Wednesday Open Thread

Comments

[not guilty]

There will be a hearing this morning before Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New York regarding the detention and attempted deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian student. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/order-mahmoud-khalil-judge-furman.pdf

Khalil was a lawful permanent resident (LPR) studying at Columbia University, and he was an outspoken advocate for Palestinian rights, including at the university. On March 8, 2025, agents from the Department of Homeland Security detained him at his apartment, stating that his green card had been revoked. He filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York the next day, March 9. The case was assigned to Jesse M. Furman.

Khalil was moved to a detention facility in Louisiana. In response, in order to retain its jurisdiction, on March 10, 2025, the Judge gave notice that Khalil was not to be removed from the United States unless and until the court ordered otherwise. Khalil also moved to compel respondents to return him to the Southern District of New York. https://clearinghouse.net/case/46209/

Congressional authority in matters regarding deportation is broad, but it appears to me that here the purported summary revocation of the green card proposed deportation is a flagrant case of unlawful retaliation for the habeas petitioner's exercise of First Amendment rights. As Justice Douglas wrote for SCOTUS in Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 162 (1945):

[T]he First Amendment and other portions of the Bill of Rights make no exception in favor of deportation laws or laws enacted pursuant to a "plenary" power of the Government. Hence the very provisions of the Constitution negative the proposition that Congress, in the exercise of a "plenary" power, may override the rights of those who are numbered among the beneficiaries of the Bill of Rights.

[Kazinski]

Does the judge have jurisdiction?

I saw somewhere that habeas petitions must be filed in the district where the petitioner is held.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They should have just shot him resisting arrest.

[not guilty]

How do you claim to know that he was resisting arrest? Does that even matter?

[Riva]

Don’t know about the arrest issue but he did organize the violent Columbia student takeovers. More importantly, he is a spokesman for an organization that supports armed resistance by Hamas, Columbia University Apartheid Divestment You may want to consult 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(B), which allows the deportation of "representative[s]" of a "political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity." 8 U.S.C. $ 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) (IV)(aa)-(bb). More worthless garbage litigation from the left.

[apedad]

You're a piece of shit Dr ShitEd and your comment has been flagged for advocating unlawful violence.

[Frank Drackman]

Does it also go on his permanent record?

[Bwaaah]

If that was supposed to be humorous, you missed the mark. If it was meant to be serious, you hit it.

[Frank Drackman]

Should have put him in Epstein's old cell in New Yorks Metropolitan Correctional Center, people have a way of getting dead there

[not guilty]

The judge here relied on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Michael v. I.N.S., 48 F.3d 657, 661-62 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that the All Writs Act provides a federal court of appeals reviewing a final removal order with a basis to stay removal).

[tylertusta]

The All Writs Act is limited by the judge's jurisdiction. If the government moved him prior to the petition being filed, then the judge would lack jurisdiction as in Rumsfeld v Padilla.

[David Nieporent]

I saw somewhere that habeas petitions must be filed in the district where the petitioner is held.

Not exactly. They must be filed in the district where the petitioner was being held at the time the petition was filed.

[Commenter_XY]

So wait, Khalil was in LA when the petition was filed in SDNY. Is Khalil SOL?

[Zarniwoop]

So wait, Khalil was in LA when the petition was filed in SDNY. Is Khalil SOL?

According to the petitions (I've actually read them, have you?), Khalil was still in NY when the petitions were filed. According to the petitions (try reading them), the gov't then moved Khalil to cut off attorney access. The petitions (it's in there, I promise) includes specific times for both the habeas filings and location checks with the prisoner locator system, supported by attorney affidavits.

The gov't can present its own evidence, of course. But if the petitions are correct, it's the gov't that should be SOL for trying to play "hide the prisoner" after a habeas petition was filed.

[Life of Brian]

(I've actually read them, have you?)

You read the filings after JoeFromTheBronx was kind enough to share links to them yesterday. Why not pass on the courtesy, particularly in the midst of snarky jabs about reading them?

Petition
Motion to compel
Supporting declaration to MTC

[Life of Brian]

The petitions (it's in there, I promise) includes specific times for both the habeas filings and location checks with the prisoner locator system, supported by attorney affidavits.

And about 38 seconds of searching surfaced this article from just a couple of weeks ago, with this take-home: "ICE’s online locator system typically was updated within a day of a transfer. Now, updates can take two to three days or longer."

So color me for one EXTREMELY skeptical that Khalil was actually still in NY for the ~5 hours between the time the petition was filed and the time the system updated his location to Elizabeth, NJ.

[Magister]

Sweet dodge for a lawless administration to move prisoners every time their lawyers are able to find out where they were, too late to file a habeas petition.

If that trick wears out, I expect the Trump administration may establish a holding facility near Amarillo, for no special reason of course, total coincidence.

[Stella Link the dog]

"If that trick wears out, I expect the Trump administration may establish a holding facility near Amarillo,"

I'm a bit surprised they didn't just send him to Gitmo.

[Sarcastr0]

The government doesn't get to dictate venue by moving someone they've detained.

[not guilty]

"I saw somewhere that habeas petitions must be filed in the district where the petitioner is held."

Mr. Khalil filed his habeas corpus petition in New York on the day after his arrest, before he was moved to Louisiana.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, isn't this hamas homie 'toast' under the Immigration and Naturalization Act? The SecState can revoke the green card and then deport anyone who:

Are engaged, or at any time after admission engages in espionage, sabotage, or violations or evasions of any law prohibiting export of goods, technology, or sensitive information, or in any other criminal activity that is a danger to public safety or national security, or acts in opposition to, or attempts to control or overthrow the U.S. government by force, violence, or other unlawful means.

Have engaged in or appears likely to engage in terrorist activity, or has incited terrorist activity, or is a representative a terrorist organization or group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity, or are a member of a terrorist organization (unless the person proves that he had no idea of its terrorist aims), or endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to do so, or have received military-type training from or on behalf a terrorist organization, or are the terrorist's spouse or child, if the relevant activity took place within the last five years.

By being present in the U.S., would create potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences, as adjudged by the U.S. Secretary of State.

I don't see how the hamas homie Khalil has a case.

It is a fact that US citizens have privileges and immunities that green card holders and foreigners do not.

As for his wife, she can decide to stay or go. But Syria doesn't look very hospitable these days.

There are many, many green card holders in this country. I do hope they are paying attention, and governing themselves accordingly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We also don't know what his wife has done -- she may be the grounds for his deportation, with her remaining because she is an American.

[Kazinski]

Well I did say before that I did not support deporting someone for just expressing an opinion, even if the administration can legally do it, And I will stick to that.

But this seems to me to go somewhat beyond just expressing an opinion:

"Video emerges showing Mahmoud Khalil wearing a sweatshirt with a picture of someone in a kafiyeh wearing the Hamas headband, while chanting to “cut the head off Zionists”

https://x.com/JackKaplanNY/status/1899473521517994284?t=4glSTvQamX1ERLOacHbjkA&s=19

But its not antisemitic because he didn't say Jews. Humor intended even though its not funny.

[Commenter_XY]

The hamas homie Khalil will have many others joining him.

Recall I mentioned repeatedly that I wanted the college aged darlings to loudly and proudly advocate for their cause (killing Jews, evidently). And they did! The fools. That pleased me to no end because I knew there would be lots of video. Not to mention eyewitnesses. They (hamas homies, or nascent Judeocidal terrorists) will be identified, and then....

Khalil will be joined by a bunch of his Judeocidal friends. They can all show their love for hamas from their home countries. Bye, bye.

FAFO

[Frank Drackman]

Borrowing from the late great Rabbi Meir Kahane
"He must go"

Frank

[Krayt]

I assume someone would want to report him to his uni or company or whatever for advocating violence in defense of his fribe.

[David Nieporent]

But this seems to me to go somewhat beyond just expressing an opinion:

I don't think wearing a sweatshirt with an opinion actually does go beyond expressing an opinion.

[Kazinski]

I think you would concede it is endorsing or espousing terrorist activity to advocate beheading zionists, at least if you are being honest.

So even though it is an opinion, its an opinion that can get you deported, by law.

So unless the courts decide to enjoin enforcement of the statute, it is certainly not outrageous for the administration to enforce the statute if they think its warranted.

[David Nieporent]

That doesn't change the fact that doing so is not "beyond just expressing an opinion," which is what I said.

(He may, of course, have done other things beyond that. I am only addressing the claim in the tweet.)

[not guilty]

The Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security and all other federal agencies are constrained by the First Amendment and by the Fifth Amendment guaranty of due process., XY. Privileges and Immunities of citizenship here is a red herring -- I suspect you know and intend that.

What specific actions or omissions by Mr. Khalil do you contend bring him within the ambit of the statutes that you mention? The application of any such statutes contrary to free speech and due process guaranties is unconstitutional.

[Commenter_XY]

By being present in the U.S., would create potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences, as adjudged by the U.S. Secretary of State.

The law explicitly grants Sec State Rubio the authority. Sec State Rubio made the call, and stated so publicly.

I don't think a fed dist court judge gets to substitute his judgment on the seriousness of foreign policy consequences from Khalil's actions/presence, for Secretary Rubio's. Congress passed the law over 70 years ago...now suddenly, there is a constitutional problem? Uh no.

There is no constitutional problem, there is a consequences problem (for Khalil, and others like him).

It is over for Khalil and others like him (but for the shouting).

[not guilty]

All statutes, both state and federal, must be interpreted and applied consistently with constitutional provisions. As Chief Justice Marshall famously opined in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 178 (1803):

So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

Like members of Congress, the Secretary of State is bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support the Constitution. "It is the duty of the secretary of state to conform to the law, and in this he is an officer of the United States, bound to obey the laws. He acts, in this respect, as has been very properly stated at the bar, under the authority of law, and not by the instructions of the president." Id., at 158.

The nut graph of Marbury is:

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

Id., at 177.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, you say my point about P&I is a red herring. I don't agree. I've asked you many questions and gotten great responses. So, let me ask you: do foreigners on visas and green card holders have the same level of protection as American citizens, for 1A and 5A?

NB: To be clear, I think Khalil (and many like him) loses b/c the INA explicitly gives SecState the authority to revoke visa/green cards and deport them. No constitutional issue on those grounds.

[not guilty]

If you can't understand that constitutional guaranties always supplant statutes where the two are in conflict, there is no hope of you understanding anything else about the rule of law.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

[not guilty]

That having been said, there is an important distinction between immigrants who are here lawfully, Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945), and those who are not. Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999).

[Kazinski]

There is an important distinction between lawful green card holders, illegal aliens, and temporary visa holders, only because Congress made those important distinctions.

Seems to me Congress can erase those distinctions as well.

And Congress appears to have done so as CXY cited the statute "or endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to do so,"

The video I linked above shows him unambiguously espousing terrorist activity, and while he is probably due his due process, the law in question would have to be struck or narrowed for him to be allowed to remain.

[not guilty]

Congress cannot repeal the First Amendment. Viewpoint discrimination by government is the most egregious of wrongs under the First Amendment.

[Michael P]

What precedent says that U. S. Code Chapter 8, Section 1227(a)(4)(B) is unconstitutional?

Khalil is a representative of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), as he is generally described as a leader of that group and has spoken for it in video media. CUAD is a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity, as exemplified by a number of their public statements and claims. Per Chapter 8, Section 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(IV), he's inadmisible, and per Section 1227(a)(4)(B) that makes him deportable and his LPR status revocable.

[not guilty]

Do you understand the concept of a statute, which is not unconstitutional on its face, being applied in an unconstitutional manner to a particular defendant?

[Michael P]

So, no precedent.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 28 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Do you understand the concept of a statute, which is not unconstitutional on its face, being applied in an unconstitutional manner to a particular defendant?"

While the law you cite may be correct (and likely is) the actual facts in this case do not support the position you have taken

[Reallynotbob]

"The video I linked above shows him unambiguously espousing terrorist activity..."

Several comments above, Frank Drackman advocated putting him in the Epstein cell so he could be killed. Is that also "espousing terrorist activity"?

What if a green card holder says "Nice job, Luigi Mangione" on a social media post? What if I do?

What if David Bernstein advocates for Israel preemptively wiping out all those who would do Israel harm such as Gazans, in honor of Purim?

[TwelveInchPianist]

" The application of any such statutes contrary to free speech and due process guaranties is unconstitutional."

Meh. Lots has been written on this blog about the application of antidiscrimination and harassment statutes contrary to free speech guaranties.

[Sarcastr0]

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

[tylertusta]

And this is why lawfare is bad.

[TwelveInchPianist]

But what are the rules?

NG's argument that application of statutes contrary to free speech and due process guaranties is unconstitutional clearly doesn't apply with respect to
Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment statutes. Why would the statutes at issue here be any different?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm responding to your comment, which answers objections to free speech being impinged in this case with off topic grievances about free speech in another set of situations entirely.

