthright-citizenship/

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment

Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2741&context=lawreview

[Josh R]

Why do you keep posting what Trumbull and others said in 1866 without including the entire record?

[M L]

The above are secondary sources/articles. Below is a link to the Congressional record - this can be a bit hard to find for someone just searching it up. The discussion focusing on the citizenship clause begins in the middle of page 2890.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-globe/congress-39-session-1-part-4.pdf

[Josh R]

C'mon. We have posted this part over and over again and you still fail to acknowledge it every time you post anew on this issue:

Trumbull: "I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens."

[M L]

I don't see what your point is. In the exchange you cite (which comes from the session on the CRA), Trumbull is responding to Cowan. Cowan is tying to argue for some sort of racial distinction against Chinese and Gypsies.

Trumbull responds that there are no such distinctions in the law and that he fails to see what Cowan's point is as it pertains to the citizenship clause (CRA/14th, doesn't matter they mean the same), since it makes no such distinctions based on race. They were discussing racial and ethnic categories, not allegiances and subjectship status. This is basically the exact same discussion that occurs again later in the section on the 14A citizenship clause and it was Conness who then said he failed to see the relevance of what Cowan said.

Since you already know the other things Trumbull and others said, I won't post them again. Do you see how in full context, there is no contradiction between this and Trumbull's other statements? Not to mention the text of the 1866 CRA itself, which is the very thing that was being discussed in your citation?

[Josh R]

Do you see how in full context, there is no contradiction between this and Trumbull's other statements?

Not at all. There is a direct contradiction.

But, that is not my point. Rather, my point is you keep posting anew with link after link that leaves out the above quote and other important points that Nieporent's links bring up.

[M L]

I have no problem with your Trumbull quote. You do realize that you are quoting from a discussion of the CRA, correct? And you know what the text of that statute said?

It's you that has a difficulty with what Trumbull said (and Howard, and all the rest of them).

[Josh R]

I have no problem with your Trumbull quote.

Then stop cherry picking by leaving it (and other things) out.

[David Nieporent]

They were discussing racial and ethnic categories, not allegiances and subjectship status.

Not clear what part of "the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. " That is exactly who we are talking about: the children born here of people who aren't parents.

Cowan's point is that this is bad policy because it would make undesirable people into citizens. But he never denies that this is what it would do; he just doesn't like it.

[M L]

Correct, your parents didn't have to be citizens for you to be a citizen at birth. They just had to not be subjects of a foreign power, such as sojourners here temporarily.

"Cowan's point is that this is bad policy because it would make undesirable people into citizens. But he never denies that this is what it would do; he just doesn't like it."

Yes ... except, according to the responses by Trumbull and Conness and the others, it's not this 14A that would do that. That was already the law, under the CRA and before, according to them. There was no distinction based on racial or ethnic background at issue here or otherwise. Instead it was a race neutral principle based on allegiance/subjectship.

[David Nieporent]

Correct, your parents didn't have to be citizens for you to be a citizen at birth. They just had to not be subjects of a foreign power, such as sojourners here temporarily.

Foreigners residing here permanently are just as much subjects of a foreign power as sojourners here temporarily. There is no category of "being here a long time." Either citizenship determines power, in which case all non-citizens present here, short or long term visitors, temporary or permanent, are subject to a foreign power, or presence determines power, in which case all non-citizens present here (other than the excluded trifecta) are not, and their kids are citizens. And we know from WKA that the latter is true.

(And, just to be clear, illegal immigrants and "sojourners here temporarily" are not synonymous anyway.)

[M L]

You are arguing with Howard, Trumbull, and the rest of them - not me. You could take it up with them. What do you think they meant by "not subject to a foreign power"? Or "not owing allegiance to anyone else"? I'm all ears.

I've acknowledged there's a line drawing problem there. There are references to sojourners and those present temporarily indicating that they would be at one end of the spectrum. Beyond that, it seems that the jurisdiction question could be impacted by treaties with particular nations, and generally involved elements that Congress would have the power to define to some degree. That is discussed in the debates, including with respect to Indian tribes and Mexico.

[David Nieporent]

You are arguing with Howard, Trumbull, and the rest of them - not me. You could take it up with them. What do you think they meant by "not subject to a foreign power"? Or "not owing allegiance to anyone else"? I'm all ears.

I've told you repeatedly: the same thing that that Horace Gray, David Brewer, Henry Brown, George Shiras, Edward White, and Rufus Peckham thought they meant: everyone in the U.S. other than the children of diplomats, invading armies, and Indians.

[Josh R]

I've acknowledged there's a line drawing problem there.

Not only that, "not owing allegiance to anyone else" does not appear in the text. So why not channel your inner-Scalia and ignore the debates when there is disagreement on what the text means.

[M L]

"everyone in the U.S. other than the children of diplomats, invading armies, and Indians."

That's actually not what WKA said. WKA says you can be in the US and still be subject to a foreign power, but still be included in US "jurisdiction."

So it pretty much writes off the "subject to a foreign power" issue. That's why the WKA dissent was right, and cases before it such as Slaughterhouse Cases, Elk v Wilkins, and another I just came across US v Elm, had a better understanding.

But even WKA makes more sense than what you've said here. How are Indians subject to a foreign power because they have tribal allegiances to a quasi foreign, while actual subjects with allegiances to an actual foreign power are not subject to a foreign power? Doesn't make any sense. Perhaps that isn't what you meant.

Further, as I've explained, and I know you disagree, WKA held that persons born to parents who were permanently domiciled in the US were sufficiently within jurisdiction. Beyond that is dicta.

Anyway, fair enough. I suspect your position has a better shot in the courts.

[David Nieporent]

But even WKA makes more sense than what you've said here. How are Indians subject to a foreign power because they have tribal allegiances to a quasi foreign, while actual subjects with allegiances to an actual foreign power are not subject to a foreign power? Doesn't make any sense. Perhaps that isn't what you meant.

Because people born in the U.S. who don't fall into one of the three exceptions don't have allegiances to an actual foreign power.

[David Nieporent]

Yes ... except, according to the responses by Trumbull and Conness and the others, it's not this 14A that would do that. That was already the law,

Yes, that's the point! Birthright citizenship for all already was the law! The 14th amendment was needed to ensure that Dred Scott was not only not the law, but could never be the law again.

[M L]

Yes, for all, but excluding those subject to a foreign power, according to the CRA, Howard, Trumbull, et. al.

[David Nieporent]

That is exactly who we are talking about: the children born here of people who aren't parents.

Obviously that was a typo. They were born of people who aren't citizens. I think they were all parents!

[windycityattorney]

And....its gone.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/23/judge-blocks-trump-order-on-birthright-citizenship-00200267

[M L]

For good measure here's the Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause

Even Wiki can't help but admit the facts:

"The Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States "not subject to any foreign power". The 39th Congress proposed the principle underlying the Citizenship Clause due to concerns expressed about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act during floor debates in Congress.[1][2] The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to entrench the principle in the Constitution in order to prevent its being struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed by a future Congress"

Exactly! It was supposed to mean the same thing as the 1866 CRA - just as Howard said when he introduced the language, and everyone else agreed. Actually the only real "debate" was over whether Howard's language sufficiently accomplished what everyone agreed it was trying to accomplish - to constitutionalize the similar provision in the 1866 CRA.

"the Citizenship Clause was intended to define as citizens exactly those so defined in the Civil Rights Act,[3][25] which had been debated and passed in the same session of Congress only several months earlier, "

Exactly!

"the two exceptions to citizenship by birth for everyone born in the United States mentioned in the Act, namely, that they had to be "not subject to any foreign power" and not "Indians not taxed", were combined into a single qualification, that they be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and while Howard and others, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, the author of the Civil Rights Act, believed that the formulations were equivalent, others, such as Senator James R. Doolittle from Wisconsin, disagreed, and pushed for an alternative wording."

Perfectly explained. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Josh R]

FFS. The same Wiki article includes my above Trumbull quote which you keep omitting.

[M L]

Of course. See above.

[David Nieporent]

Actually the only real "debate" was over whether Howard's language sufficiently accomplished what everyone agreed it was trying to accomplish - to constitutionalize the similar provision in the 1866 CRA.

This is wrong. There was no debate that the language chosen included everyone except diplomats and invading armies (with one other exception I'll get to in a second), but there was a debate over the wisdom of that; Cowan (as I mentioned before) was upset about granting citizenship to the children of "gypsies" and Chinese people. Neither he nor anyone else disagreed that it did in fact do that. But there was also a real debate about (a) whether the language included Indians, and (b) whether the language should include Indians.

[M L]

When Howard introduced the 14A citizenship clause, he said it was simply declaratory of the CRA citizenship clause. As even Wikipedia notes, the purpose of the 14A citizenship clause was to entrench the CRA's citizenship clause into the Constitution. There were concerns about CRA constitutionality, and they wanted to do something a future Congress could not change by legislation.

The rest of what you say is correct:

"whether the language included Indians" - Yes, because while the language clearly excluded anyone subject to a foreign power, and nobody disagreed on that, there was a question as to whether Indians were excluded since Indian tribes were only quasi-foreign. Ultimately it was decided that allegiance to a quasi-foreign tribe was enough to exclude them from the clause (note an Indian didn't have to be born on tribal territory to be excluded, he could be born in a state, what mattered was whether they maintained tribal relations).