Playing confused that there isn't One True Speech Doctrine doesn't wear well on someone whose commented on this blog as long as you have.

[TwelveInchPianist]

My comment responded to a claim that statutory concerns don't override the first amendment.

But the left has been talking for years about how to draw the line between free speech and harassment, or free speech and discrimination.

It looks like now we're going to start talking about how we draw the line between free speech and support for terrorism.

[Sarcastr0]

the left has been talking for years

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

[TwelveInchPianist]

Few things are more corrosive in politics than whining about being held to your own standards.

[Sarcastr0]

Freedom of speech is not a one-size-fits-all single doctrine. As you well know.
No need to engage with you further on this bad faith.

But you do seem to admit you have no standards of your own.

Saying 'the left the left the left' is not actually a principle.

[Commenter_XY]

TiP, you nailed it. Being forced to live up to the standard you set is analogous to saying, the shoe is on the other foot. That is what bothers them. A lot.

The Sarcastro's and Blue Sky crowd never thought the shoe would be on the other foot.

[Reallynotbob]

C_XY -- the problem you have there is that your argument proves too much. So much that I suspect even you would not like it.

If statute can override 1A, as you now hope is the case because tHe lEfT, then you live in a country where that also applies to citizens. And that means a future Congress can make a law that forbids you from, say, advocating for 2A rights or saying "I back the Blue" just because.

I get that you don't like the anti-discrimination thread of 1A analysis, but the jurisprudence has been crafted to cordon the exception. You can dislike it, but your approach is way worse.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But you do seem to admit you have no standards of your own."

Of course I have standards. I think the first amendment should override things like discrimination law or harassment law. But I don't get to make the rules.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't mean grievances about off-topic stuff. That's not a principle that's yelling libs libs libs.

I mean the topic at hand.
Which you seem unable to stick with.

You've yet to espouse a standard as applicable to this case. Just libs libs libs.

I'm not sure you know what a principle actually is.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I don't mean grievances about off-topic stuff. That's not a principle that's yelling libs libs libs."

So the topic is free speech as it applies to this case, not to other cases? So much for standards and principles, I guess.

[Sarcastr0]

Playing confused that there isn't One True Speech Doctrine doesn't wear well on someone whose commented on this blog as long as you have.

Lack of principles it is, then.

[Commenter_XY]

Reallynotbob...You made my point. Were Khalil (hamas homie) a citizen, it is protected speech. Citizens have P&I that non-citizens do not. I am amazed that this idea is controversial.

Free speech does not equal free of all consequence. And it certainly does not mean it is Ok to lie on federal forms (perjury).

My argument is exactly the same if it was some sick white supremacist instead of an antisemite. If you're not a citizen, you're deportable for your words (and actions). That's the law.

[Sarcastr0]

Free speech does not equal free of all consequence.

It does generally mean free from *governmental* consequence.

But you've long ago stopped caring about abuse of governmental power.

[Commenter_XY]

The law is the law, Sarcastr0. INA was passed 73 years ago. It has been on the books a long time.

[Josh R]

Ant-discrimination and anti-harassment statutes are subject to freedom of speech and due process. Your objection is only that you disagree with how courts rulings interpret those statutes and the Constitution, The same may apply to court decisions NG doesn't like.

[not guilty]

"NG's argument that application of statutes contrary to free speech and due process guaranties is unconstitutional clearly doesn't apply with respect to Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment statutes. Why would the statutes at issue here be any different?"

That is one whopper of a false analogy. Anti-discrimination statutes indeed have an effect on rights of free expression, but such statutes survive strict judicial scrutiny analysis. According to settled First Amendment doctrine, if a statute regulates speech based on its content, it must be narrowly tailored to promote a compelling Government interest. If a less restrictive alternative would serve the Government's purpose, the legislature must use that alternative. United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000).

The Government has a fundamental, compelling interest in eradicating racial discrimination -- discrimination that prevailed, with official approval, for the first 165 years of this Nation's constitutional history. Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 604 (1983). There is a similarly compelling interest in eradicating sex discrimination. Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 623 (1984). There is no such interest in forbidding or proscribing advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).

[Brett Bellmore]

"There are many, many green card holders in this country. I do hope they are paying attention, and governing themselves accordingly."

The ones I've known have always been at great pains to do so.

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter is advocating viewpoint based self censorship via chilling effect.

And you appear to endorse his stance.

[Brett Bellmore]

Being upset about people who had to promise not to support terrorist organizations in order to gain entry to the country having their support for terrorist organizations being 'chilled' is not a good look. You just don't want to take seriously what he's been up to.

[Sarcastr0]

Believing in rights means assholes get them as well.

Your charge against me shows you don't take rights seriously.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, when you promise not to do X in order to get a privilege, you no longer have the right to do X, unless you forego the privilege.

Having a green card is a privilege, extended with numerous conditions. One of them is not supporting terrorist organizations. There are lots of other conditions green card holders commit to meeting, that citizens can't be subject to, I assure you. Technically, you can get deported just for being caught without having your green card on you!

I get that you want to characterize supporting terrorist organizations as speech. Certainly some kinds of support are speech, (Though Khalil didn't limit himself to that sort of support.) but this is the sort of speech Khalil committed to refrain from as a condition of entry.

[Sarcastr0]

You're not talking about material support, though; you and Commenter are talking about speech.

[Michael P]

Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment.

[Krayt]

Major efforts were made a few years ago to help harrassing speech escape constitutional protection sans amendment, by a deliberate, concerted effort arguing it was worthless in "The Marketplace of Ideas".

Not that I want to help censorship spread, but if these asses are fine with that, perhaps use that tactic and claim violent threats and desires are worthless speech, and therefore bannable. I mean, threats to cut off zionist heads are worse than saying someone is fugly, right?

Or everyone involved in censorship efforts can knife themselves and decrease the evil on Earth because censorship supports dictatorship. Wayyyyy fewer deaths in the long run. Math does not lie.

[Reallynotbob]

But once you've eroded the 1A protection, there's all kinds of nominally violent speech out there that will get people on both sides of the political spectrum in trouble. A number of them even comment here.

"Try That In A Small Town" could end up unprotected speech.

"Knock the hell out of 'im" could be criminal.

You see where this all leads?

[Michael P]

Does Reallynotbob have a real argument, or just wild gesticulation at alleged slippery slopes in every direction?

[Brett Bellmore]

And, again, it's a form of speech that he swore to refrain from in order to get his green card. So he can damned well exercise his freedom to advocate terrorism somewhere else.

[Reallynotbob]

"...advocate terrorism..."

I get that you think "cut the heads off Zionists" is too violent, at least today. How about "punch a Nazi"? "Burn down a Tesla dealership"? "Make the libs walk the plank"? "I shoot socialists"?

[Life of Brian]

I get that you think "cut the heads off Zionists" is too violent

You don't?

[Sarcastr0]

It's speech, LoB.

Amazing how easily the righties end up falling into the caricatures of leftists they yell about.

(I also see a symmetry on the left, to be fair)

[Life of Brian]

It's speech

Oh, right, I completely forgot that this is one of those years/months/whatever interval is convenient where any words, in any language, in any order, are totes OK and non-actionable under any circumstances. Forgive the oversight.

[Sarcastr0]

Kickass strawman. You're not the only one to try and deflect to litigating 1A doctrine over again.

Point is, *here* in this case you have revealed your principles when it comes to free speech.

You are far from the only one.

[Life of Brian]

Sadly for your dramatic flair, you have yet to establish that "1A doctrine" is at play here. Both Brett and Tylertusa have repeatedly made the utterly correct observation that aliens don't get unbridled 1A rights, and the only thing I've seen out of you is trying to change the subject.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"you and Commenter are talking about speech."

Not just speech, but blocking sections of campus, trespassing, preventing Jewish students from getting to class, etc.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Not just speech, but blocking sections of campus, trespassing, preventing Jewish students from getting to class, etc."

Has he been found guilty of any of those things? What is the process by which a green card holder can be deported in such a situation? Is a bare accusation sufficient or should there be some application of due process?

[Sarcastr0]

Not gonna be able to weasel this one, TiP.
Commenter and Brett are making it explicitly about speech.

Brett: "it's a form of speech that he swore to refrain from."
Commenter_XY: "To me, protected speech; for an American citizen."

And of course:
Ed: "They should have just shot him resisting arrest."

[David Nieporent]

Technically, you can get deported just for being caught without having your green card on you!

Even more technically, you cannot. LPRs are supposed to carry their green cards with them, but failing to do so is not grounds for deportation.

[David Nieporent]

Sarcastr0, when you promise not to do X in order to get a privilege, you no longer have the right to do X, unless you forego the privilege.

Google the phrase "unconstitutional conditions."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Believing in rights means assholes get them as well.

Your charge against me shows you don't take rights seriously."

You believe that the law should censor people who call their coworkers niggers. Do you take rights seriously?

[Stella Link the dog]

Do you believe that it should be illegal to masturbate in public?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I haven't given it much thought.

[Commenter_XY]

Commenter_XY realizes that a Judeocidal terror group, hamas, has killed Americans and currently holds Americans hostage in a foreign territory. So does the Secretary of State, who is attempting to get the remaining living American hostage (along with 4 dead ones) freed. Thusfar, those efforts have failed. Time grows short.

If you're an American citizen and you want to loudly and proudly cheer on hamas; fine, go for it. That makes one a total a-hole in my book, but perfectly fine under 1A. In 1 NJ town, there was a (naturalized?) citizen who flew an ISIS flag. To me, protected speech; for an American citizen.

[Reallynotbob]

"Espouses terrorism" is pretty subjective.

For example, the rest of the world considers taking children away from migrating parents simply for crossing our border to be a pretty horrific human rights violation. The once and current president says he did that so people wouldn't want to come anymore. That's literally terrorism.

So I guess a green card holder in a MAGA hat is deportable in your book?

[Commenter_XY]

Suppose Khalil (hamas homie) wore a big, beautiful and bold 'Make America Great Again' hat while he gleefully cheered on decapitating Zionists. Does that change anything? It does not. He goes, for the same INA reasons.

US citizens have P&I that non-citizens do not. That is a fact.

This isn't a constitutional issue, it is a personal consequences issue.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't a constitutional issue, it is a personal consequences issue.

What.

[not guilty]

First Amendment freedoms and due process liberties apply to persons, not merely to citizens. Privileges and Immunities of citizenship is accordingly not the applicable metric.

SCOTUS has expressly rejected a contention that (even undocumented) aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of a state, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of state law. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982). The Court there elaborated:

Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessv v. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206, 345 U.S. 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 163 U.S. 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 118 U.S. 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 426 U. S. 77 (1976).

457 U.S. at 210 (footnote omitted). The Plyler court also rejected the contention that the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection clause has a broader scope than the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clauses:

We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.
Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction, while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws."

457 U.S. at 211-212, quoting Yick Wo, supra, at 118 U.S. 369 (footnote omitted; italics supplied in Plyler). "There is simply no support for appellants' suggestion that "due process" is somehow of greater stature than "equal protection," and therefore available to a larger class of persons. To the contrary, each aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment reflects an elementary limitation on state power." Id., at 213.

Courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control. Shaughnessy v. U.S. ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210 (1953). Despite that, however, "It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law." Id., at 212. "To be sure, a lawful resident alien may not captiously be deprived of his constitutional rights to procedural due process." Id., at 213.

Content or viewpoint discrimination as to First Amendment protected expression violates equal protection. As SCOTUS opined in Police Dept. of City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 96 (1972):

Necessarily, then, under the Equal Protection Clause, not to mention the First Amendment itself, government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views. And it may not select which issues are worth discussing or debating in public facilities. There is an "equality of status in the field of ideas," and government must afford all points of view an equal opportunity to be heard. Once a forum is opened up to assembly or speaking by some groups, government may not prohibit others from assembling or speaking on the basis of what they intend to say. Selective exclusions from a public forum may not be based on content alone, and may not be justified by reference to content alone.

(Footnote omitted.)

If the Secretary of State could not summarily revoke a resident alien's green card for speaking out in opposition to Hamas, neither can he revoke Mr. Khalil's green card for speaking out in opposition to Hamas. As Justice Robert Jackson opined, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). Plyler v. Doe and Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 162 (1945) ("[T]he First Amendment and other portions of the Bill of Rights make no exception in favor of deportation laws or laws enacted pursuant to a "plenary" power of the Government") teach that Justice Jackson's famous comment applies equally to non-citizen resident aliens as well.

[Commenter_XY]

Wow, this was a super complete response. Took a while to take it all in. So what is due process when INA grants the SecState the plenary authority to revoke a green card, and order deportation?

SecState Rubio is tossing Khalil the hamas homie, specifically for interfering with the execution of foreign policy. He isn't wrong, vis a vis hostage negotiations with hamas to free American hostages.

Congress passed the law. For 70+ years, no constitutional issue. Other aliens have had their green card revoked for lying on their forms. But now there suddenly is a constitutional crisis? Color me skeptical.

Still though, is the SDNY judge the due process here? Or a judge in LA?

[David Nieporent]

Trump is expressly not attempting to revoke Khalil's green card "for lying on his form."

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

>Commenter is advocating viewpoint based self censorship via chilling effect.

Which, ironically, describes almost, and I mean this literally, every comment you make.

Literally, nearly every single comment you make is to encourage patriots to self-censor. Never your kind, only the patriots.

[David Nieporent]

You seem to be paraphrasing the law rather than quoting it. Also, the word "representative" is defined in the statute; it refers to a formal relationship, not just someone speaking upon with respect to that organization.

If the guy committed any actual crimes, yes, he's going to be deportable. If the only thing they have is his speech, then there's a question of how constitutional the application of the law is. But in either case, he's entitled to due process.

[Commenter_XY]

The due process under INA seems to be: The SecState made a decision in this case that Khalil espousing his viewpoint interferes with foreign policy objectives - which it does (i.e. negotiations to get American hostages freed) - and that Khalil's green card is revoked.

That is a memo. What more more due process must Sec State Rubio be compelled to undertake? It was his decision to make, under the law. He made the decision. Khalil goes home.

[Reallynotbob]

And here we have reached the reducto ad authoritarianism.

"Interferes with foreign policy objectives" is about as arbitrary a test as one can devise, to say nothing of anti-free speech.

"Slava Ukrani" <-- deported.
"End Racism" <-- deported
"End the Trade War" <-- deported
"MBS murders journalists" <--deported
"Greenland Forever" <--deported
"Putin shot first" <--deported

[Jmaie]

Isn't that more of an argument against Congress giving poorly defined authority rather than an argument that said power shouldn't be used arbitrarily? The emergency power cited by Trump 45 to shift funds to wall construction is an another example that comes to mind...

[Commenter_XY]

That argument (I agree with) will sail right over his head.

[Riva]

He’s a professional Hama supporting agitator who has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to remain in this country. Democrats will not ultimately succeed in their lawsuit strategy, politically or legally, in this or their other meritless harassing garbage. And these judicial abuses will be corrected in time.

[Michael Ejercito]

Trump has a statutory basis for seeking deportation proceedings against Khalil.

[Sarcastr0]

'Hey it's probably legal' is the last refuge of the immoral.

[Michael Ejercito]

Read Article II

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

And one of these laws is

Any alien who-
....
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
...
is inadmissible.

So if there is probable cause that Khalil is in fact such an alien, Trump has a duty to seek deportation proceedings in accordance with the law.

[Sarcastr0]

Goalpost 1: 'has a statutory basis to'
Goalpost 2: 'has a duty to.'

We all know what you want. And that you prefer to hid behind 'it's legal' versus defending your anti-speech views.

[Joe_dallas]

As leftists like to say - not all speech is protected.

looks like sarcastro is accusing someone else of moving the goal posts that sarcastro moved.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe, what seems to have happened is
1. you made up some goalposts,
2. you said 'leftists like to say,'
3. imputed these goalposts to me,
4. you accused me of moving from these goalposts you made up.

Bravura work.

[Stella Link the dog]

"As leftists like to say - not all speech is protected. "

Doesn't everybody agree with that? Who is it that is so foolish as to assert the contrary?

[Riva]

The deportation of this agitator is perfectly legal. As noted above, he organized the violent Columbia student takeovers. He is a spokesman for an organization that supports armed resistance by Hamas, Columbia University Apartheid Divestment. Statutes allow for the deportation of "representative[s]" of a "political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity." 8 U.S.C. $ 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) (IV)(aa)-(bb).

[Reallynotbob]

Spokesman? Like, an official one? Proof?

[Riva]

Like, he was speaking for the terrorist supporting scunge during their violent antics at Columbia as part of the CUAD negotiating team in a Columbia Spectator article. And he may not have an official CUAD insignia saying "jew hating spokesman," but he does have his little checkered Keffiyeh.

[Michael Ejercito]

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1182&num=0&edition=prelim

(B) Terrorist activities
(i) In general
Any alien who-

(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;

(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));

(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;

(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of-

(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or

(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;

(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);

(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;

(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or

(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,

is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

[tylertusta]

I'm skeptical of claims that Khalil- as an alien- has a First Amendment right here.

[Michael Ejercito]

Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952),

[tylertusta]

That case does not align with modern 1st Amendment jurisprudence. I would be hesitant to bring up a case where the basis of the Court's ruling was solely that they were communists.

A much better basis would be modern campaign finance jurisprudence where foreigners have no right to speak through American political campaigns, such as Bluman v Federal Election Commission.

[Michael Ejercito]

I would bring it up in the Coruts below, who have to follow Harisiades as they once had to follow Baker v. Nelson and Roe v. Wade.

[tylertusta]

If we were to take Harisiades at face value, then Khalil can't be deported because he isn't a communist.

[Joe_dallas]

Whether Khalil, as an alien, has first amendment rights or not is not the question.

Evidence appears stronger that he is being deported due to actions not protected by the 1A.

[tylertusta]

I agree, but the argument has been made that Khalil was targeted for his speech and that anything else was pretextual.

My contention is that even if he was targeted for his speech, his speech was not protected to begin with.

[Stella Link the dog]

"his speech was not protected to begin with."

Because as a green card holder he does not have 1st Amemdment protections or because his speech/expression was illegal/outside the bounds of constitutional protections?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because as a green card holder he had voluntarily forsworn certain forms of 1st amendment expression as a condition of getting the green card. Which is perfectly constitutional because he had no entitlement to the green card in the first place, and the limitations were easily defensible as legitimate government interests.

[Stella Link the dog]

I'm not sure of the "forsworn" part. Best I can tell, he's being deported for being a raving lunatic antisemite and for his antisemitic and anti-Israel speech. Perhaps he is guilty of crimes which justify his deportation but he has not been so adjudicated, has he?

[Commenter_XY]

Khalil "endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization" -- That is the text in the law. This support is unquestionably interfering with our efforts to free our American hostages. The Sec State said so, directly.

The question in my mind is how many more. Ten? A hundred? A thousand? That is a daunting task for AI enabled searches of video and social media.

After hamas is done with the Jews, do you think they'll leave you alone Stella? America is the Great Satan to them. It isn't just the antisemitism, is my point.

[Stella Link the dog]

Khalil "endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization"

That is not at all clear to me. The twitter link you provided shows him in in a provacative sweat shirt chanting in what I assume is Arabic something I don't understand but that is translated in the caption as "Destroy the head of Zionists." That strikes me as no more an endorsement of terrorism than is someone in a Che Guevara tshirt chanting "eat the rich"

[Bwaaah]

^^^BINGO^^^ (to Brett)

[David Nieporent]

Because as a green card holder he had voluntarily forsworn certain forms of 1st amendment expression as a condition of getting the green card. Which is perfectly constitutional because he had no entitlement to the green card in the first place, and the limitations were easily defensible as legitimate government interests.

Google "unconstitutional conditions."

[Brett Bellmore]

Google Congress' immigration powers

"The Court has further upheld laws excluding aliens from entry on the basis of ethnicity, gender and legitimacy, and political belief."

So, if he were outside wanting in, there'd be no question at all that he could be refused.

"But the immigration power has proven less than absolute when directed at aliens already physically present within the United States."

However, the catch here is that Khalil's violation of the terms of his green card admission was basically immediate; He entered in 2022, and that year was organizing antisemitic protests at Columbia.

So there's a strong case for him having fraudulently obtained the green card, never having intended in the first place to comply with the terms.

[Joe_dallas]

the later, those defending Khalil pretend its the former

[Stella Link the dog]

The latter: his speech/expression was illegal/outside the bounds of constitutional protections.

Can you succinctly explain how his speech/expression was unprotected? I've not seen any such explanation -- merely assertion.

[tylertusta]

As an alien, Khalil does not have the same free speech protections under the First Amendment as a US Citizen would otherwise enjoy.

I disagree with Brett where he says that Khalil lost his speech protections in order to get his legal status in the United States.

My position is that he never had them to begin with by virtue of being an alien.

[Stella Link the dog]

"My position is that he never had them to begin with by virtue of being an alien."

So, can a green card holder be deported for calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico?

[tylertusta]

So, can a green card holder be deported for calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico?

I don't think that a law that permitted such a removal would pass muster. As I said, an alien doesn't have the same constitutional protections as a US Citizen, but they have some, and I'll include protection against irrational laws among those protections.

Current law allow for removal if the alien's presence compromises US foreign policy interests or if they espouse support for terrorism or seek to encourage others to support terrorism.

I'm confident that the statutes as currently written pass constitutional muster under modern 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

[Zarniwoop]

Pass muster under what provision of the INA?

If Sec Rubio makes the claim that calling it "the Gulf of Mexico" constitutes a basis for deporting a green card holder under 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(C)(i):

"An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable."

how much can the courts question the "reasonableness" of the proffered reason?

If courts refuse to question Mr. Khalil's deportation under (a)(4)(C)(i) at all, what limiting principle is there for the "Gulf of Mexico" scenario?

I'm not sure there's an obvious answer here.

[tylertusta]

I would wager that there's probably not much that the courts could do even if they tried. 8 USC 1252 seriously limits their jurisdiction.

Consider that in Reno v AADC, SCOTUS said that an illegal alien- who was a member of a Palestinian terrorist group- couldn't even raise a 1st Amendment claim of selective enforcement for immigration laws.

[Kazinski]

Congress would have to pass a law that covered that.

They haven't because there is no way to construe it to espousing terrorist activity.

Espousing cutting off heads seems to qualify.

[Bob from Ohio]

"advocate for Palestinian rights"

That's one way to describe him. Dishonest and false but that is just the way you roll.

[John F. Carr]

The CourtListener copy of the docket is at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69719040/mk-v-joyce/.

Right now the server is overloaded. When I checked earlier today petitioner had 19 lawyers, which seems excessive. If the Equal Access to Justice Act applies the judge should be skeptical of the legal bills. In the Second Circuit habeas petitioners are entitled to EAJA fees. Vacchio v. Ashcroft, 404 F.3d 663 (2d Cir. 2005).

[Life of Brian]

Most BigLaw firms give some amount of hour-for-hour credit to attorneys for pro bono work and it's free to the client, so it basically bypasses all the internal controls that would curb attorney pile-on. Particularly for this sort of a pitch-perfect poster child of Le Resistance, it's not all that surprising that it's getting staffed better than many billion-dollar competitor cases.

[Zarniwoop]

It appears that the sole currently alleged basis for removing Mr. Khalil is 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(C)(i):

"An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/8a3cbff6-4589-43e1-8455-042fa9555e3c.pdf

So, basically "on the say-so of Mark Rubio"; there are currently zero allegations of deportable criminal conduct under any other INA section.

[Commenter_XY]

Did Khalil's actions, speaking in support of hamas at multiple rallies, help or hinder our hostage negotiations? The Sec State says hinder. SecState Rubio authorized contact with hamas to directly negotiate for American hostages; it did not work. SecState Rubio was instrumental in getting the current ceasefire in place. I don't see how a judge could possibly second guess Sec State Rubio's determination, in context of Israel's Swords of Iron existential war, and our own efforts.

It is a foreign policy matter when American hostages are taken.

[David Nieporent]

Did Khalil's actions, speaking in support of hamas at multiple rallies, help or hinder our hostage negotiations?

No.

[Commenter_XY]

David, we just have a difference of opinion and I don't think any less of you when you're wrong. 😉

[Kazinski]

Ukraine has accepted the US proposal for a 30 day immediate ceasefire:

Ukraine accepts this proposal, we consider it positive, we are ready to take such a step, and the United States of America must convince Russia to do so,” Zelensky said, adding that the ceasefire would start the moment Moscow agrees to it.

The United States said in a joint statement with Ukraine following the meeting in Jeddah that it would “immediately lift the pause on intelligence sharing and resume security assistance to Ukraine.” A Ukrainian official confirmed on Tuesday that US security assistance to Ukraine had resumed."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-agrees-to-proposal-for-ceasefire-with-russia-as-us-restores-aid-and-intel-sharing

So I'll poll everyone again:

Would you prefer Russia accept the proposal, or reject it so the war can continue?

[Commenter_XY]

I would prefer that RUS accept the proposal, and stop the killing. Even if only for 30 days.

[Stella Link the dog]

"I would prefer that RUS accept the proposal"

Depends on the terms of the agreement, and as far as I can tell, the terms have not been firmly established. For example, how many "green men" will the Russians be able to bring into the occupied territories? What about the Russian territory currently occupied by Ukranian forces? Will Ukraine be permitted to continue the occupation? What incentives are being provided to the Russians?

[SRG2]

XY doesn't care. He wants the fighting to stop even if Russia makes no concessions because he wants to see Krasnov take a victory lap - around the Kremlin.