"whether the language should include Indians." - I don't recall any debate about whether to grant citizenship to Indians at that time, if that's what you mean. All agreed they were not aiming for that at the time. Saulsbury did say he would support it though.

[Ken Shultz]

[Sarcastr0]

"American Reformer’s mission is to promote a vigorous Christian approach to the cultural challenges of our day, rooted in the rich tradition of Protestant social and political thought."

1. Rarified sources bespeak seeking confirmation, not truth.
2. Janking our current jurisprudence to close down our longstanding policy to make us more nativist doesn't seem very Christian.
3. DMN regularly, causally, wrecks your super long posts. Glad you switched to just linking to your sources; saves space, if not time.

[bernard11]

the rich tradition of Protestant social and political thought."

If Trump's policies are "rooted in the rich tradition of Protestant social and political thought," then I have to say that tradition is one we would do well to abandon.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Another article by someone who wrote a lot about the era, including a biography of John Bingham.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=965268

[David Nieporent]

a biography of John Bingham.

I miss Aldridge.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

DRINK!

[David Nieporent]

And here's ultraconservative 5th circuit judge James Ho (from before he joined the bench): https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf

And originalist law professor Michael Ramsey: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2021/01/Ramsey_Originalism-and-Birthright-Citizenship.pdf

[Zarniwoop]

Both worth a read, thanks for the links.

Ho’s piece is approachable for non-lawyers, Ramsey’s is very definitely a wonky law review article applying a mode of Constitutional interpretation.

Both are highly persuasive. And I say that as someone who … doesn’t always agree with now-Judge Ho.

[Zarniwoop]

In fairness to ML, I went and read a couple of his "primers".

There's a repeated theme: cherry picking a few quotes from the ratification debate, ignoring others, failing to present full context.

Prof Ramsey's Part II.c (starting p.445) is far more persuasive. ML should give it a read.

After looking at the text itself (Scalia would approve!), he comments (p.447): "But before turning to the drafting history, we should conclude that: (1) the text strongly indicates that the U.S.-born children of aliens (other than diplomatic personnel) were made U.S. citizens by the Clause because they were “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction”; and (2) this reading is plausible because it adopts the prevailing common law view of U.S. citizenship prior to the Amendment. Evidence from the drafting history must be especially strong to overcome this textual conclusion. As described below, that evidence is at most ambiguous—though in fact it seems to favor the position indicated by the text’s ordinary meaning." (emphasis added)

[M L]

"cherry picking a few quotes from the ratification debate, ignoring others, failing to present full context."

That's my assessment of the opposite position.

I read Ramsey's paper when he blogged about it here at the VC several years ago. He relies heavily on broad generalizations about historical practices from before the 14th amendment, long before there was any such thing as immigration laws or easy transport across oceans. But he never explains how or why those general historical practices were maximized and incorporated into a very specific new Constitutional mandate. At the same time, he has to greatly minimize all the evidence surrounding the actual ratification of the clause.

Ramsey even admits, "the Amendment’s drafters (who were also the Act’s drafters) said that the Amendment constitutionalized the Act’s citizenship provisions, indicating that although the words differed they should be read to the same effect." But he then goes on to say basically we should ignore all that, and instead interpret the words as enshrining some conception of general historical practice instead.

Also, as I noted at the time, in my opinion Ramsey's piece seemed animated, as with much legal scholarship probably, by a desire to arrive at a bright line rule, a neat and tidy solution that conveniently avoids the difficulties of close cases. But that comes at a sacrifice at a sacrifice of original meaning here in my opinion.

[Zarniwoop]

That's my assessment of the opposite position.

What relevant discussion(s) from the ratifying debate in the Senate do you contend Ramsey fails to address?

[Zarniwoop]

Still curious. I don't see bad-faith or cherry picking from Prof Ramsey, nor can I identify any quotes that he declines to address because they might not help his position (when they're arguably ambiguous, Ramsey says exactly that!).

But when I look at the Heritage article, for ex., they alter the Howard quote from the ratification debate to get to the conclusion they want:

Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI), stated that its language “is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,” explaining that “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” (Emphasis added.)

Note what they do there. The Heritage article adds the "[or]" not present in the actual congressional record, in order to separate and emphasize the preceding words as grammatically distinct from "families of ambassadors".

Credibility goes right the frack out of the window if you can't deal with the record as it actually exists, and don't explain what you're doing or why you're doing it.

In contrast, Prof Ramsey deals with this interpretive issue head-on by discussing possible alternative readings of the Howard quote at p.448:

Three statements in the debates are commonly raised to the contrary. First, Senator Howard, in proposing the Clause, stated that it “will not, of course,include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”207 This statement, though, seems only to describe the well-understood exclusion of children of persons with diplomatic immunity: “foreigners, [that is,] aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors.”208 Some commentators instead read Howard’s statement to exclude “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of embassadors.”209 However, that reading is redundant (and ungrammatical): if Howard meant to exclude all children of aliens, he would not have needed to add the reference to families of ambassadors. The only reason to refer to families of ambassadors would be if the children of aliens were covered by the Clause unless they were part of diplomatic families.210

Please compare the Heritage treatment and Prof Ramsey treatment, and get back to me regarding which interpretation is being honest, contextual, and complete with the congressional record.

I see the argument you're making and fully understand it. I just think that Scalia would be ashamed of it.

[M L]

My general critique of Ramsey is just as I stated above. Nowhere do I allege bad faith on his part.

The Howard quote with the "[or]" has been discussed and addressed head on, ad nauseam. For instance, the American Reformer article links three other articles on that specific quote. Here is a portion of my comment to Ramsey's post 4 years ago, specifically addressing the part of Ramsey's article you are quoting:

Regarding the most frequently discussed of Howard's statements on this issue, Ramsey writes that the opposing interpretation " is redundant (and ungrammatical)." But that is true either way you read the statement.

It's worth noting that the Congressional Globe doesn't purport to be an exact transcript. The lack of the word "or" could be a transcription issue. Or it could accurately reflect how Howard spoke the words. Spoken words are generally not meant to be as precise and technical as written words.

Either way, redundancy and grammar don't really cut in one direction or the other. To perfect the syntax, Ramsey's position must insert the word "[and]" to clarify the meaning. The alternative position inserts the word "[or]" to clarify the meaning.

In any event, that Howard quote presents a stark dichotomy of two possible interpretations. Closely parsing this small phrase by itself is a wash at best. So we look to the rest of the ratification debate. And the rest of the ratification debate supports only one of the two interpretations.

For example, right after that Howard quote, Doolittle immediately says that language should be added to exclude "Indians not taxed" because he doesn't think it is sufficiently clear that they are subject to foreign power and thus excluded from full political jurisdiction. Howard responds that it is sufficiently clear, because Indian tribes are "quasi foreign" and thus a tribal allegiance would mean they are subject to a foreign power and therefore excluded from full political jurisdiction of the US. Howard's logic is that "subject to the jursdiction thereof" excludes those "subject to a foreign power," which is the exact words of the 1866 CRA, which Howard said they were trying to constitutionalize, and that includes a quasi foreign power such as Indian tribes.

Ultimately, Howard's position carried the day. Most of the debate focuses on this issue. But both sides agreed on what they were trying to achieve. They were just debating how best to draft it.

Some of my other comments to Ramsey's article are here and here.

[Ken Shultz]

I have a couple of questions I'd love to have answered:

1) The TikTok app still isn't available for download on Apple or Google. What does Oracle (TikTok's still working host) know that Apple and Google don't know? To what extent is Oracle in legal jeopardy here?

2) To what extent does Trump declaring Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations give him the leeway to use the military to stop immigration at the southern border? Does the Posse Comitatus Act allow for that against terrorist organizations?

[apedad]

Man who got Jan. 6 pardon is arrested on federal gun charge

On Tuesday, Daniel Ball’s case tied to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack was formally dismissed after he received a full pardon from President Trump. But by Wednesday, Ball was arrested once more on a pending federal gun charge.

In his new indictment, there’s no mention of those charges, which Trump wiped from his record. However, Ball’s two previous convictions — for domestic violence battery by strangulation in June 2017 and battering and resisting law enforcement with violence in October 2021 — are detailed in the charging papers. He’s accused of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, around May 2023.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5100384-daniel-ball-arrest-gun-charges-jan-6-pardon/

There's a link to the indictment in the story.

Reminder: An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

[apedad]

‘Bogus additional charges’: Pardoned Jan. 6 rioters who fled justice or were sentenced for separate crimes are not out of the woods

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/bogus-additional-charges-pardoned-jan-6-rioters-who-fled-justice-or-were-sentenced-for-separate-crimes-are-not-out-of-the-woods/

These boys still have to face old charges that Trump didn't pardon them for (well yet).

[Krayt]

Was all this in process, or did prosecutors say, "Pardon? Rats! We need to get them somehow!"

The answer has implications on disinterested concern for rule of law.

[bernard11]

What Trump has essentially done with his pardons of violent J6 insurrectionists is announce that violence in support of Trump is no longer a federal crime, since those who commit such violence will be pardoned.

Law and order party.

And people cheer.

[SRG2]

As I noted on the main Reason comments, pardoning criminals who commit acts of violence in support of a president is more characteristic of a banana republic than a democracy.

[DixieTune]

You know what's also characteristic of a banana republic? Lawfare against political enemies.