[Commenter_XY]

SRG: Once the fighting stops, it is very hard to restart, absent some compelling casus belli. That is the point.

[David Nieporent]

You've been salivating for Israel to restart the fighting in Gaza.

[Commenter_XY]

There is plenty of casis belli in the case of Israel, David. The Judeocidal terrorists have stated repeatedly they would repeat the Simchat Torah pogrom until Israel is destroyed.

Big difference.

[David Nieporent]

Sorry, but what "difference" is there between Russia not recognizing Ukraine's right to exist and Hamas not recognizing Israel's?

[Stella Link the dog]

"absent some compelling casus belli."

Why is it hard to restart without compelling casus belli that which was started without compelling casus belli in the first place?

[Brett Bellmore]

That was my thought. Russia just wanting the land is enough casus belli from Russia's perspective, since when have they ever needed an excuse?

The cease fire WILL end without some changes during it to make invading again look to Russia like a very bad choice. Such as having US nationals in the border region for mining purposes, which was kind of the carrot for Ukraine to give us preference in terms of mineral extraction.

[Commenter_XY]

There are north of 150K+ RUS KIAs now. The conditions today are not the same conditions of 3 years ago. A 30 day respite gives time for people to talk, compare notes, and register discontent. At the very least, it stops the killing.

I personally don't think RUS agrees to a ceasefire without Kursk in hand.

[SRG2]

Once the fighting stops, it is very hard to restart, absent some compelling casus belli. That is the point.

If the ceasefire required a complete demobilisation of forces, you'd be right. If the ceasefire merely requires forces to, you know, cease firing, it can start up at any time, nor does Putin require a casus belli to restart it.

[tylertusta]

For example, how many "green men" will the Russians be able to bring into the occupied territories?

Huh? Russia already has effective control of the occupied territories with conventional troops. That's what "occupied" means.

The so-called "Little Green Men" were troops sent in to unoccupied territory in order to conquer them in the first place.

[Stella Link the dog]

You're missing the point. The "green men" were Russian military, or paramilitary, brought into Ukraine in order to accomplish a military objective. To what extent will Russia be permitted to import unofficial combatants? They do have a history of this sort of thing, not only in Ukraine, but also in Syria and various African states.

[tylertusta]

"Little green men" were Russian soldiers who removed their identification and pretended to be not part of the Russian military. They were sent into Crimea to take it from Ukraine, but by hiding their troops' identities the Kremlin had a fig leaf of deniability where they pretended that it was a spontaneous and home-grown revolution rather than an external invasion.

Once conventional warfare starts the "little green men" lose their advantages and actually have some very big disadvantages, which is why the Russian troops put their identification back on soon after they took Crimea.

Putting "little green men" in territories that Russia already controls is like saying that you don't trust the legal status of your own controlled territory.

[Stella Link the dog]

No. I am assuming that any reasonable cease fire agreement would limit Russians augmenting their forces in preparation of restarting their invasion. The Russians have a history sneaking military/paramilitary forces in. As for the nature of the "green men", my understanding is that the Wagner Group had something to do with it, but I could be wrong. In any event, the Russians have a history of denying any affiliation with such paramilitary/mercenary groups.

[tylertusta]

The Russians have a history sneaking military/paramilitary forces in...

Russia's "little green men" ploy in 2014 worked because the circumstances in Crimea were heavily favorable to Russia: European disengagement, large ethnic Russian population in Crimea, and a distracted Ukrainian government.

None of those conditions exist anymore, and that's why Russia hasn't tried that trick again since 2014.

That's why also Russia went with a Danube-esque operation instead.

As for the nature of the "green men", my understanding is that the Wagner Group had something to do with it

Wagner and other mercenaries are not "little green men" under the currently accepted meaning of the phrase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War)

[tylertusta]

I would prefer for Russia to accept a cease fire in place, preserving the status quo as of the enactment of the cease fire.

Russia is currently saying that they will not accept a cease fire because it'll give Ukraine time to improve their defenses. That is all the more reason to strong arm Russia into accepting a cease fire so Ukraine can do just that.

[Stella Link the dog]

"That is all the more reason to strong arm Russia "

Does it appear to you that the Trump regime has a desire to strong arm Russia in any way?

[tylertusta]

We should all hope that he does!

My own opinion is that it appears that (for now) he is about to pressure Russia into ceasing their offensive operations.

[Stella Link the dog]

I don't see how it's possible to get Russia to abandon its goal of subjugating Ukraine without serious threats by the west to enforce peace. It does not appear to me that Trump is inclined to support making and enforcing such threats and, thus far, it does not appear that Russia is offering to make serious concessions in order to advance the peace process.

[tylertusta]

I'm fear that you may be correct- that nothing short of a threat of an armed intervention will cause Russia to stop. Trump is chaotic enough that he might actually do it, too.

We may well see a variation of the famous Vulcan proverb, "Only Nixon could go to China."

[Kazinski]

The serious threat to Russia is to provide Ukraine more arms, more advanced arms, and fewer restrictions on using them.

Ukraine just hit an oil refinery a few days ago with drone swarms, using Ukrainian made drones, they could do tremendous damage to Russian infrastructure with more and better weapons.

[Stella Link the dog]

"The serious threat to Russia is to provide Ukraine more arms, more advanced arms, and fewer restrictions on using them."

Is that a potential or realized feature of the cease fire agreement? Time will tell.

Petraeus has recently made some remarks about what a cease fire and eventual peace should look like. Among his observations is that European troops need to be in Ukraine, that Ukraine should not be demilitarized, and that there needs to be clear willingness of the United States to enforce a peace agreement both economically and militarily. Petraeus*, despite being a convicted criminal, is a very smart, experienced, well informed, thoughtful and dedicated guy and I tend to agree with his ideas . Two problems, though, I'm not sure that you can get Putin to agree to any of this and I don't think you can get Trump to agree to anything which does not hold out the promise of financial gain for Trump himself.

*Petraeus seems to me to be pretty hawkish about the Ukraine situation and is pretty free in his condemnation of Russia's aggression and also echos some of the points Zelenskyy tried to make in the famous meeting with Trump and Trump's lap dog. That is that Putin is basically untrustworthy and can't be expected to keep to any agreement that does not have very serious consequences for non-compliance. But, he is also very, very careful in his discussion to avoid any trace of substantive criticism of Trump and his approach to the situation. Classic Petraeus. Listening carefully to Petraeus, and John Bolton I get the impression that their actual policy ideas with respect to Ukraine are not so very different and could very well be reconciled but Petraeus will never be called a war monger by Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

There is zero appetite in the American electorate to station US troops in UKR as some kind NATO-lite. POTUS Trump drew that red line.

[Stella Link the dog]

" to station US troops in UKR as some kind NATO-lite. "
And, that is not what Petraeus called for nor how I described it.

[Kazinski]

There will be no commitment to any US enforcement of a peace agreement militarily.

Sanctions sure, stepped up military aid, yes.

There is no appetite for that in the Whitehouse, Congress, or the public except a few neo-cons on both sides of the aisle.

[Jmaie]

"Petraeus has recently made some remarks...there needs to be clear willingness of the United States to enforce a peace agreement...and militarily."

Not exactly the same as stationing troops, but it feels like a distinction without a difference...

[Brett Bellmore]

We bullied Ukraine into accepting a cease fire by threatening, (And then proving the threat real.) to stop supporting their military efforts.

We can do the same with Russia, I think, by threatening to take off Ukraine the limitations we'd placed on their use of our weaponry, (So that Russia would be facing retaliatory strikes deep in their own territory.) and sanctions with teeth.

For instance, Europe is currently sending more assistance to Russia by buying their fossil fuels, than to Ukraine. I expect we could pressure them to stop that, with a carrot of supplying reduced price substitutes. (It would be easier to do that if the Biden administration hadn't deliberately crippled our capacity to export LNG.)

The downside risk, of course, is Russia deciding instead to become even more entangled with China. But they really do not want that, they know only too well how China intends that to end.

[tylertusta]

and sanctions with teeth

Trump has said as much as of last week, but I'm more interested in what Trump does rather than what he says here.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-threatens-impose-large-scale-sanctions-russia-peace-agreement-uk-rcna195333

Biden deliberately didn't go after European purchases of Russian fuel because he needed Europe to be on board with supporting Ukraine. I think the calculus has changed significantly in the past two months.

[Commenter_XY]

Target the shadow fleet, not the oil and gas itself. That will hurt significantly more. With the advent of "drill baby drill" the US can oversupply the market and bring energy cost down for the EU.

I just don't see RUS accepting a ceasefire without Kursk in-hand.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Biden deliberately didn't go after European purchases of Russian fuel "

It was something more than that.

Biden pauses LNG export approvals after pressure from climate activists

The Biden administration moved affirmatively to degrade our capacity to export LNG to Europe. They did it to suck up to the Greens, not to aid Russia in maintaining their own exports, but the result was the same.

[tylertusta]

True, but my point there was that Biden could have blocked the export of Russian LNG to Europe through sanctions regardless of his domestic LNG policy. Biden wasn't willing to pay the political price he would have had to pay.

Now that Trump is in office and he's rattled European leaders at the prospect of a United States that will be less engaged in protecting Europe, blocking Russian LNG exports to Europe may be to everyone's benefit except for Russia.

[Stella Link the dog]

"blocking Russian LNG exports to Europe may be to everyone's benefit except for Russia."

In what sort of time frame is that feasible? Europe is importing a lot of Russian energy. How quickly is it feasible for Europe to decrease/eliminate dependence on Russian energy?

Perhaps the Canadians could start selling their excess energy production to Europe rather than the US. Leon (who can't spell his own name) could build them a pipeline for cheap.

[tylertusta]

Sanctions against Russia for not accepting a cease fire would have to happen very quickly on the order of a few days to a month's warning.

[Stella Link the dog]

"a few days to a month's warning"

Is it feasible to cut off Russian energy in such a short time? You should have been here in Texas in early 2021. Caused our Canadian senator to flee to Cancun to get out of the cold. You'd think that being from Canada he might be used to it, but apparently not.

[tylertusta]

Feasible in what sense? Painless? No economic damage? If that, then no. However, in a literal sense sanctions are technically feasible right now: send a courtesy email to European leaders and schedule a press conference for the next 24 hours. Then you flip the switch to turn on banking sanctions on anyone doing business with Rosneft and the like.

America is not the country likely to face a price shock from a sanction on Russian fuel exports to Europe. Europe is the one that is going to face the brunt of the damage, and Trump doesn't really care what Europe thinks except in how it advances his goals.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think as a practical matter you could actually get away with blocking Russian LNG without providing a substitute. Freezing in the dark is pretty hard to sell politically.

But, like I said, for whatever reason, Biden deliberately crippled our capacity to export LNG to Europe, limiting our options for blocking Russian LNG.

[Sarcastr0]

The year is 2048.
Mecha-Trump is President for Life of the tattered remains of the US after Russia and China have divided up the world.
Eggs are a million dollars each.

Brett is still blaming the Dems.

[tylertusta]

A glimpse dystopian Sarcastr0 fiction!

Have you considered writing this into a graphic novel? I'd buy it.

[Brett Bellmore]

And Sarcastr0 is still flatly refusing to pay any attention to documented actions if they make the Dems look bad.

[tylertusta]

The good news is that we're entering spring, so freezing won't be a problem for another 8-9 months or so. That's 8-9 months to find/generate additional supply, find alternative sources of energy, or for the cease fire to go into effect.

[Kazinski]

Mayne even time for Germany to reopen some nuclear plants.

[tylertusta]

From what I've been reading over the past three years, no.

Germany isn't restarting nuclear power in 9 months, and not even in 9 years. The greens still have too much political influence in Germany. They'd rather deindustrialize than use their own nuclear plants.

[Absaroka]

I dunno. It would depend on details I haven't seen, and what Russia actually ends up accepting.

It's also worth noting that peace deals don't always bring much peace. Chamberlain brought Peace For Our Time home from Munich, and the 1973 Paris Accords ensured NVN would stop trying to take over SVN. Details matter. And Putin has already promised not to invade Ukraine a couple of times. In fact, so far, a Putin promise to not invade has a 1.0 correlation coefficient with a subsequent invasion.

The 'us civilian miners will be a security guarantee' rings pretty hollow to me; if I were an unscrupulous Putin I would tell my invading troops to be really nice to the Americans while saying I was only invading to save them from the Ukrainians or something. Not that Putin is unscrupulous or anything, just speaking hypothetically.

Who gets the most benefit from a couple of years of rearming depends on details I don't have, whether we drop sanctions, how much aid keeps flowing, etc.

The best outcome I can imagine is it gives Putin an out, if he wants it. He can tell Russians how he was on the cusp of victory when the evil West forced him to abandon the Ukrainians to the horrid fate of governing themselves.

Time will tell.

[Kazinski]

Peace deals work when its a stalemate and neither side is winning.