[SRG2]

You know what's also characteristic of a banana republic? Executive immunity.

[John F. Carr]

Probably less than 40% of people cheer. According to Reuters 58% of Americans opposed pardoning "all people convicted of crimes during the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol." Trump's approval rating is under 50%.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-starts-new-term-with-47-approval-jan-6-pardons-unpopular-reutersipsos-poll-2025-01-21/

In another America Trump would have to compromise form a coalition between his MAGA party and a more moderate party, neither having a majority.

[bernard11]

Less than 40%? I would have hoped it would be less than 5%. And whether they now say they opposed the pardons or not, about 50% voted for Trump knowing he was likely to do exactly what he did.

So "opposed" or not, they found it acceptable, as they do his other odious policies.

[John F. Carr]

Yes, the disapproval rate is too low. But supporters of the January 6 crowd are still a minority of Americans.

[DixieTune]

I would have opposed the pardons if the government had similarly prosecuted BLM rioters who destroyed stores and courthouses for 8 months. But they didn't, which means that Garland and Biden specifically targeted the 1/6 rioters. That means the blanket pardon is justified.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nobody believes you because you're a piece of shit.

BLM rioters were in fact prosecuted, so your excuse is a lie.

You will counter by pretending 'not enough' of them were prosecuted, or some other idiotic excuse you pulled out of your ass.

Inevitably, you'll be reduced to making some kind of insult against gays or a random ethnic slur which you think is appropriate based on a screen name.

Then we all laugh at you and go to bed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I've been to DC, I've stood on the front steps of SCOTUS (back when you could) and "you're a piece of shit" isn't chiseled into the stone.

Instead, "Equal Justice Under Law" is.

And let's not forget Carter and the draft dodgers....

[Kazinski]

Hot Damn!

But I do worry about getting prosecuted by local authorities, I can't just go to DC every time I get the urge for mayhem.

[bernard11]

Don't worry, Kazinski.

I'm sure there are many red state DA's and AG's who are eager to demonstrate fealty by letting Trumpist thugs off the hook, no matter what.

That's the way it usually works.

[Riva]

Remember when Carter commuted the sentences of members of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party who shot five Congressman on the floor of the House in 1954? Or when Clinton pardoned Puerto Rican nationalist bombers? Did Carter and Clinton announce that violence in support Puerto Rican nationalism was no longer a crime? Actually they probably did.

But what President Trump announced was that the Biden era of weaponized law enforcement was over.

[DixieTune]

922(g)(9) is unconstitutional anyway.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ku-klux-klan-fliers-in-kentucky-order-immigrants-to-leave-now-police-say/ar-AA1xEipa

" The Ludlow Police Department said in a statement that the “disgusting” Klan fliers were protected under the First Amendment but that the agency would seek criminal charges against the distributors if they were identified. The department noted that it had received a harassment complaint about the fliers. McClain, of the Bellevue police, said he would consider charging anyone caught distributing the fliers with littering.

So much for protected speech..

[David Nieporent]

Better hope they don't catch you!

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, not like a KKK Member could be majority leader of the US Senate like (The Late, Thank God) Robert KKK Bird

[DixieTune]

It creates a chilling effect on protected speech. They're trying to out people who have a 1st Amendment right to speak anonymously.

[Reallynotbob]

Don't litter.

[SRG2]

I hope the fliers didn't cost you too much money.

[Martinned2]

Wait, you think Klansmen are exempt from littering laws?

[John F. Carr]

About a decade ago two chemists doing drug tests for Massachusetts were caught falsifying records. One was using the drugs. The other wanted to look good and in particular wanted to impress a certain prosecutor she liked. Over 30,000 cases were dismissed due to government misconduct. The Supreme Judicial Court also ordered refunds of fines and fees associated with their criminal convictions. The SJC did not order return of seized property. Civil asset forfeiture requires only probable cause. Civil asset forfeiture is not considered a punishment. That was in late 2018.

Now six years later the First Circuit Court of Appeals just decided the first appeal in the federal case demanding return of seized assets. Plaintiffs lose. They can not sue state defendants due to sovereign immunity. While you might think Ex parte Young allows injunctive relief, it doesn't allow an injunction in this case. The violation is in the past, the court reasoned, and Ex parte Young only allows prospective relief. "There may be a continuing liability for a past harm, but there is no ongoing violation here." Plaintiffs can not demand a more fair process because they did not sue the court officials responsible for the current process.

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/23-2069P-01A.pdf

Compare Denault v. Ahern (1st Cir. 2017). A police officer seized a car as evidence and refused to return it unless a woman testified against her ex. Because the initial seizure was legal there was no constitutional violation. Defendant town officials were liable only for conversion.

[DixieTune]

Can a president, instead of issuing a pardon, just require a new trial? Regardless of what any of the 1/6 defendants were convicted of, they didn't get fair trials, so anyone who wasn't pardoned should have been given a new trial, before an impartial jury and judge, in a neutral venue.

[John F. Carr]

I have never heard of such a thing and it goes beyond the conditional pardons I have read about. In most cases the basic facts were undisputed. In most cases the defendants pleaded guilty.

[DixieTune]

They pleaded guilty because they knew they had a biased jury and judge.

[SRG2]

LOL. One of the sadly funniest aspects of the prosecutions of the 1/6 rioters is their supporters suddenly discovering that the US justice system is not the fine institutions they insisted it was when other people were subject to it - or in any event, they knew but didn't care.

Plea bargains are good because they result in convictions and saves governments money. Prison conditions should be bad because you shouldn't treat prisoners softly. Keeping accused persons hanging around for a while before trial is fine because they're criminals anyway. Zealous prosecutions are definitely a good thing because law and order. Etc etc.

And then the rioters, who were treated no worse than any other accused or convicted citizen, and their fans, discovered the truth.

[David Nieporent]

They did not discover the truth, though. Rather than saying, "OMG, prison conditions suck and ,maybe we need to do something about it," they said, "We're being discriminated against and treated badly. Bad prison conditions are only for black people, not us."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You act like the final arbiter of what is or isn't Constitutional, and you don't know the answer to that question?

Which branch has the judicial power assigned to it?

As to your 'fair trials' lie, you may continue to go fuck yourself for all of time. They were granted fair trials, with attorneys and the same rules of evidence as every other trial, in front of judges and juries if they so chose, with the same courses of appeal and right of Due Process.

You are a lying shit.

[DixieTune]

The jury pool was 95% Democrat. That makes it an unfair jury.

You can't have it both ways. If a black defendant has a constitutional Batson right to not have a 12 person white jury foisted on him, then the same concept is also true for these defendants.

[David Nieporent]

The jury pool was 95% Democrat. That makes it an unfair jury.

It does not, even if your claim was true, which it wasn't.

Batson (a) does not apply to ideology; (b) does not say anything about the jury pool; and (c) relevant cases about the jury pool are about discrimination by the state, not simply criming in a homogenous area.

[not guilty]

"Can a president, instead of issuing a pardon, just require a new trial?"

No.

[Moderation4ever]

I am not a lawyer or a legal expert but what you suggest would, in my mind, be a breach of separation of powers. Only judges can require a new trial. The Presidential pardon is an executive function based on English Laws allowing a pardon granted by the reigning King/Queen. Also worth noting that a pardon is not acquittal but rather forgiveness. Again, the President can forgive, but only a court can acquit.

(Any of the lawyers here think I got this wrong?)

[Martinned2]

Which, for the record, isn't really a thing British Kings and Queens do (anymore).

[Moderation4ever]

If I am not mistaken the power for the pardon still resides in the British monarch. It is done with ministerial advice and so not really the monarch's decision.

[Martinned2]

Yes, but the number of UK pardons is vanishingly small. This event announcement describes it as "effectively defunct".

https://www.rai.ox.ac.uk/event/crime-royal-prerogative-and-pardon-power-american-president

In this article the author says that "The [Royal Prerogative of Mercy] is now exercised sparingly and only in cases of great exceptionality."

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice-points/the-royal-prerogative-of-mercy/5052062.article

[David Nieporent]

Can a president, instead of issuing a pardon, just require a new trial?

No. The president is not the boss of the judiciary.

I recognize that what you're saying is "Black people shouldn't be allowed to be jurors" and thus I shouldn't dignify it with a response, but in case there were people who actually considered your first question, I thought I'd answer it for them.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No.

Federal defendants have some procedural options to ask for new trials. The president could direct DOJ to support those requests if made, and to waive procedural bars, but the court would have an independent obligation to verify that the request was meritorious. Which seems almost impossible in these instances.

[John F. Carr]

I got a card in the mail today addressed to a previous resident or current occupant. It offered me an AI service to help manage my homeowners' association. Feed it your bylaws and it will answer questions about what is allowed. I immediately thought of New York City's AI powered legal advice line which gave wrong answers. The city didn't think residents should rely on the answers. So why does the service exist?

I assume the service would come with an arbitration clause saying the customer always loses.

[Moderation4ever]

Anyone have experience with the IRS Direct File? Wisconsin residents will be able to use the service for 2024. I have over the past couple of years used fillable forms to electronically file my taxes. I found the fillable forms process a bit hard to use and the filling process overly sensitive to error without clearly showing the error. Wonder if Direct File is better?