The Iraq-Iran war is one example where both sides fought themselves into exhaustion and just gave up, although I don't think there was ever a formal peace deal, both sides accepted a ceasefire, although there was still some fighting before it went into effect.

And UN peacekeepers were deployed for 3 years afterwards.

[Don Nico]

I prefer that Russia accept the proposal to ceasefire in place for 30 days. With RUS-UKR direct talk to begin immediately.
If Trump's early remarks about Russian internal conditions are mostly accurate, Putin is more susceptible to pressure than is often assumes.
I would hope that during that period the US applies as much such pressure on RUS including providing new arms and terms of engagement to UKR to push both side to agree to an armistice that both can accept. I realize that this last clause is not of high probability

[Kazinski]

I don't doubt in order to get Russia to agree there will be both carrots and sticks involved.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Half of ED is gone!

Not this Ed but the US Dept of Education -- the problem with ED was the people they hired and the mission creep from what they should have been doing, and they need to fire at least another thousand.

[AmosArch]

Everybody who has gone to school in the US with the most rudimentary skills of observations should know that the states and localities do the heavy lifting in education. I've never met anybody who could explain to me why what should at most be a standards body needs a quarter of a trillion dollars a year.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Much of the $$ is Title I and IDEA $$ for K-12 and Pell money for student aid.

[tylertusta]

We should cease offering Pell grants and any form of other Federal student aid to higher education.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, but that's a decision for Congress to make. Nobody asked Trump.

[Kazinski]

I somehow got educated before there even was a department of education.

I've been told I didn't learn much though.

[Sarcastr0]

But yeah, the department of education is largely about access to affordable higher education via Pell grants and the like.

Not that you care about what's actually going on, versus the vibe.

You...may not be the poster child for being well educated.

[Frank Drackman]

You sound like the guy in "Office Space" trying to explain how his job is to take the requests from the Clients to the Software Engineers, why does there need to be an entire Cabinet Department, with all that that entrails, just to hand out money?

[Dr. Ed 2]

why do we need a Surgeon General?

We need someone nationally to pound the bully pulpit.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "You...may not be the poster child for being well educated."

And you could be the poster child for being well educated...proof that no amount of education can fix stupid.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0's attitude is one that will keep losing elections.

[Bwaaah]

It's great to have a monolithic, unmovable adversary. As the world changes, it just stands there spitting out the same old same-old. It slowly dies a death of a thousand cuts, declaring that each one "changes nothing."

Democrats will be saved not by their leadership, nor by their ideology. They'll be saved by an unaligned charismatic individual who, among other things, will not be scared of his/her own shadow. That person will rise through social media (like DJT), bypassing the Sarc-like gatekeepers at the DNC and the NYTimes and WaPo. That individual will appeal directly to the reasonable instincts of voters, unstuck from ideological purity nonsense like Pro-Trans-Everything-or-Die. They'll even tout a government program or two that should be cut back. (Could that be?) They will declare that government is a tool of the people, and not the sacred cow in charge. And the party will be shocked at how many people will be unoffended by that.

But until that person emerges, we'll have to contend with Sarc-like people standing guard at the gate. For that, we can just walk around to the back where the party's already going on. (shhh...don't disturb him...he's standing against change)

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "Sarcastr0's attitude is one that will keep losing elections."

Sarcastr0's "attitude" won elections in three of the last five presidential elections. Can I please make a general common-sense point?

After every POTUS election, the press and losing party work themselves into a flailing frenzy analyzing the cause. Always they see some long-term "realignment" against the mountain of evidence that suggests otherwise. Trump's victory was a major "repudiation" of the Dems, except his victory was little different than Biden's (or the Democratic win to come in 2028).

Trump won because of inflation, just like every party in office world-wide lost in 2024 elections. There is no "realignment" or "repudiation", just the normal back&forth flow of politics seen in this country for decades.

[Commenter_XY]

Stay blind, grb.

[grb]

Dude, I'll put my clarity of sight against yours any time, anywhere. I get the impression you're on the younger side - mainly from your smug uncritical dofus manner. May I suggest you try thinking outside of the Right's hive mind safe-space? At least give it a shot, willya?

Take this case as an example : The Right's bragging over Trump's victory is no different than what has occurred after every election. Their claim a new electoral framework has arrived was made after most elections stretching back decades. I've lost track how many times I've seen people confident the other side can never win another presidential election - it's structurally impossible! - only to see that very thing happen next race.

The same is true of the anguished wailing from the loser party. Republicans or Democrats, that happens like clockwork, over and over. You can't see the Mt Everest of evidence on this because the Cult bans such prosaic conclusions. Try thinking for yourself & maybe you will.

[Stella Link the dog]

HEW existed from 1953 until 1979 when the Department of Education was created. So, you must be really old to have been educated before that.

Exactly what is your complaint? Are you pissed because education was spun off, because of the way that the Department of Education operates, or because you think the feds shouldn't be involved in education at all?

[Moderation4ever]

The Federal Department of Education was formed in 1867 by President Andrew Johnson. It only became a cabinet agency in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter. Obviously, you did not get educated well enough to know this.

[Frank Drackman]

What class did they teach that in?

[Stella Link the dog]

Chicken sexing 101?

[Bwaaah]

Poultry Science has to begin somewhere. Frank chose the major because of that class. He was betting the text book would have pictures. (It was before the internet. Where was a young lad to turn?) Nothing about DOE, though.

[Stella Link the dog]

" He was betting the text book would have pictures. "

And, as Portnoy might say, that's not chopped liver.

[Kazinski]

I knew some Japanese Chicken Sexers when I was going to school in Arkansas. I wish I went into something where I could make that kind of money, Alas I chose IT.

Chicken sexers in Japan lament the decline of an industry

https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/chicken-sexers-in-japan-lament-the-decline-of-an-industry-idUSTRE67U0S5/

"There was 30 of us when I went there in 1967. It's a shame young people don't want to take up a sexing career -- a breeder can pay you as much as 8 yen (90 U.S. cents) per hatchling," said Nodera.

This can lead to earnings of about 1,260,000 yen ($15,000) a month with the added bonus of overseas contracts."

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's $180,000 a year -- that's not bad money for here -- not sure about Japan.

[Moderation4ever]

I have mentioned this several times in Reason comments and so I think the class needed might be reading.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Federal Department of Education was formed in 1867 by President Andrew Johnson"

Lasted one whole year. Changed to an office in Interior. Not a true department in any event, led by a commissioner not a secretary, not part of the cabinet.

It only originally existed to "gather statistical information on the fast-growing educational institutions of the United States, along with histories and descriptive articles, pamphlets, reports and books," wikipedia

So he didn't know about a minor, insignificant office. You sure got him!

[David Nieporent]

Once again for the really slow: firing employees saves a trivial amount of money as a percentage of the budget, and just makes whatever agency is targeted less efficient. I'm all for reducing the mission of these agencies, but firing people without doing that is just malicious.

[Bob from Ohio]

"malicious"

Yes, the aim is to destroy useless agencies.

[Moderation4ever]

I noted an AP story in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, that Department of Education play an important role in funding for teachers for rural schools. So, like Medicaid that that is critical to maintain health services in rural areas, the people most likely to lose in the close of the DOE are in rural America.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As someone who taught in a rural school, I don't know what the ap is talking about.

[DeAnnP]

I think they are firing everyone, knowing they actually do need positions staffed, and then putting out the call for some to come back, but only hire those back who pass the Trump Fealty test.

[Commenter_XY]

The woodchipper goes brrrrrrr: Bye, Bye, Dept of Education (and a bunch of non-essential federal bureaucrats) 🙂

There was no Dept of Ed until 1979. After 45 years, this federally funded failure is done. You know, it is amazing how this country just barely managed to limp along for two centuries without the DoEd. How on earth did we survive without that non-essential federal bureaucracy?! Guess we'll just have to hunker down and limp along again (for another two centuries).

Next up....the other DOE. Coming soon. Just watch. The woodchipper is hungry. 😉

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, there was an office of Education in HEW since Eisenhower, but Johnson created ED, Carter just built the building.

And most of DoE is the old AEC -- dealing with atomic energy and nuke weapons. And cleaning up the Manhattan Project's messes.
We want this done.

[Commenter_XY]

DE2, just promise me something for today. No talk of nuking gaza, please! 😉

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hamas walked away from the US peace talks.

[Frank Drackman]

Exactly, would ruin a prime piece of property

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not neutron bombs -- it's like light, once it's gone, it's gone.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Not neutron bombs -- it's like light, once it's gone, it's gone."

Another example of Mr Ed, the talking horse's ass (or, arse, for you Ed) making stupid statements about things he knows nothing about.

Neutron activation, how does it work? Clue: even a quite small americium beryllium pill can induce easily detctible radiation.

[Don Nico]

Mr Ed does not understand that an airburst of even a 10 kT nuke on Gaza city would produce a fallout level of 1 R/hr 2/3rds of the way to Tel Aviv. Not a very attractive option of Israel.

[Stella Link the dog]

There are ininitely many things that Dick 'Ed doesn't understand. I suppose it could be said that there are infinitely many things that nobody understands, but not all infinities are created equal.

[Dr. Ed 2]

SADM is only 1kT
Neutron bombs were designed not to have fallout.

[Stella Link the dog]

So, we should eliminate the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. Are there no functions within those departments that you believe are valid fed functions? If there are, who/what is going to perform those functions? Perhaps we should give Musk a couple trillion to handle those functions for us.

[SRG2]

You're not supposed to analyse Fed departmenrs like that. You're sup[pose to cheer every time a department is cut or closed regardless of its function and regardless of consequences.

[Commenter_XY]

There are a few valid functions of the DoED. Even after being fed to the woodchipper, wood chips remain. But if you look at DoED stated mission and mandate, they have failed. So not too many wood chips.

The DOE is due for some downsizing, based on some of the staffing issues they've had over the years.

[tylertusta]

Randi Weingarten's flip flopping around on the Dept of Education will amuse me for years to come.

[Commenter_XY]

OMG, it was hysterical, not merely amusing. Talking about Al Schenker and how teachers didn't 'really' want the DoEd.

[tylertusta]

And just a minute later she's hyperventilating about how the department may be going away.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "The woodchipper goes brrrrrrr....."

Step right up, folks! Here's a demonstration of how today's Right is concerned only with stunts, theatrics, and cartoon fireworks. As the late (great) Kevin Drum notes :

"I see that Donald Trump has reaffirmed his plan to abolish the Department of Education, so I'll remind everyone yet again that this meaningless. The question is what programs you're going to abolish, and on that score the Department of Education is pretty simple: You've got Pell Grants for working and middle-class college students. You've got Title I grants for elementary and high schools in low-income areas. And you've got money for special ed kids.

Aside from that you've got a hodgepodge of tiny programs: deaf and blind students, historically Black colleges, kids with disabilities, Indian schools, vocational rehabilitation, etc. etc. But the Big Three are all that really matter. Does anyone really want to kill those off? And if not, who cares what the name of the agency that oversees them is?"

What's gonna happen is those programs/managers will be moved to another agency. To be fair, collecting them all together was a political stunt as well. But with today's Right, it's all stunts all the time. That's what happens when an ideology becomes an empty nihilistic shell.

https://jabberwocking.com/45641-2/

[Kazinski]

It looks like the Trump administration has caused a collapse egg prices:

Eggs US decreased 0.30 USD/DOZEN or 5.09% since the beginning of 2025, according to trading on a contract for difference (CFD) that tracks the benchmark market for this commodity. Historically, Eggs US reached an all time high of 8.17 in March of 2025. source: USDA.

The price has collapsed to 5.51 a dozen in just the last few days, and are about 1$ a dozen lower than when Trump took office.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/eggs-us

Whats he going to ruin next?

[Brett Bellmore]

I might have to buy some, one or more of our chickens has taken to eating eggs. I'm trying to build some 'roll away' nesting boxes, but for now our egg supply is at a very low ebb.

If I knew which one it was, I'd just have chicken for dinner, but apart from the tags on their ankles they're hard to distinguish, and I've never caught one in the act.

[Frank Drackman]

Ew Ew Ew! Mister Kot-Tair! I can finally use my Poultry Science knowledge...
OK, the Egg Eating, (Autoovophagia or "Ovum Manducans" if you want to go all Latin) can be due to Nutritional deficiencies, are they good with their Vitamin A? B12? Manganese? (a lot of people don't even know what that is) Protein (get the "Chicken sized" Ensure) Is there too much light? Hens prefer to lay eggs in dark areas, are they happy? stressed? Do you talk to them? How would you feel if some other species was taking your next generation and eating them???

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

They're getting the same diet I've been feeding my chickens for 6 years now: Dumor 16% layer pellets, mixed with crushed oyster shells, and a cabbage hung from a string for them to peck at. Plus occasional vegetable scraps from the kitchen. And any grubs we come across while gardening.