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports:

The interim leadership of the Justice Department has ordered U.S. attorneys around the country to investigate and prosecute law enforcement officials in states and cities if they refuse to enforce the Trump administration’s new immigration policies, according to an internal department memo.

The three-page memo, intended as guidance to all department employees for carrying out President Trump’s executive orders seeking to limit immigration and foreign gangs, asserts that state and local officials are bound to cooperate with the department under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and could face criminal prosecution or civil penalties if they fail to comply.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/01/22/us/trump-news#justice-dept-to-investigate-local-officials-who-obstruct-immigration-enforcement

I haven't seen the memo in question, but it seems hard to reconcile with the anti-commandeering doctrine of Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), and its progeny. "It is well established that the Tenth Amendment bars Congress from "command[ing] the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255, ___, 143 S. Ct. 1609, 1632 (2023), quoting Printz, 521 U.S. at 935.

[Kazinski]

Sounds like its mostly an intimidation tactic, but they did indict a judge for letting an illegal alien sneak out the back of her courtroom, when the INS was waiting in the hall, so they should be careful about how far they go.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/us/massachusetts-judge-obstruction-immigration.html

[tylertusta]

... so they should be careful about how far they go.

Without seeing the memo either, I'd hazard that this is what they're looking to go after. Passively not helping the federal government is probably not going to fly, but going after state and local officials who actively try to obstruct the efforts of federal officers would.

[shawn_dude]

Trump administration says "go after local police that don't toe the line!" and his lackeys immediately see the constitutional issue that creates and start "translating" Trump's direct instructions into something that sounds more palatable to the average citizen. "No no no! you gotta understand Trumpspeak--when he says X he really means X minus all the illegal anti-democracy stuff!"

[Commenter_XY]

NG, looks like a lot of obstruction charges are in the offing.

If a sanctuary city LEO hinders or delays ICE from rounding up illegals, is that crossing the line for obstruction, legally?

How far can a local LEO go, and not cross the line?

[David Nieporent]

A local or state government employee can't take affirmative acts to obstruct ICE. He or she need not take any affirmative acts to assist ICE.

In practical terms, a non-federal official need not volunteer to provide information to ICE, not offer to detain an ICE target until ICE arrives, or the like. But cannot affirmatively hide a target, block ICE enforcers until the target escapes, etc.

[Commenter_XY]

Is withholding info, like refusing to answer a direct question from an ICE agent, obstruction? Or maybe just shrugging their shoulders and raising their eyebrows in response to a direct question?

Or would those be considered affirmative acts?

It is the willfulness of the act that makes it cross the line, isn't it. The willfulness makes it an affirmative act...is that correct?

[David Nieporent]

No. Not answering a question is of course willful, but not an affirmative act. They can't lie — that's an independent federal crime! — but they need not provide any information.

[Brett Bellmore]

The real question is whether a local government ordering its employees to not voluntarily answer those question even off the clock qualifies as obstruction.

[Zarniwoop]

I think that argument is foreclosed by Printz. That case did not involve just individuals refusing to cooperate, but instructions from County Sheriff's offices to their officers not to cooperate.

Which, speaking in broad contours whether it's Federally-mandated firearm checks or Federally mandated immigration enforcement, ends up costing the state & local agencies time and money. The state & local agencies should therefore be allowed, under Printz, to say "we're paying our officers to do a job, and this isn't one of them. If you perform this work while clock, in violation of a direct order, we can fire you."

[Commenter_XY]

Wow...I can see how this is going to be an uphill battle, meaning executing ICE raids in Blue Cities.

[windycityattorney]

IL passed a law that says our courts (and by proxy local sheriffs who actually run the county jails) shall not honor federal ICE detainers. So if an illegal alien, with a fed detainer (warrant) on file is in our custody, but should be released under IL law for whatever reason they were brought into local custody, they will be released.

This is a tricky position. Because they would have knowledge of the federal ICE warrant/detainer...and are commanded by IL law to ignore it. Is that obstruction? Is Emil Bove (Trump's recent private counsel who authored this memo as acting deputy AG) going to federally indict a bunch of elected sheriff's following IL law?? If they do, are the police unions the sherriffs belong to who endorsed Trump, going to cry about how they didn't think the leopards were going to eat THEIR face??

[David Nieporent]

It is not obstruction to release from custody someone for whom there is an ICE detainer. Indeed, if there's no other basis to hold the person, then the sheriff would be required to release the person. (Of course, if the "release" involves somehow actively concealing the person, that would be a different story.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

The memo has been published in the media (e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/2f9af176-72c5-458a-adc4-91327aa80d11.pdf) and I don’t think the Times’s characterization is correct, in that the relevant paragraph doesn’t seem to apply to simple lawful noncooperation.

More newsworthy, I think, if unsurprising, is the memo’s express rejection of the Biden policy limiting the usage of mandatory minimum sentences.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link.

[tylertusta]

A people wonder why trust in the media is so low.

[Sarcastr0]

Noscitur cited the Washington Post.

[TwelveInchPianist]

People are willing to assume that the Wapo doesn't outright publish fake documents! Hooray!

[Sarcastr0]

tylertusta took an example of Noscitur a sociis saying the NYT made a mistake and generalized it about the media.
I pointed out that Noscitur cited the Washington Post, which puts tylertusta's argument in tension with itself.

You came in with a boring 'media bad.'

This is always a very silly position to take. Because everyone gets their news from somewhere, so the posture of omni-distrust is a lie.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. Noscitur pointed out that the NYT's characterization of a memo was inconsistent with the memo itself, which happened to be published on the Wapo site.

Tyler reasonably pointed out that this explains why people distrust the media, at least with respect to their characterizations of primary sources.

You chimed in with the weak implication that Tyler's argument was in tension with itself, which only makes sense if you believe that trusting the media to publish an accurate copy of a memo means that you should also trust its characterization of the memo.

I pointed out that your equiveillance was bullshit, and then you spouted more bullshit.

[Sarcastr0]

If your thesis is don't trust singe sources, I won't disagree.

But you're not saying that; you're lumping and delumping what's the media as needed for you to stay mad at 'the media.'

Which, as I said, is on it's face hypocritical bullshit. You, also, trust the media.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ But you're not saying that; you're lumping and delumping what's the media as needed for you to stay mad at 'the media.'”

No, I’m saying that your thesis, which is that people who trust the Wapo not to fabricate a copy of a memo published on their website but don’t trust the NYT not to mischaracterize the same memo, is utter bullshit.

[Sarcastr0]

'Trust the WaPo not the NYT' is not my thesis, and you know it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

We all saw what your thesis was, Sarcastro. Stop pretending to be illiterate.

[tylertusta]

And Mr. Guilty cited the New York Times.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, it's fine to say the NYT got it wrong, and so ng isn't correct. That actually happened, and was handled with good grace!

It's the broader bit of nonsense where you pretend that supports a broader thesis that media bad that things get stupid.

Media in this day and age needs to be read critically. But anyone who says they broadly 'don't believe the media' is not a serious person.

[tylertusta]

Yeah, it's fine to say the NYT got it wrong, and so ng isn't correct. That actually happened ...

Yes. Not especially relevant, but sure.

...and was handled with good grace!

You're not making any sense here.

It's the broader bit of nonsense where you pretend that supports a broader thesis that media bad that things get stupid.

Stop pretending that nothing has ever happened before this NYT article.

Stop pretending that this is the first mistake that a major news paper has made regarding Trump.

Just stop pretending.

Democrats' inability to understand the world around them cost them the election and gave us all Trump again. I suggest you review the causes as to why the public distrusts the media instead of pretending that it's all overblown.

Media in this day and age needs to be read critically. But anyone who says they broadly 'don't believe the media' is not a serious person.

There's an unserious person here. I'm replying to him with this comment.

[Kazinski]

China has gone from using about 40% reusable energy in 1970 to barely 10% today.

Kind of wierd such a progressive country would go backwards like that.

https://x.com/BjornLomborg/status/1882025178319970578?t=2scs5woGmHKQr-o4z2JGXQ&s=19

[Moderation4ever]

This may not be as surprising as you think. The world's energy consumption is increasing and so the same amount of renewable power from the past could be a smaller percentage of the overall consumption. Part of the problem people are facing is that renewables are not replacing fossil fuels but are just being added into the power mix. This is likely to continue as AI and cryptocurrency increase power demands.

[Martinned2]

Apart from the 1970 comparison being irrelevant, your current number is also wrong.

In 2023, clean power made up 35% of China’s electricity mix, with hydro the largest single source of clean power at 13%. Wind and solar hit a new record share of 16%, above the global average (13%). China generated 37% of global wind and solar electricity in 2023, enough to power Japan.

https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/china/

[Commenter_XY]

For the poetic justice files....

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/22/cnn-to-lay-off-hundreds-of-employees-post-inauguration.html

They can join the DEI DC bureaucritters about to be RIF'ed.

[Frank Drackman]

In 1993, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced legislation to clarify the scope of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and to end the practice of granting U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants.
Specifically, in a section titled "Basis of Citizenship Clarified," Reid's bill explained:
…the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of [Section 1 of the 14th Amendment] and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.[S.1351, Sec. 1001]

Never thought I'd say it, but Hairy Reed had it right

[Roger S]

Not really a radical position. Nobody really wanted birthright citizenship. I see people arguing for it because of an interpretation of the 14A, but is not a good idea. Tell me why tourist and illegal babies should be citizens.