Admittedly the Dumor pellets have a lot more dust in them than they used to, their quality control has suffered lately. But I doubt that has impacted their nutritional value.

I suspect what happened is that when they got into the compost heap they encountered some egg shells, and one of them started associating egg shells with treats.

I think it's one of the New Hampshires, but they all look alike. I'm about at the point where if the roll away nesting boxes don't solve the problem, I'm going to process the lot of them and start fresh.

[Frank Drackman]

"Process", I like that, I really like that

Frank "OK Palestinians! line up to be "Processed"!"

[Bwaaah]

LOL. (shhhhh. apedad's watching.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was more thinking rats...

[Drewski]

Call me when prices drop at the grocery store. So far they've held steady for actual consumers.

[Kazinski]

I've noticed not only the price drop, but also availability was up at least at my local Costco, there's been at least a dozen times since thanksgiving they've been completely out of eggs, or I had to reduce myself to buying organic eggs.

Looked like about of ton of eggs there today, literally.

[Brett Bellmore]

At Publix, too.

[Stella Link the dog]

At the local (Houston metro area) Kroger, eggs are $4/dozen. At other local stores prices are a bit higher. Within the last couple months, prices have been as low as about $3/dozen. There has been no significant shortage of eggs in the Houston area. As for Trump's influence, there has been none either way.

[Kazinski]

Yeah. I agree it was neither Trump's fault for the increase, or to his credit for the fall, I'm just glad its dropped off the list of talking points on the Democratic side, but I don't doubt now its going to hatch as a Republican talking point.

[tylertusta]

As it turns out, if you stop slaughtering chickens you start having more eggs.

Sadly we may have to go back to culling chicken populations due to bird flu.

[Brett Bellmore]

Stop me if this is starting to sound familiar...

Current bird flu suspected to have originated from a gain of function lab leak

[Sarcastr0]

1. Preprint.
2. Peter McCullough
3. The abstract quantifies no probabilities. It is just speculation.

[grb]

Here's something we all knew with absolute certainty:

1. Someone will claim bird flu originated from a gain of function lab leak.

2. As with Trump when the covid lab-leak theory began, this will be a political stunt alone and supported by no evidence.

3. As with with the covid lab-leak theory, the Cult will jump all over it, Brett being first in line.

Remember, scientists publishing scientific papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals still say the evidence strongly supports a natural origin for covid. The most recent study appeared in the publication Nature. I quoted a large piece of its finding below & won't do so again, but here's a link:

https://jabberwocking.com/are-raccoon-dogs-the-key-origin-of-the-covid-virus/

[David Nieporent]

That graph makes it look a lot more like he caused a surge in egg prices.

[Kazinski]

But somehow they are lower now than when he took office, by about 1$ per dozen.

[Stella Link the dog]

Do you actually think that anything the Trump administration has done so far has had any effect at all on the price of eggs either way? Don't you think that the price fluctuations over the last two months are just the result of economic decisions by the participation of people involved in egg production, distribution, and sale. Or, perhaps price manipulation by Big Egg?

[DeAnnP]

Trumpers: Everything bad about the economy is still Biden's fault, "Give Trump time, his plans will play out. "
Also Trumpers: "Trump is the reason eggs are cheaper! He's soooooo smart and dreamy"

[Kazinski]

Well I am always skeptical about when the DOJ announces a price fixing investigation, but this timing is suspicious:

DOJ opens investigation into egg companies for price-fixing

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/07/doj-investigation-egg-price-fixing-bird-flu-00218785

But Egg prices peaked 3/4, so likely it was unrelated, unless they started making calls a few days earlier, and then speculators started unwinding their positions. It won't stop them from taking credit either way.

[Kazinski]

I was reading a science book written around 2006 about a science controversy, and ran across this in the introduction:

"Science, as I shall argue later, is based on an ethic, and that ethic requires good faith on the part of its practitioners. It also requires that each scientist be the judge of what he or she believes, so that every unproved idea is met with a healthy dose of skepticism and criticism until it is proved. This, in turn, requires that a diversity of approaches to unsolved problems be supported and welcomed into the community of science. We do research because even the smartest among us doesn’t know the answer. Often it lies in a direction other than the one pursued by the mainstream. In those cases, and even when the mainstream guesses right, the progress of science depends on healthy support for scientists who hold divergent views."

If he was talking about climate science he would be tossed out of the academy, but he was just talking about string theory as opposed to traditional physics.

[Frank Drackman]

According to Hoyle 14 bullion years ago the entire Universe was in a hot dense state, when expansion started, wait!, the Earth began to cool, Neanderthals developed tools, the rest is His-straw
Actually Hoyle believed in the "Steady State" Theory of the Universe, in which the Universe was always here, would always be here, no beginning, no end, like a Kurosawa film. When evidence began to favor a discrete beginning for the Universe, a "Big Bang" if you will, it was disparaged as being too close to another theory of how things began.
Another example is that it took 30 years for Scientists to get the Human Chromosome number correct (Go ahead Hobie, take your shot) don't believe me, check out this article

Harper, P.S. The discovery of the human chromosome number in Lund, 1955–1956. Hum Genet 119, 226–232 (2006).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-005-0121-x

Abstract
The correct determination of the human diploid chromosome number as 46, by J-H Tjio and A Levan, at the University of Lund, Sweden, occurred 50 years ago, in December 1955; the finding was published in April 1956, ending a period of more than 30 years when the number had been thought to be 48. The background to the discovery and the surrounding factors are reassessed, as are the reasons why previous investigators persistently misidentified the precise number. The necessity for multiple technological advances, the power of previously accepted conclusions in influencing the interpretation of later results, and the importance of other work already undertaken in Lund, are all relevant factors for the occurrence of this discovery, the foundation for modern human cytogenetics, at this particular time and place.

[SRG2]

Key phrase: until it is proved.

Anthropogenic climate change has been proven to a very high level of confidence.

[Stella Link the dog]

But, divergent opinions need to be fostered, encouraged. Just like Creation Science and Flat Earth theory. And, someone needs to investigate the fake moon landings. Perhaps Brettmore can do that when he retires, unless he is too busy building his ark to sail to his new home in the Philippines.

[Brett Bellmore]

Rave that way about somebody who didn't watch the Apollo moon landings as a kid, who hasn't seen with his own eyes that the Earth is round, and is hard put to imagine how you could even invent a genetics where evolution wouldn't happen.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes but who created the Earth, which isn't exactly round, btw.,,

[Stella Link the dog]

" which isn't exactly round,"

Sure, and the sun neither rises nor sets, water is not necessarily wet, and it's not cold outside, it's just low on heat. So what.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Earth is an oblate spheroid -- fatter at the equator.

And water is not necessarily wet -- ever hear of snow?

[David Nieporent]

Snow is, in fact, wet.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Yes but who created the Earth,"

Who? Don't you think that looks a bit like begging the question?

[Frank Drackman]

It’s Turtles all the way down

[Frank Drackman]

Funny how many people who claim to believe the Earth is round don’t know the Moons phases as seen from Australia are flipped 180 degrees

[grb]

Good Lord above! A Frank comment that uses actual grammar and makes a real point. Can this begin a trend?

[hobie]

Clash of the Conspiricists, starring Harry Hamlin, with guest stars Brett Bellmore and Stella

[Stella Link the dog]

"with guest stars Brett Bellmore and Stella"

Jesus Christ, do I need smileys? Apologies if I missed it.

[Bwaaah]

SRG2: "Anthropogenic climate change has been proven to a very high level of confidence."

It's as if someone could hold up a whole field of research and declare, "It has been proven! Enough with the skepticism!"

Such is the nature of Scientism, and people who have little patience for inquiry into their hardened beliefs. Fortunately, no scientist I've ever met sounds anything like those people.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Such is the nature of Scientism, "
Can you explain what you mean by "Scientism" (or scientism)?

According to the infallible reservoir of all the world's knowledge, "scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality." Do you think that there is a better way to determine what is true and real about the world we live in than through science and the scientific method?

Are you familiar with the writings of Jerry Coyne, particularly "Faith Versus Fact"?

[Bwaaah]

I use the term "Scientism" to refer to a culture that employs references to actual science, but does so dogmatically in service to beliefs its adherents hold as unassailable. Because of their selected dogmas (and their lack of deep regard for science), they find skepticism only applicable to other areas of inquiry, and feel threatened by its application to their sacred cows.

I use the term "science" to refer to the practice of the scientific method, and to its work products.

I don't know a better way to find utility in nature than the scientific method. Repeatability is a powerful guidepost. I see science not much as a source of truth, but as a method to identify useful patterns in nature. I try to let go of beliefs that are contradicted by well-supported findings of science. (It's an endless internal struggle for me to discern and apply those findings.)

But name any book, any article, and almost certainly, I haven't read it. I'm not proud of this. It's just a fact.

What's the gist of "Faith Versus Fact"? (Both coexist harmoniously in my outlook; though I have little faith, the little goes a long way for me.)

[grb]

Bwaaah : I use the term "science"....

No. You use the term "science" to refer to conclusions you like. You use the term "scientism" to refer to conclusions you don't.

[Bwaaah]

What difference does what I do or don't like make? You exhibit the problem of Scientism. It's a battle of positions for you. I don't have that problem. If there's a "scientific fact" (i.e. a well-supported theory) that you think I dismiss, I'm interested in what it is and on what basis you think I dismiss it.

When you argue with me, you continue to argue with the MAGA-demon in your head. It shows how unchecked your assumption are.

[grb]

Bwaaah : "You exhibit the problem of Scientism."

Yeah. Because I reach conclusions you don't want to hear. I'm trying to comprehend the lack of self-awareness and willful blindness that led you to the wordy theory above. But I can't. It's too freak'n absurd.

[Bwaaah]

Again: If there's a "scientific fact" (i.e. a well-supported theory) that you think I dismiss, I'm interested in what it is and on what basis you think I dismiss it.

[Bwaaah]

Here's where I think you're probably getting stuck. We probably don't differ significantly on the mechanisms of climate, nor on the basics of theories of anthropogenic warming, both of which have a significant body of science (remember "the method") behind them.

We probably have very different views of what public policies should be implemented in response to anthropogenic climate forces. I assert that the matter of public policy is not fundamentally based in science, but in all kinds of inferences, preferences, and beliefs that are not the products of the scientific method.

And yet, you have a problem with me. And the problem is that you are using "science" not only as the authority that underlies climate theory, but as the authority that underlies your preferred climate policies. But the scientific method provides no such basis of authority.

Science doesn't tell us any more about how to handle climate change than it tells a person how to make his way from high school to retirement. And though you may feel otherwise, I call that feeling "Scientistic."

[Don Nico]

Not to the level string theorists require (6 sigma).
If one looks at the spread of predictions in the global temperature anomaly from the 30 or so commonly used climate models that spread has not decreased in more than a decade, in fact it has increased somewhat. The models also do not agree on the functional dependence of the increase in the temperature anomaly with concentration of CO2.
To tell the whole story all the models do predict an increase in time of the temperature anomaly in the range of 1.5 to 3° C. The most knowledgeable skeptics, such as Richard Lindzen, agree that there is a positive increase of the anomaly.
In other words, your "proven" needs qualification.

[Frank Drackman]

Bull Hockey! (ht S Potter M.D.)
You can’t tell me what the temperature was in Filthy-Delphia PA on July 4, 1776 (or if you can, about 776? 776 B.C.? 1776 B.C.? 2776 B.C.?) much less what it’ll be next year, or in 1,000 years (which I don’t care about anyway)

Frank

[PaulS]

When I took math and science in school "proof" required a repeatable task/experiment

[Commenter_XY]

Thought experiment: A 51st state

Suppose a province of Canada, Yukon, decides to leave (under their Constitution) and formally request to join the US.

How does that happen, under our Constitution?
Just a majority vote to admit Yukon as state #51 and we're done?

My question is about process, not the probability (zero 0) that a province of Canada would ever want to become a part of America.

Instead of Yukon, what if you substituted Taiwan instead. Could Taiwan request statehood to forestall a China invasion? Would the process change?

[Kazinski]

Yes, I think its just a majority vote, the precedent was set with Texas which was an independent republic.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that's pretty much it: It's done by a Congressional act subject to the presentiment clause.

The Procedures for Adding States to the Union

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was suggested for Israel after the 1973 war, and Hawaii is 3000 miles (over water) away, and I'm not so sure about passenger jets being allowed to fly that far over water back i 1958.

[John F. Carr]

In 1936 a flying boat flew weekly between California and Hawaii. In 1958 you could fly on a DC-6. In the early 1960s you could fly on a four engine jet. Now engines are reliable enough for a twin engine jet to make the flight.