[SRG2]

because of an interpretation of the 14A

Not an interpretation, a straightforward reading.

Are illegal immigrants in the US under the jurisdiction of the US?

It's a simple yes/no question. If the answer is yes, then their children born in the US are citizens. If no, then the US has no authority over the parents.

So is it yes or no? A one-word answer is all you need.

[ThePublius]

Do you know what a false dichotomy is? Do you know you have presented one, a fallacy?

It is quite possible to be both subject to the authority of the U.S., by being present here, and also subject to the jurisdiction of another country - at the same time.

[SRG2]

I know what a false dichotomy is but I have not presented one. It's a common enough debating trick to bring up a plausible fallacy and accuse someone else of committing it. Your comments don't exclude the possibility of someone being under both US and some other sovereign jurisdiction at the same time - and are hence irrelevant to the question I posed.

14A refers explicitly to someone being under the jurisdiction of the US. Now there are only two possible conditions. You are under the jurisdiction of the US or you're not. There's no partial. So the question can be answered by a simple yes or no. That this leads to consequences you may not like is due to what I presume is your position, that illegal immigrants are under the jurisdiction but their US-born children shouldn't be citizens. You won't resolve that by wrongly calling my question a false dichotomy. It's closer to wishing, as they say, that the question be not put.

[Roger S]

What is meant by "jurisdiction"? The 14A phrase is known to exclude Indians and diplomat kids. You might say that they are under the USA jurisdiction. But apparently not, as the 14A was intended.

[David Nieporent]

What is meant by "jurisdiction"?

It means subject to the country's laws. Indians (at the time) and diplomats' kids were not subject to the country's laws.

[SRG2]

Now that this question has been answwered, your answer to my question, please.

[Mr. Bumble]

On this issue, until the SC weighs, in the question of the meaning of "jurisdiction" has not been answered.

[David Nieporent]

The Supreme Court answered. Sorry that you people don't like the answer.

[Mr. Bumble]

You say so others say not.

[SRG2]

OK Mr. B. What do you think "jurisdiction" means in the Constitution?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not what you do but it is irrelevant unless one of us makes it to the SC.

[David Nieporent]

Tell me why tourist and illegal babies should be citizens.

Also asked and answered multiple times: because we don't want a permanent, generational third class status of people in the U.S.

Tell me why — without using any racist arguments — people who were born here should be deported to a place they have never been and have no personal connection to.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Because they are 4 years old and that's where there parent(s) are going.

[Jmaie]

As a tactic to dissuade folks from coming here for the express purpose of gaining citizenship for their children?

[not guilty]

Neither the President nor Congress has the unilateral authority to redefine the meaning of terms as used in the Constitution.

And while the rejection of a Senate bill that was not enacted into law may have some value as to interpreting other measures which were contemporaneously enacted, it means bupkis as to the meaning of constitutional provisions.

[santamonica811]

A quick poll: Which of the following has impressed you most about Trump (and those in his orbit) over the past few days?

Trump's rambling, shambling, incoherent press conference/speech after the inauguration?
Pardoning the non-violent Jan 6 rioters/protesters?
Pardoning the violent Jan 6 rioters?
Pardoning the ones who beat police officers, or tased cops till they had a heart attack?
Pardoning people who have already been charged or convicted of producing and/or possessing child pornography?
Trump's efforts to do away with birthright citizenship?
Melania's “Addams Family” cosplay dress and hat?
Elon Musk's Nazi (like) salute to the crowd?
Musk's second Nazi (again, like) salute, directly to the American flag?
Trump's attempt to end refugee status for would-be immigrants?
Trump ending security protection for John Bolten, to make it easier for Iran to assassinate him?
Pulling out of the WHO?
Withdrawing from the Paris climate accords?
Trying to rename various and sundry mountains and bodies of water?

Gotta hand it to the man; Trump has hit the ground running. Josh Blackman...where are you? We need your cogent and sober analysis, to put things in their proper context.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your TDS is going septic.

[santamonica811]

To be fair; I'm genuinely more amused by Trump's behavior than apoplectic about it. 🙂

(I think you would acknowledge that you are personally embarrassed by the Republican politicians muted response to the worst of Trump's pardons. Speaker Johnson could barely make eye contact with reporters, and could only muster a pathetic "Don't wanna second-guess Trump" response. As compared to his full-throated "Shocking and disgusting" opinions about the pardons from then-Prez Biden. He certainly had the integrity and courage to second-guess *those* ones, and was willing to bravely face the cameras then.)

I fully expected, and expect, Trump to act like Trump. But seeing grown men act like little bitches, and slink away like frightened bunnies . . . well, I don't need TDS in order to call out that weakness in character. I hope you'll join me in doing that for the next 2 years!!! 🙂

[Dan Schiavetta]

There is no more pathetic creature than today's invertebrate Republicans.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well except you.

[KBeckman]

Nationalists.

[Commenter_XY]

sm811, I understand the amusement, I share it in some ways (press conference); but my motivation might be very different than yours (or not). I would simply point out we have a POTUS that can actually do one (press conference), extemporaneously for 45-60 minutes.

That is a refreshing change. 😉

[Martinned2]

If only he could do a coherent press conference that doesn't make at least a half dozen countries rush to update their invasion repulsion plans. Then the US might actually be back to where it was in 2016, in terms of level of quality in the White House.

[David Nieporent]

Is rambling incoherently while at no point approaching an actual fact actually considered "doing a press conference"?

[ThePublius]

Now do Biden.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Go ahead, do Biden. Unlikely you can find counter-examples.

[santamonica811]

Sure. His pardon of his son was dreadful. Giving pardons to avoid Trump from doing purely political prosecutions in the future was great, and I support him doing those 100%.

Any other questions?

(Oh, you forgot to give your own opinions on Trump's behavior so far. I assume that you also found them bizarre, weak, pathetic, etc.. But since you forgot to specifically mention them; in 2025, I can't be certain of any particular person's ability to call a spade a spade.)

[RedheadedPharoh]

Are you telling me the Justice System can be deployed baselessly against political rivals?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Giving pardons to avoid Trump from doing purely political prosecutions in the future was great, and I support him doing those 100%."

The pardons also prevent him from doing legitimate prosecutions. And if Trump tries to do truly baseless prosecutions, all the defendants have to do is ask the judge to dismiss them.

[not guilty]

"And if Trump tries to do truly baseless prosecutions, all the defendants have to do is ask the judge to dismiss them."

No, it doesn't work that way. Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that in general a party may raise by pretrial motion any defense, objection, or request that the court can determine without a trial on the merits. (Emphasis added.)

Some defects can be determined prior to trial on motion of the defendant at an early stage of proceedings, such as the failure of the indictment to state an offense or the indictment showing on its face that the prosecution is time barred. Other pretrial motions are quite fact specific and require an evidentiary hearing, such as a motion to suppress evidence, a speedy trial violation, selective or vindictive prosecution.

Where the problem is that the prosecution is baseless because the charges simply lack evidentiary support, however, that cannot be determined prior to the close of the prosecution's proof in chief at trial.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Where the problem is that the prosecution is baseless because the charges simply lack evidentiary support, however, that cannot be determined prior to the close of the prosecution's proof in chief at trial."

Of course it can. It's determined by the grand jury's failure to indict.

[not guilty]

Let's see now. Above you said, "And if Trump tries to do truly baseless prosecutions, all the defendants have to do is ask the judge to dismiss them." Now you are crawfishing away after having been called out, cavilling. "Of course it can. It's determined by the grand jury's failure to indict."

Or do you actually surmise that a criminal defendant would ask a judge to dismiss a grand jury's no true bill??

Did you know that a grand jury's failure to indict was originally labeled "ignoramus"? https://www.mylawquestions.com/what-does-no-bill-mean.htm

[TwelveInchPianist]

As I pointed out in my comment, you said, "Where the problem is that the prosecution is baseless because the charges simply lack evidentiary support, however, that cannot be determined prior to the close of the prosecution's proof in chief at trial."

This is incorrect, as I said, because the grand jury will not indict without evidence.

You are correct that this wouldn't require the defendant to ask the judge to dismiss anything, as I posited, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't your original point.

These are the processes you guys spent months claiming were sufficient to protect Trump and others from baseless prosecutions, I don't know why you think they are suddenly insufficient.

[not guilty]

Trump and "baseless prosecutions" should never appear in the same sentence unless it is describing what Trump wants to do to his critics.

Obtaining a true bill from a grand jury doesn't take much of an evidentiary showing -- less than a prima facie case of guilt. A motivated federal prosecutor will design his grand jury presentation such that the grand jurors will indict where he so recommends and will decline to indict where that is his recommendation.

[Dan Schiavetta]

A victory for ignorance, mob rule, racism, incompetence, xenophobia, juvenile-level vengeance, and hatred in general, such as we haven't seen in our lifetime. Hopefully it will implode, and soon.

[Roger S]

Like Christmas every day.

[Commenter_XY]

sm811, on a more serious note. POTUS Trump changed the entire tone of the Fed gov't in less then 3 days. And making good on his promise to reduce DC workforce.

Not much coverage on the 200 exec orders, only 10 discussed in media. Other EO's are quite significant.

[Sarcastr0]

making good on his promise to reduce DC workforce
As has been pointed out to you, this is you, making things up. Plenty of churn in what we gotta do, but no one has been fired.