[Frank Drackman]

Ah, the “ETOPS” (Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim) regulations

[Jmaie]

Several Canadian friends have told me, that should the federal government tell Alberta that they are not allowed to ship oil south, Alberta would be leaving the union the following day. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of their statements…

[Brett Bellmore]

White House Responds to Email From Senior USAID Official Ordering Destruction of Documents

So, it seems we have confirmation the destruction of documents was indeed ordered by the White house, but is limited to documents that would normally be destroyed after they were no longer needed.

Not, apparently, a spoliation effort meant to cover tracks.

[Kazinski]

I don't think it would make sense to fire thousands of federal workers in the name of cost savings and efficiency, then use scores more to read through and catalog all their papers before then filing them away or destroying them.

Just go straight to the destruction step.

[Brett Bellmore]

Apparently this is just the documents that are supposed to be securely destroyed when no longer needed, rather than just being tossed in a dumpster. The capacity for secure destruction is limited, so it can't be everything.

[Kazinski]

Shredding and burning isn't securely destroying them?

“Shred as many documents first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break,”

[Brett Bellmore]

Secure document destruction has limited capacity, if you don't reserve it for the stuff that actually needs it, you'll run out of time before the next tenants are in the building.

[Michael P]

Putting something in a burn bag only identifies it for later destruction. It still has to be pulped or burned to be actually destroyed.

[SRG2]

"Apparently" is carrying a lot of weight here

[Stella Link the dog]

He's relying on statements put out by the administration's Ministry of Propaganda which is pretty much Goebbels without the pretty face.

[hobie]

Whew! That was close. Almost another cabal you'd be forced to believe in, Brett.

[David Nieporent]

I suppose this as close as Brett will ever get to saying, "Whoops, my conspiracy theory that these were the Nazis destroying documents before the allies could get there was indeed baseless."

[Joe_dallas]

Why destroy documents?

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/03/shredding-and-burning-a-sure-indicator-of-integrity.php

[Sarcastr0]

Hey you're only a day behind Brett!

Now, read Brett's post you replied to.

[A Japanese Student]

We're in the middle of Japan's legislative session. The Cabinet submitted 51 bills, all of which are expected to pass. Here I highlight some:

- Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment: Almost all proceedings in criminal cases can be conducted electronically under the bill. Arrest warrants can be presented on a tablet, handling of electronic evidence became simplified (under current law you seize electronic evidence through an order compelling data to be copied to a disc, then physically seizing the disc), and witnesses, attorneys, defendants, and judges can participate through teleconference. It would also criminalize forgery of electronic documents and "destruction of computers used by the International Criminal Court". One of the provisions added is similar to Section 215, but for all ordinary criminal investigations where the police seeks electronic records. At least it requires a judge to sign it.
- Another bill would authorize courts to provide judicial opinions in civil cases to database companies (like Westlaw). The company must replace litigants' names with pseudonyms.
- Bill authorizing interception of international communications for cybersecurity defense.

-

[hobie]

Good news, boys. My cost to make an LNG plant just went up 25%.

Shall I buy American steel instead? NO. American steel such as US Steel and Nucor is still higher. Why? Because since the start of 2025 US steel prices rose 23.2%. That increase happened BEFORE the tariffs. Why? Because they baked it in knowing the tariffs were coming. And they'll add 25% more to match the new tariffs. Why? Because they can. Heh. Did you boys think US steel manufacturers would keep their prices the same to take advantage of the new tariffs and not become profiteers? Oh you did? You boys sure do believe lots of things.

Don't worry, boys. We'll pass the costs on to you and still be making our usual hefty profit. Drill baby drill, amirite?!

https://www.focus-economics.com/commodities/base-metals/steel-usa/

[ducksalad]

Any chance the Port of Brownsville project will be delayed further? Seemed like it took about a decade just to break ground.

[hobie]

That project is about a decade away from completion. But the cryo facilities it entails is good for it's neighbor SpaceX because byproducts such as helium, nitrogen and oxygen are needed for rocket fuel.

Now that Elon just Citizen United another $100M into the Trump family bank accounts, expect the project to magically ramp up

[Stephen Lathrop]

hobie — I have paid no attention to SpaceX rocket science. What kind of rocket engines do they use, and what would helium be doing in the fuel mix? Maybe they weld with it instead?

[hobie]

Well, you are correct. Helium is not a fuel.

[Kazinski]

Methane and Oxygen. From Wikipedia:

Raptor is a family of rocket engines developed and manufactured by SpaceX. It is the third rocket engine in history designed with a full-flow staged combustion (FFSC) fuel cycle, and the first such engine to power a vehicle in flight.[15] The engine is powered by cryogenic liquid methane and liquid oxygen, a combination known as methalox.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Methalox", which is to say a liquified methane for fuel, and liquid oxygen for oxidizer. It's not *quite* as high of specific impulse as the H2/LOX Blue Origin is using, but is enormously denser and easier to work with.

Helium is typically used in the rocket industry for tank pressurization, because it doesn't condense at normal cryogenic temperatures, and is low density.

[Dr. Ed 2]

American Steel didn't have any price increases for, say, energy?
Or an anticipated increase in demand?

By my math, if American steel and Chinese steel are the same price, and American steel increases by 49% (24% + 25%) and Chinese steel only increases by 25%, Chinese steel is cheaper.....

And if American steel is so lucrative, where are the competitors?

[hobie]

The good news, as far as the energy sector is concerned, is that we do not allow Chinese steel in anything. That is an industry-wide standard. Some cheat, but for the most part we hold to it

[hobie]

...and we do not use Chinese steel not for political reasons but because their quality has always sucked. Nothing can harsh your buzz quicker than a catastrophic failure at a $10B refinery traced to a component made with crappy Chinese steel

[apedad]

James Ho Quits Judges Group Over Statement Against Threats

Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho said he’s resigning from a judicial group after it spoke up in defense of judges who’ve been criticized and threatened, as billionaire Elon Musk and others lash out at members of the federal judiciary ruling against Trump administration policies.

Speaking at a Federalist Society event on Saturday, Ho said he decided to resign after the Federal Judges Association sent a statement following these latest attacks, but not in defense of US Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, or Brett Kavanaugh, as well other federal judges in Florida or Texas.

“You can’t say that you’re in favor of judicial independence only when it comes to decisions that you like,” the conservative jurist said at the Federalist Society’s National Student Symposium. “That’s not protecting the judiciary, that’s politicizing the judiciary.”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/james-ho-quits-judges-group-over-statement-against-threats

Good for him and he's right, we shouldn't politiciz . . . .

Wait, he did what?

Judge Ho announced boycotts of clerks from Yale Law School, Stanford Law School, and Columbia University due to their cancel culture.

Nevermind.

[hobie]

My dude Ho is a shoe-in for SCOTUS nomination. But will Harlan Thomas give up the gravy train and retire?

[Kazinski]

Retirement is when the gravy train really starts, if he wants it.

Corporate boards, unlimited speaking fees.

I'm not saying he can cash in on the scale as the Clintons and Obamas did when they left office, but he could do well.

[John 4]

He's already been getting paid behind the scenes, so why retire?

[Dr. Ed 2]

You can't see the distinction between threatening individual judges and announcing hiring preferences?

[hobie]

It's almost like Ho is punishing people for their speech and political advocacy. Well, not even that, for their association with others' speech and political advocacy. I thought you hillbillies have been raging against such things since COVID

[apedad]

OPM Chief Won't Testify in Mass Federal Layoffs Challenge

Acting Office of Personnel Management Director Charles Ezell won’t testify at a March 13 hearing in a lawsuit by government employee unions challenging the Trump Administration’s mass layoffs of federal workers, after a federal court ordered him to appear.

In a notice filed Tuesday, the government said that it was withdrawing Ezell’s declaration, making his testimony unnecessary.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/opm-chief-must-testify-in-challenge-to-mass-federal-layoffs

Just more proof that Trump's govt is using bully tactics and when someone actually confronts a bully they meekly turn away.

[Mr. Bumble]

Giving up VC comments for lent isn't going to be as hard as I thought it would.
An early Happy Purim to our Jewish friends.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd say you're off to a bad start, since we're more than a week into Lent.

[Bwaaah]

2026. He's gettin' way out in front of it, with plenty of runway left to bale out. And if God likes brevity, Bumble may be in the clear while you may end up doing time with Frank Drackman. (Lathrop would be a gonner.)

[hobie]

Your absence certainly won't be hard for us normies. See if you can convert Ed and Riva while you're at it

[EllaWilson]

I didn't vote for fauci.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The Musk/Trump plan to restructure U.S. government has become plain: first, mass-fire department employees across the board, until government ceases to function. Then, when everything is broken—Social Security checks no longer arrive on time, or maybe at all—the VA cannot treat veterans—health care for Medicaid recipients breaks down—the air traffic control system becomes a public menace—funds to educate disabled children cannot be had—the U.S. is reviled world-wide for disrupting global defense against pandemics—and on, and on, then demand Congress rebuild it all from scratch at emergency speed, with everything privatized.

My questions are about the methods being used to set that up. Is Musk's role lawful? Do mass firings controvert civil service protections? Can executive orders be used to bar participation of specific legal counsel? Most of all, and most urgently, why is present evidence insufficient to raise a Major Questions Doctrine question, and put a stop to ongoing destruction of government departments wholesale?

Musk/Trump plan to rush their plan to completion in defiance of the public. They intend thus to create an unworkable political fait accompli, which only they can solve, according to terms Musk/Trump dictate.

There is an emergency need for the Supreme Court to order that process stopped, and to be reversed to the status quo ante. Americans must be able to see as soon as possible whether their Judicial System has already ceased to protect the Constitution. By what legal means should that question be brought before the Supreme Court, and how swiftly can it happen?

[Michael Ejercito]

Has he disturbed the Legislative or Executive Branches?

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, you need to establish that you somehow have standing, and sue.

[Malika the Maiz]

How dumb is Donald Trump? Dumb enough to go on about making Canada “our cherished 51st state” after signing an English only as official language bill. Guy probably doesn’t know Quebec is a thing!

[Michael P]

He's not as dumb as someone who thinks that an executive order for the federal government would somehow control what the government of a state, which under the US's republican structure is a separate sovereign, can do. Especially when that executive order says:

Agency heads are not required to amend, remove, or otherwise stop production of documents, products, or other services prepared or offered in languages other than English.

[Malika the Maiz]

lol, yes, I’m sure that coda will totally assuage Quebec, which famously is totally not thin skinned about this!

How far are on the spectrum?

[Michael P]

Alaska has twenty official languages. Why couldn't Canada continue to have two, similar to Hawaii and South Dakota?

If we give Quebec enough decades, they might eventually assimilate as well as their brethren in Louisiana.

[grb]

Michael P : "Why couldn't Canada continue to have two...."

On this issue, I found this argument convincing:

Democrats should embrace the order naming English our official language and then demand President Trump learn to speak & write it. That's only fair, isn't it?

[Kazinski]

Of course Quebec is famously thin skinned about it, they're French.

My Grandfather was French Canadian, although born in New England he grew up speaking French, so when he was drafted in WWI he got sent to France as a translator, where he got gassed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Je me souviens, to be suppressed as terrorist advocacy.

[Ska]

I love how that's juxtaposed with Ontario's "Yours to discover" license plate.

[Brett Bellmore]

That would be pretty dumb if he wanted Quebec. Even the rest of Canada isn't terribly fond of Quebec. They might view joining the US as a convenient way of cutting them loose...

[Stella Link the dog]

"They might view joining the US as a convenient way of cutting them loose..."
If getting rid of Quebec were a real desire of "the rest of Canada," Canadians wouldn't need an American invasion to do it. As far as what Canadians, as a nation, desire, my guess is that they'd much rather keep Quebec within Canada than be forced to join the US.

[Frank Drackman]

Is Quebec a thing? they lost the Expos, first to Puerto Rico and then DC, and are the Bluejays still playing in Tampa?? OK, Atlanta's lost 2 NHL teams to Canada, nobody misses them.

[Stella Link the dog]

Ontario, Quebec -- what's the difference?

[SRG2]

His harping on about making Canada a 51st state and calling Trudeau "governor Trudeau" is exceptionally stupid, as are his supporters here who seem required to defend every stupidity that comes out of Krasnov's mouth.

[Commenter_XY]

I agree...The Donald should cool it, and let Mark Carney do the talking for a while. As sure as Canadians win curling competitions, Carney will will misstep.

The Donald just has to sit back and wait for April 2. There is plenty of other shit to get done.

[John 4]

Can you not find enough self respect to see Trump's statements are vile?

[Don Nico]

No, MTM, Trump must have realized that Quebec is a distinct entity in Canada that deserves independence.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Malika, Canadian provinces may want to join the US BECAUSE OF the PdQ "thing." Outside of a 100-150 mile circle, Canadians speak English.

[John F. Carr]

If the United States can survive tens of millions of Spanish speakers it can survive a few million French speakers, or even whatever language they speak in the Maritime Provinces.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Carr — Sounds like you might have experience in Newfoundland. I hitchhiked around Newfoundland in the 60s. First ride I got, couple of guys in the front seat were chatting away while I rode in back, trying to figure out what language they spoke. Took about ten minutes to realize it was English, but I had to get out before I could comprehend even one full sentence.