You should question why you need to make things up, and why you're turning to all those significant EOs that you haven't seen. It's odd and desperate-seeming.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Corrupt Hack Piece of Shit soon to be ex Judge Howell has been whining mercilessly and calling POTUS a liar re: pardons.

I don't think DC is redeemable.

[Mr. Bumble]

Reason and the VC is going to need to add more server capacity if this keeps up for four years.

[santamonica811]

heh

[Dan Schiavetta]

Pro-Trump comments here have descended to a new level of juvenility and nastiness.

To return to the adult world, I recommend this article posted today by the most cited Constitutional scholar. It's amazing how much the Prof. puts in so few words, all of them on the nose.

https://prospect.org/justice/2025-01-22-will-courts-enforce-constitution-against-president-trump/

[RedheadedPharoh]

I've seen less whining and crying on reddit.

It's another Dan Rather but in a black robe.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You walked right into that one.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Great article.

[M L]

"The phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is to ensure that children born to Americans in foreign countries while serving in the military or working in an embassy also are deemed citizens."

This is a pretty obvious error. Shows he has no understanding of the issue at all.

[Sarcastr0]

Obvious!

[David Nieporent]

No, I think he's right there; Chemirinsky is either the victim of a bad editing error or is talking without knowing what he's talking about.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure, but just saying that something is obvious doesn't help. What's obvious to some might not be obvious to others.

In this case, for example, the error is obvious to everyone except Sarcastro.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The full passage from the article is:

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This was adopted in 1868 to overrule the Supreme Court’s tragic decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which held that enslaved individuals were not citizens even if born in the United States. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is an unequivocal grant of citizenship to all born in this country. The phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is to ensure that children born to Americans in foreign countries while serving in the military or working in an embassy also are deemed citizens.

The Supreme Court long ago held that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment bestows citizenship on all born in the United States. In 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court held that children born in the United States are citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

[Roger S]

Almost every sentence of this is wrong.

[David Nieporent]

The first sentence is right. The second sentence is right.The third sentence is essentially right with a minor caveat. The fourth sentence is wrong. The fifth sentence is essentially right with a minor caveat. The sixth sentence should say "citizenship status" rather than "immigration status," but is otherwise right. So, no.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The "minor caveats" you describe are the crux of the issue."

The paragraph claims that the 14A gives birthright citizenship to everyone born in the US, and that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" caveat applies to people born outside the US.

This is flat wrong, as we know. The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" caveat excludes certain people who were, in fact, born in the US, and the scope of this exclusion is precisely the matter in dispute.

I agree that the exclusion applies only to people completely excluded from the jurisdiction like children of diplomats, but Chemerinsky badly mischaracterizes the issue.

In addition, saying that Wong Kim Ark "held that children born in the United States are citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status" overstates the holding. I don't think they're bound by Wong Kim Ark to rule against Trump, although I think they should, and will.

[Brett Bellmore]

From the sylabus:

"A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,"

At the least, Wong Kim Ark would appear to not apply to tourists. I think you could make a case for an illegal alien's legal "domicile" being their home country, too, but that's hardly solid.

Bottom line, if they want to rule in Trump's favor, they don't need to repudiate Wong Kim Ark.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't read precedents as limited to the facts presented, but to the legal holding.
Which is broader.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"To return to the adult world, I recommend this article posted today by the most cited Constitutional scholar. It's amazing how much the Prof. puts in so few words, all of them on the nose."

Is this...sarcasm? The passage you quoted above was pretty bad. And the article isn't particularly short.

I guess this is a good example of how purported experts sometimes wing it just like the rest of us.

[Commenter_XY]

A typical progressive....they know so much that isn't so.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A jury "found Ulbricht guilty of charges including drug trafficking, and conspiracies to commit money laundering and computer hacking."

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/accused-silk-road-operator-ross-ulbricht-convicted-all-counts-n299606

If someone is a libertarian and thinks drugs should be legal, that's fine, but he's not exactly a poster boy for leniency. Any number of people prosecuted for drug crimes [including several commuted by Biden] have been sentenced to extremely long prison terms for their involvement in the drug trade.

[For instance, in her autobiography, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson talks about her uncle's decades in prison for his role in the drug trade. The scope is not close to the breadth of this "silk road."]

He was not a small cog in the machine here. Also, people who aid and abet crimes warrant punishment. If his term was too long, lots of terms are too long. For his crimes, a "full and unconditional pardon" (which Trump says he provided) is far from clearly just.

Trump and Republicans strongly cries about the effects of the illegal drug trade, including dangerous drugs (say they) coming into this country. It is a horrible dangerous specter. Here? It is "vile" to convict someone who helps to do that.

Reference is made to how unconvicted allegations of attempted murder were used in sentencing. It is not irregular for such allegations to factor into sentencing. But it is not like without it he could only get a few years in prison for his crimes.

He's a poster boy, the sort of person Trump likes to help. Biden, contrarily, worked to address classes of drug offenders he deemed unjustly punished. The only "class" Trump addressed was 1/6 offenders. Without carefully balancing violent and non-violent offenders.

Trump's extremely rushed and unilateral pardon approach also is a slipshod approach that abuses the process. Pam Bondi, for example, promised to carefully on a case-by-case basis examine pardon requests. This use of the pardon process is partially why people think it is a bad idea to entrust one person with so much power. Our system generally has more checks and balances.

A recent blog post -- ridiculed by some -- noted a possible check is the impeachment power. Functionally, of course, that is generally useless when only one side cares about the wrongdoing.

[David Nieporent]

Reference is made to how unconvicted allegations of attempted murder were used in sentencing. It is not irregular for such allegations to factor into sentencing. But it is not like without it he could only get a few years in prison for his crimes.

IIRC, he was offered like a decade in prison if he pleaded guilty. He went to trial, was convicted — but not of attempted murder or the like — and then they sentenced him to life without parole based in significant part on the notion that he might have been guilty of attempted murder.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t think that’s really an accurate characterization of the government’s sentencing argument (available here https://nylawyer.nylj.com/adgifs/decisions15/060115sentencing2.pdf). They did note that the fact that he tried to hire people to murder witnesses against him was relevant to his future dangerousness (which seems like a fair point to me), but the primary argument for why he deserved more than the minimum sentence was the harm caused by the stuff that was sold on Silk Road (particularly the drug deaths), and his decision to keep operating it while aware of that.

[JasonT20]

... and his decision to keep operating it while aware of that.

Yeah, fuck him. Asshat made at least a million dollars helping drug dealers make even more money selling hard drugs to addicted users. There is no libertarian idealism that justifies that.

[Roger S]

Life in prison is a stiff sentence for a guy who was just running a web site.

[tylertusta]

I have no problem with him getting a stiff sentence. I have a problem with murderers who get less than life.

[Zarniwoop]

Do you also think the leader of the Sinaloa cartel is "just running an import/export business"?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two words: Leonard Peltier

[Noscitur a sociis]

Your point being what exactly? Politics isn’t a football game where the penalties offset, and the proper response to Biden inappropriately granting a commutation doesn’t seem to be Trump inappropriately granting a commutation.

[David Nieporent]

In any case, what was inappropriate about commuting Peltier's sentence? He has been in prison for 50 years, and now, in reportedly bad health, he's being transferred to home confinement.

[Mr. Bumble]

Better health than the two FBI agents he murdered in cold blood.

[John F. Carr]

"If his term was too long, lots of terms are too long."

That's what I felt about the January 6 cases. Many of the defendants got more than they deserved, just like hundreds of thousands of defendants before them. Federal criminal law is harsh.

[Mr. Bumble]

Harsher for those who won't play along and take a plea deal.

[KBeckman]

Nationalism belongs in the dumpster bin of history. They're nothing more than extreme statists trying their damnest to pretend they're not. They are America Last and giant disappointment to their ancestors.

[Martinned2]

This blog understandably has a lot of attention for antisemitism. That's one of those topics that Josh and the other bloggers write about whether there's a legal angle to it or not. Makes you wonder why none of them seems to have noticed Elon Musk's Nazi salutes.

[Martinned2]

For the record, this Jonn Elledge comment is excellent:

"I’d be a lot less bothered that certain bits of the media seem so interested in explaining that we can't know it was a Nazi thing, if only they were dedicating as much space to explaining the context that has led people to worry it was the Nazi thing."

https://bsky.app/profile/jonnelledge.bsky.social/post/3lgdpwih73c2q

[John F. Carr]

Trump is really good at getting the media to obsess over things that don't matter.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, no, that's the media all on it's own.

Check out newspapers from like WW1 sometime.

[Martinned2]

The US being taken over by Neo-Nazis seems like it's exactly the sort of thing we (or at least Americans) should worry about.

[Brett Bellmore]

Should it ever happen, we will worry about it. Right now we're just dealing with the US being democratically taken over by people whose political foes characterize them as Nazis.

Which has been going on every time Republicans will elections since the 40's, so we're kind of used to it.

[JasonT20]

Should it ever happen, we will worry about it.

How well has it ever worked out for citizens to not worry about government power falling into the hands of authoritarians until those authoritarians actually have government power?

[John F. Carr]

The US is being advised by a man who waved his arm.

[Martinned2]

But then so is this article in Die Zeit: https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2025-01/elon-musk-hitlergruss-amtseinfuehrung-donald-trump

[Michael P]

Before we address that silly accusation, what is your defense of your own Nazi salutes and rhetoric?

[Martinned2]

That they are a figment of your imagination, unlike Musk's, whose Nazi salutes are well documented?

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-musk-salute-reaction-right-wing-extremists-1235241866/

[Michael P]

Vice versa, chief. We can all read what you write about Israel. You should start examining Obama's nazi salutes as well. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/everyone-is-a-nazi-defending-elon-musk-social-media-users-show-taylor-swift-obama-and-superman-giving-nazi-salute/articleshow/117461008.cms

[Martinned2]

We can all read what you write about Israel.

Apparently not.

[Martinned2]

If you prefer a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2bbb-6Clhs

[JasonT20]

The people trying to argue that this isn't a big deal are really missing the one thing that would show that it isn't a big deal:

Elon Musk stating clearly that he wasn't thinking that he was a Nazi salute. And then adding that how the Neo-Nazis pointing to his gesture as proof of him being on their side can fuck off because he doesn't support anything that they want to happen.

Anyone that thinks that liberals are being stupid for worrying about this isn't factoring in the huge vacuum that exists where the people on the right should be constantly denouncing the extremists that also see these gestures and words as proof of sympathy and alignment with their causes.

[shawn_dude]

If the neo-Nazis think it was a Nazi salute and the Germans think it was a Nazi salute, and a goodly portion of the American Left, having read Musk's opinions on things which often dip their toe into neo-Nazi ideology, think he's at least nazi-adjacent, then people claiming otherwise need to provide more than simple denials.

[Martinned2]

In a long line of rich people with no obvious relevant skills, we now have a fast food guy nominated as the US ambassador to the EU.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/22/us/politics/andrew-puzder-trump-ambassador-european-union.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

This is not a Trump issue, this is a bipartisan problem.

[Michael P]

Why is it a problem at all? The EU is largely a joke that would be well served by learning lessons from successful executives. There are a great many such lessons they could learn.

[Martinned2]

The EU is largely a joke that would be well served by learning lessons from successful executives. There are a great many such lessons they could learn.

Sure, but what does that have to do with the US?

Why is it a problem at all?

That seems more of a question for whoever thinks the EU should back Trump's China policy.

[Michael P]

What does it have to do with the US? The US is graciously providing the EU an ambassador that can also teach them many helpful lessons.

[Martinned2]

Whatever it is you're smoking, you need to smoke less of it.

[Martinned2]

Speaking of banana republics (in the previous open thread, I think), the UK has fired the chairman of the competition authority, and replaced him with a former Amazon executive.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/21/chair-of-competition-watchdog-steps-down-after-labour-intervention

Unlike in the US, in most other democracies the enforcement of the laws, including competition laws, isn't supposed to vary depending on which politician is in power.

[Martinned2]

The British are still having a weird discussion about their Assisted Dying Bill: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jan/21/assisted-dying-bill-amendment-anorexia-loophole

I'm not sure why someone like this, whose eating disorder resulted in multiple organ failure, shouldn't be entitled to seek euthanasia/assisted dying just like anyone else who's terminally ill.

[Martinned2]

It looks like the Gleichschaltung of scientific research has now also begun.

Several meetings of National Institutes of Health study sections, which review applications for fellowships and grants, were canceled without being rescheduled, according to agency notices reviewed by STAT. A Feb. 20-21 meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, a panel that advises the leadership of the Department of Health and Human Services on vaccine policy, was also canceled. So was a meeting of the Presidential Advisory Council for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria that was scheduled for Jan. 28 and 29.

https://www.statnews.com/2025/01/22/trump-administrations-cancels-scientific-meetings-abruptly/

[Brett Bellmore]

You might recall that we hit the debt ceiling a couple days ago, so putting a hold on optional spending is to be expected.

[Brett Bellmore]

What do Americans think of Trump's executive actions?

"Detaining immigrants accused of crimes: Popular"
"Building a wall at the southern border: Popular"
"Declaring a national emergency at the border: Popular"
"Using the military to secure the border: Popular"
(Ilya Somin hardest hit...)
"Reducing costs: Popular"
"Declaring there are only two sexes: Popular"

"Increasing oil drilling: Mixed"
"Eliminating electric vehicle subsidies: Mixed"
"Ending DEI programs in the federal government: Mixed"

"Ending birthright citizenship: Unpopular"
"Jan. 6 pardons: Unpopular"
"Saving TikTok: Unpopular"
"Withdrawing from the Paris accord: Unpopular"
"Turning federal workers from career civil servants into at-will employees: Unpopular"
"Renaming the Gulf of Mexico: Unpopular"

It's mixed, but I'd say he's batting pretty well, more populars than unpopulars.

[DixieTune]

I suspect most people don't know what the hell they're talking about. That goes for the popular and unpopular things.

That goes for "reducing costs" and "ending birthright citizenship."

Anecdotally, I've met very few people who support birthright citizenship as a matter of policy, constitutional issues aside.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's usually the case that people are being polled about things they know nothing about, and don't actually have opinions about. At least a lot of these are sufficiently in the news that people generally DO have opinions, even if uninformed.

"Anecdotally, I've met very few people who support birthright citizenship as a matter of policy, constitutional issues aside."

Yeah, it's the same thing with abortion: Proponents trumpet high level polls saying abortion should be legal, and don't talk about the polls that drill into the details and find that the majority only think elective abortions should be legal for the first trimester.

I expect that if you get into the weeds of things like birthright tourism, the numbers change dramatically.

[Martinned2]

Everyone can rest easy, because the Supreme Court of Colorado has decided that elephants are not people, and are not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.

https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2025-01/24SA21.pdf

[Michael P]

Nutcases at PETA and ALF and wherever else will not rest easy. They will march, demanding we globalize the elephantada.

[Martinned2]

Fortunately I get the impression (anecdotally) that PETA have lost most of their influence even among people who are otherwise quite concerned about animal welfare.

[Brett Bellmore]

I expect that learning how eager PETA is to euthanize animals they get their hands on might have something to do with that.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe it's that's how the Democratic Party treats it's fringe.

We marginalize them. We don't pardon them and call them heroes.

[SRG2]

We don't pardon them and call them heroes.

The GOP doesn't do that either - because the rioters were not part of the fringe. They're embraced by the mainstream GOP and are hence by definition not on the fringe.

[Sarcastr0]

The Proud Boys are the fringe, in that they're actually violent for real and not just wanking on the Internet.

But yeah, ideologically for the GOP the fringe has become the rug.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on. To be sure, you don't embrace your ENTIRE fringe, but you embrace enough of it, like the transgender nonsense, or late term elective abortion, that you ought to be embarrassed.

NYT poll finds majority of Democrats oppose transgender athletes in women’s sports

Granted, the Biden administration drew back from the brink, but in '23 they were seriously advancing a proposal to mandate that schools had to allow that.

[Sarcastr0]

Trans stuff?

What a tepid definition of fringe.

I mean it is the go-to for commenters around here who want to change the subject, but it's not going to illegally overturn any national elections.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The fringes my party embraces aren't really fringes, so they don't count!"

[Sarcastr0]

I think it says volumes that when seeking an example of Democrats mainstreaming the fringe, you went for the latest front in the culture war, citing an example of nothing happening.

[Michael P]

Would you prefer the fringe who invade state capitols in the midwest, like Tim Kaine's son who got off with a wrist slap? The fringe who lay siege to federal courthouses in Oregon, blinding federal marshals and firing mortar fireworks at occupied buildings? The fringe who establish "autonomous zones" in the state of Washington?

You are simply making bad excuses for special pleading, which is neither a surprise nor a change.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL some deep cuts there.

You know? I don't know if Tim Kaine's son is a mainstream Democrat. I'm not surprised he's protected from consequence.

Though I also note that civil disobedience is often treated with kid gloves.

And the rest is handwaving and grievance; not a lot about actual party ideology.
The closest BLM folks got to sniffing actual federal power was a bunch of legislators kneeling in kente cloth.

[tylertusta]

Their fringe took control of their own party, so they're no longer fringe.

[tylertusta]

"Maybe" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.

[Sarcastr0]

No, that's just the sentence construction. I could have as easily said "PETA doesn't have much public buy-in because the Democratic Party doesn't exalt their violent and vandalarious as party stalwarts.'

That just didn't seem as elegant rhetorically.

[tylertusta]

That's a very different response from your previous comment.

"We marginalize them" is very different from "not exalting."

Furthermore, do you have any facts to back up your claim of the Democratic Party marginalizing PETA and other "fringe" groups of the Democratic Party?

[Sarcastr0]

"We marginalize them" is very different from "not exalting."

Here, that's a distinction without a difference - there's no one in that middle ground.
The GOP is exalting it's far right fringe and electing them to high office. The Dems are marginalizing theirs's.

do you have any facts to back up your claim of the Democratic Party marginalizing PETA and other "fringe" groups of the Democratic Party
1. PETA is marginalized.
2. Years ago, PETA, when seeking mainstream support, did so via the Democratic Party.

QED.

[ThePublius]

Who are the far right fringe who have been elected to high office? And who defined them as far right?

[tylertusta]

Here, that's a distinction without a difference - there's no one in that middle ground.

They're very different things! "Not exalting" would be the Democratic Party merely not rhetorically supporting PETA. Marginalizing, on the other hand, is active efforts taken against PETA to reduce their support.

1. PETA is marginalized.
2. Years ago, PETA, when seeking mainstream support, did so via the Democratic Party.

All I see is you just saying this, and you haven't backed up your statements. Please show some support for your claim that PETA is actually marginalized by the Democratic Party.

For all we know PETA has significant influence within the Democratic Party and you're just making it up.

[Sarcastr0]

Who are the far right fringe who have been elected to high office

LOL.

You're the 'blacks aren't like whites - they're more criminal' guy, right?
Would you consider yourself fringe?

[ThePublius]

So, Sarcastr0, instead of answering the question you attack the questioner. Typical.

And regarding your comment, yes, statistically speaking, according to the FBI's published crime stats, blacks in America are more criminal than whites. That's a fact, and it's not racist to point it out.

So, again: Who are the far right fringe who have been elected to high office? And who defined them as far right?

[Sarcastr0]

I'd love to watch you pretend you don't know for a bit longer, but it's Trump. His positions were the fringe, that have become the rug.

[ThePublius]

Trump is not far right fringe. That's ridiculous.

Dems and progs label everyone they don't like politically as far right, or fringe, or some other characterization of extreme.

Let me ask you, who would be on the far left fringe? Anyone come to mind?

[Sarcastr0]

Trump is not far right fringe. That's ridiculous.

I keep saying 'the fringe has become the rug.'

Do you comprehend what that means?

[ThePublius]

No, you said "The GOP is exalting it's far right fringe and electing them to high office." Then when I asked you who, you said Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

"The GOP is exalting it's far right fringe and electing them to high office" = the fringe becoming the rug.

Trump is mainstream now. His positions, his methods, those used to be on the fringe, not very long ago.

Now they are not.

The fringe has been exalted; it has become the rug.

The Proud Boys are now indistinguishable from a newly elected MAGA politician.

Dems don't have the same thing going on.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do have exactly the same thing going on when it comes to all this weird transgender stuff, you're just to close to it to see it. The fringe has taken over your party, you've even got Supreme court justices denying they know the difference between men and women!

[Sarcastr0]

On this side we have Trump, across dozens of policy areas.

On this side we have trans stuff, which is of pretty limited scope, and which hasn't had much of a federal push. But some states are passing stuff!

Brett, your example only underscores the asymmetry between the parties.

you've even got Supreme court justices denying they know the difference between men and women!
It is not fringey to think gender is complicated even if you personally decided it doesn't exist, and to be a dick about it.

Sex != gender is not a radical idea these days.

But then you think gay marriage public support is out of peer pressure; your vibes may not be keeping your thumb on the mainstream.

[John F. Carr]

Today the European Court of Human Rights ruled that you can't get a divorce on the grounds that your wife won't have sex with you. This is an advisory opinion in a case where both parties wanted to be divorced. The wife was offended by the trial court's granting a divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. She had asked the divorce to be declared his fault because he was "bad-tempered, violent and insulting." The ECHR agreed that her rights were violated.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-8140380-11404324&filename=Judgment%20H.W.%20v.%20France%20-%20divorce%20for%20failure%20to%20fulfil%20marital%20duties:%20violation%20of%20right%20to%20respect%20for%20private%20life.pdf

[ThePublius]

Truckers File Lawsuit Arguing They Shouldn’t Lose Second Amendment Rights Just Because They Cross State Lines

If drivers' licenses issued in one state are good in any other state, why not a license to carry? Or, why is a license to carry needed at all?

https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/23/truckers-file-lawsuit-arguing-they-shouldnt-lose-second-amendment-rights-just-because-they-cross-state-lines/

[John F. Carr]

I don't know of a mandate that driver's licenses be recognized interstate. My state's law recognizes licenses from other states that recognize our licenses (as determined by the executive branch). It does not similarly require out of state gun licenses to be accepted.

Florida does not recognize all out of state licenses. If your Connecticut or Delaware license is for driving only it is not valid in Florida. It is only valid in Florida if it is more than a simple driver's license, e.g. a federally accepted REAL ID card. https://www.flhsmv.gov/driver-licenses-id-cards/visiting-florida-faqs/sb1718/

Big trucks used to be plastered with dozens of license plates because states didn't recognize out of state registration for commercial vehicles.

18 USC 926A permits transporting guns in a locked container from a legal place to a legal place.

[ThePublius]

How about Article IV, Sec. 1?

[DixieTune]

They aren't mandated to accept driver's licenses because they do voluntarily, via a pact, so it isn't an issue. If they did, you'd see constitutional claims.

926A is fine in theory, but people have been arrested on bullshit claims because their planes were diverted, or because they stopped to get lunch, or whatever.

It doesn't work as long as you have 10 or so blue states that don't respect the right.

[ThePublius]

Good point. I recall the case of a guy traveling and making an unplanned stop in NJ due to a flight diversion, and was arrested for having firearms. (He was on his way to a hunting trip. He simply recovered his checked firearms and went to a motel for the night, and upon returning to the airport to resume his trip was arrested.)

[Brett Bellmore]

So, if the new Trump administration wants to really cement the loyalty of gun owners, (Especially after that bumpstock fiasco!) all he really needs to do is pursue Section 242 charges over that.

[Michael P]

Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/southport-stabbings-police-gabbed-details-cps-axel-rudakubana-keir-starmer/

[ThePublius]

Great! Grey's law:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Grey%27s%20Law

[Sarcastr0]

Despite genuine concerns over prejudicing Rudakubana’s trial, questions continue to be asked as to why crucial details about the case were not released sooner

Questions continue!

Nothing but mau-mauing.

[ThePublius]

Zelensky wants American boots on the ground in Ukraine. I will be so mad if that happens! Not our fight. Not a just use of our blood and treasure.

(I hated Biden's largesse WRT Ukraine; I think it was rooted in corruption. No one 'gives' that amount of money without wetting their beak.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/01/23/american-troops-must-be-deployed-to-ukraine-or-russia-wont-be-deterred-insists-zelensky-report/

[Brett Bellmore]

So, totally apolitical. I've started the keto diet, but I'm having trouble getting into ketosis. I think I'm eating too much vegetables, actually. So I want to go really hard core low carbs, and then gradually reintroduce them to see how many I can afford.

Then it hit me: Pemmican!

So this weekend I'm mixing up a batch.

[shawn_dude]

Careful with the Atkins/Keto diet. You should only do it in short bursts of a few weeks. If you do it too long, you can starve your gut biome and lose the ability to digest certain foods permanently, like lactose. (I speak from personal experience here.)

Vegetables, generally, aren't a problem with ketosis provided they aren't starchy vegetables or vegetables with lots of sugars like carrots. I abandoned ketosis diets in favor of the South Beach diet years ago as it was more refined regarding which vegetables were problematic and it was broken up into phases that reintroduce healthy starches in moderation throughout the diet. Also, I didn't like peeing on a strip and the terrible breath from ketosis. My weight would yoyo under Atkins abut South Beach was just a healthy eating diet in the latter phases and easier to sustain long term.
YMMV

[ThePublius]

"Fuck Trump, Biden forever" says Hatian gang member with 18 convictions, picked up in Boston today by ICE.

"Fox News embedded exclusively with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Boston as the agency targeted egregious criminal aliens, including MS-13 gang members and murder suspects, as part of mass deportation efforts under President Donald Trump.

Fox News witnessed ICE Boston make eight arrests, including multiple MS-13, Interpol Red Notices, murder and rape suspects, and a volatile Haitian gang member with 18 convictions in recent years who told our cameras that he "ain’t going back to Haiti" and "f--- Trump, Biden forever!""

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/first-images-ice-mass-deportation-efforts-show-arrests-ms-13-gang-members-murder-suspects

[Sarcastr0]

Eight arrests! And one of them did curse words!

I'm sure no one criminals ever got deported under Biden and was angry about it.

[ThePublius]

This is just the beginning.

[Sarcastr0]

No doubt. But this anecdote is not useful to elucidate that.

It is good at confirming a whole passel of stereotypes, and not much else.

[shawn_dude]

Trump advisor does Nazi salute on stage during inauguration--no biggie from the Right. But an arrest Hatian gang member praising Biden is worthy of note.

Yet Biden and Trump both deported a similar number of illegal immigrants in their first terms and for Biden, the majority of that was in the latter two years alone due to the pandemic.

[Zarniwoop]

Well that didn't take long:

A federal judge on Thursday issued a two-week restraining order blocking the Trump administration from moving forward on an effort to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors.

U.S. District Court John C. Coughenour’s decision, which applies nationwide, came in response to a lawsuit from a coalition of states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon — that argued that the White House executive order, which President Donald Trump signed Monday, is unconstitutional.

[Zarniwoop]

I'll save folks the effort of trying to pin this on a (D)-appointed judge:

A federal judge said Thursday that President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship was “blatantly unconstitutional” and that he was issuing a temporary restraining order to block it.

Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee who sits in Seattle, granted the request by Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and three other Democratic-led states for the emergency order halting implementation of the policy for the next 14 days while there are more briefings in the legal challenge.

“I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case whether the question presented was as clear,” Coughenour said.

Well, except for the part where Reagan would be kicked out of the Trump GOP.

[shawn_dude]

Aren't they calling Reagan a RINO now?