[Voize of Reazon]

Did you take the ferry ride to France?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have been told that it is part Gaelic.

[not guilty]

As I have said before, I doubt that President Trump has thought through very carefully regarding annexing Canada to become the 51st state. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/08/canada-new-state-electoral-college-001966

Canada would likely elect two Democratic Senators. If the House of Representatives stays at 435 total members, Canada would be entitled to 45 seats. Texas would lose four seats and Florida three. Canada would have 47 electoral votes.

As Aesop's Fables teaches, be careful what you wish for, lest it comes true.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Another Trump mental breakdown vis a vis Canada. Trump was reported by the Guardian to be attempting to use tariff pressure to force renegotiation of existing water-distribution deals in the Columbia River Basin. Trump is likely unaware of Canada's Mica Dam, a gigantic earth-fill dam which backs up a reservoir ~ 2X the capacity of the one behind Grand Coulee, sited downstream in Washington State.

That means not only the economy, but also the safety, of the entire Columbia Basin depends on continuous maintenance at Mica Dam, in Canada, and of course at other facilities as well. A complete failure at Mica Dam might add to the Grand Coulee reservoir at least twice-again whatever capacity was then in storage. Thus, a combined flood of 3-times the capacity of the Grand Coulee reservoir might be released downstream, to take out dam-by-dam all the rest of the reservoirs lying below.

Among the sites overwhelmed in such a flood would be the WWII-era Hanford plutonium-generation site, now probably the nation's most-threatening nuclear waste-storage menace. There are estimated to be ~ 60 square miles containing contaminated groundwater at Hanford, much of it presumably susceptible to flooding.

Maybe a choice to put Canada under economic pressure affecting maintenance of Columbia River facilities ought to get more careful review.

More generally, one feature of water rights history throughout the West has been that the best rights were the ones claimed earliest—typically in downstream bottom-land areas with warmer climates and longer growing seasons. That has always been in tension with the reality that access to upstream watersheds creates practical capacity to disrupt what happens downstream.

Leaving aside the entire Columbia Basin issue, that is a complication which Trump-style anti-regulation governance will likely ignore. That risks peril for everyone, with potential effects on the nation's food supply, and the economy more generally.

[Armchair]

Seems our dear Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been...let's see... hiring illegal immigrants? Whoops. Isn't that a crime?

"This appointment is particularly contentious given that restrictions exist barring DACA recipients from holding paid congressional positions. Nonetheless, de la Vega not only found his way into the political arena but also managed to secure a position that granted him access to sensitive information."

The penalty is....up to 10 years in prison? Well.

https://usaherald.com/aocs-high-level-hire-of-an-illegal-alien-who-escaped-ice-exposes-a-pattern-of-harboring-undocumented-immigrants-in-violation-of-8-u-s-c-%C2%A7-1324a/

[Moderation4ever]

Does this matter when the President employs in his businesses undocumented immigrants and then leaves boxes of government documents around. Let's his hatchet man employ cyberpunks to rummage through sensitive files including my tax records. I not going to let AOC staff worry me.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Man, Sleepy Joe's a demented old man who can't be held responsible for his actions!

[Brett Bellmore]

At least he has a nice ride. Although, have they taken his license away yet?

[Armchair]

"Then leaves boxes of government documents around."

I seems to remember that this caused a major criminal investigation. If this type of thing worries you, perhaps AOC needs a criminal investigation as well.

[Dan Schiavetta]

An investigation without consequences to the perpetrator.

Trump breaks so many laws, gleefully and openly, that all Democrats get a pass for the next four years.

[Michael P]

You were all in favor of no consequences for Joe Biden leaving boxes upon boxes of classified records laying around in even less security.

[Bwaaah]

"How in tarnation did those get into my garage?"

At the time, they determined that he was simultaneously sharp as a whip and incapable of remembering anything.

[John 4]

They don't care. These are not serious people.

[Stella Link the dog]

" If this type of thing worries you, perhaps AOC needs a criminal investigation as well."

Has anyone, other than you, suggested that AOC "leaves boxes of government documents around?"

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, she put somebody barred from access to them in a position with access to them; Isn't that the functional equivalent, only with a guaranteed violation, rather than mere risk thereof?

[Stella Link the dog]

"Well, she put somebody barred from access to them in a position with access to them"

Is that true? The only thing I know about this is from the USA Herald article linked above. "he served on Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s 2021 re-election campaign and later became her deputy communications director." is what is said and then there are a bunch of assertions about what information he had access to going from "sensitive" to "potential breach of national security protocols" to "confidential and potentially classified information" to "What U.S. secrets might he have taken back with him? And how might his illegal status have compromised our national security?"

So, the guy is on AOC's communications staff. Why would anybody think that a communications staffer without a clearance (did he have a clearance?) would have access to "sensitive, confidential and potentially classified information" such that it might have compromised our national security?

Given the facts as you know them, what is your basis for claiming that this guy had any access to any sensitive, confidential or classified material and your further claim that there was a "guaranteed violation?"

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you've got me: He was in a position to access such stuff, but I can't prove he ever did.

[Stella Link the dog]

How do you know that he was in such a position? He was a communications staffer, not in a policy position. Why would a flack (or supervisor of subordinate flacks) need access to classified information or U.S. secrets?

You're assuming a very lax environment. In Trump's case, it's very clear that it was a lax environment and it's also clear that members of his staff and family without clearance and without supervision had access. Likewise, probably, with Biden though there is a bunch of stuff there that we don't know.

[Sarcastr0]

He was in a position to access such stuff

If he wasn't cleared then you're still wrong. There's a lot of work done to keep classified stuff from spilling.

[David Nieporent]

Well, you've got me: He was in a position to access such stuff,

He was not.

[David Nieporent]

Well, she put somebody barred from access to them in a position with access to them;

Literally none of this is true.

[Armchair]

Which part? Are DACA recipients who don't have security clearances barred from access to classified documents or not?

[David Nieporent]

Everyone who doesn't have a security clearance is barred from access to classified documents.

[Armchair]

In other words some of it is true. So, once again, you're wrong

[Frank Drackman]

AOC might want to

26 U.S. Code § 7202 - Willful failure to collect or pay over tax

Any person required under this title to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 851.)

[Krayt]

I hate it when government officials rummage through tax records to do something unsavory, maintaining a presumptively acceptable cover story.

[Malika the Maiz]

Think about how dumb you have to be to bring this up when you’re a supporter of Donald Trump! The next thing Armchair will post will have to be about a Democrat who cheated on his wife!

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

So AOC can break the law because Trump?

It's comments like these that give breath to that meme about Democrats being literal retards that everyone always shares.

[David Nieporent]

No, pretty much none of that AI generated slop is true. The guy is (or was, I guess) a DACA, and they're authorized to work in the U.S., so no law was violated, let alone a law imposing "up to 10 years in prison," LOL.

And no, being communications director for a member of Congress does not give him "access to sensitive information."

[Brett Bellmore]

Nope. He didn't arrive in the US until 2022, and he was already an adult by then.

[David Nieporent]

Nope. He didn't arrive in the US until 2022, and he was already an adult by then.

Nope. You didn't read the story. 2022 is when he was hired by AOC.

Diego de la Vega, originally from Ecuador, entered the U.S. in 2001 on a visitor visa and, according to multiple reports, never left.

And from the NYP:

De la Vega came to the US when he was 7-year-old but ended up illegally overstaying his visitor’s visa.

[Armchair]

Sigh,

Once again, you've made a blanket statement (
no law was violated") that if you had bothered to read the article, you would understand is directly wrong.

DACA recipients cannot legally work for the federal government, either for the executive branch or the legislative branch. By hiring the individual, AOC was directly breaking the law, as he could not legally work for the federal government.

Look it up. Or read the article. Like you should have the first time.

[David Nieporent]

I didn't think I needed to spell it out, but apparently I do: no immigration law was violated. And, AOC was not in fact breaking any law; nothing in the applicable statute criminalizes anything she might have done.

[Armchair]

So, in other words, ONCE AGAIN, you're wrong. when you say "no law was violated"'

How many times is that?

Sorry, let me channel my inner David Nieporent and answer it as you would.

"Once again you're wrong you fucking moron"

[Michael P]

In other news, the Irish government hates journalism, but X/Twitter stands up for it: https://www.dailywire.com/news/irish-police-used-secret-court-order-to-extract-info-from-journalists-elons-x-shut-them-down

[Moderation4ever]

Market continues down as President Trump works to be the first President to cause a recession in his first 100 days in office. Another one for the Guinness Book of Records.

[Frank Drackman]

The only certain thing, if present trends continue (they never do), and if no unexpected changes occur (they always do), is that the Markets will fluctuate. You want Bank Interest, go to Midwest Federal, ask for Bill Diehl

[Malika the Maiz]

If Trump’s supporters started criticizing the dumb things he says and does like the tariffs he’d stop. But as you can see here Dear Leader’s cult isn’t cut out (cult out?) for that.

[Commenter_XY]

Which market?

If you're invested in US stock market index fund only, you're down maybe 5% YTD. That is a ripple. But you're unhappy. If you're invested in total intl, you're up 5% YTD. That is a ripple. And you're happier. If you're invested in a total US bond market, you're up 3% YTD, and you're even happier yet.

Much more concerned about hiring, small business formation.

[Armchair]

Is the autopen controversy coming?

Article 1, Section 7, clause 2 of the US Constitution is pretty simple. It starts as follows. "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it,"

But what if the President "doesn't" sign the bill.
1. What if someone else signs the bill? Someone else signs the President's name for him. Does the bill still become law? What's the logic?
2. What if a "Machine" signs the bill instead of the President. Does the bill become law? What's the logic there?

Hence the potential "autopen" controversy. While the autopen has been around for a while, the first person who acknowledged using the autopen to sign a bill into law was Obama. But...that was never challenged in Court. And now apparently, almost everything Biden signed was via autopen.

Now, the argument goes, there's a LOT a President has to sign. An autopen is reasonable. But....But....there aren't THAT many actual bills a President needs to sign. The average Congress (2 year session) passed ~500 to 1000 laws every 2 years. Sounds like a lot. But, that's only 2-3 things to sign per day for the President. Is it unreasonable to ask the President to have to actually sign them? As opposed to having a machine do it?

[Krayt]

Yes, I was about to say, if there's so many new laws his hand is getting tired, well, we're doing something wrong.

Not investing in regulatory adherence consultant firms!

[tylertusta]

I heard some speculation that the autopen signing of some of Biden's pardons was the reason why the Pardon Attorney was fired and escorted from the DOJ.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Is it unreasonable to ask the President to have to actually sign them? As opposed to having a machine do it?"

A President who gets a big ego trip out of signing things in sharpie and showing it off for the cameras, would not need autopen.

[Sarcastr0]

As DMN has noted, unsigned bills become law if the President takes no action for 10 days after presentment while Congress is in session.

Autopens are supper common on the Hill too; there is nothing sacred about a wet signature as the One True Way to express approval.

I would expect perhaps some performative noise from Congress but nothing beyond that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, under most circumstances it doesn't matter for bills whether the President actually signed the bill.

Now, if is not having actually signed the bill is evidence of something deeper, like his not having been aware of the bill, because he was just a figurehead in an administration actually run by the staff, that's a rather bigger deal. Maybe an aware President would have actually vetoed the bill, rather than ignoring it?

And then there are all those autopenned pardons that maybe didn't originate with Joe in the first place.

This all goes to the way that minor procedural shortcuts can, if you aren't careful, open the door to major abuses. Requiring Presidents to actually sign documents themselves makes a lot of much more serious abuses a LOT harder to pull off.

[Sarcastr0]

No proof Brett strikes again!

[Brett Bellmore]

You'd have the whole government operate on the honor system, because if you make it impossible to prove abuses, then by definition abuses never happen, right?

[Stella Link the dog]

Nobody, as far as I can tell, is making it impossible to prove abuses. It's simply that rank speculation and baseless assertions don't qualify as evidence, much less proof.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No proof Brett strikes again!"

Is there any proof that Biden issued the pardons he supposedly issued? Or vetoed the bill creating extra judgeships?

[Sarcastr0]

Nice burden shifting.

Lacks the spice of Brett's longer form fan fiction.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You're the one that's burden shifting.

[Sarcastr0]

"Is there any proof that Biden issued the pardons he supposedly issued?" is you, burden shifting.

You're the one trying to gin up a scandal, after all.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Autopens are supper common on the Hill too; there is nothing sacred about a wet signature as the One True Way to express approval."

Except that it's evidence that the person purporting to execute the document actually executed it.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, that and the person and their staff being fine with it.

This isn't a problem just because you decide to get paranoid.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The staff being fine with it is irrelevant. Is there any evidence that Biden knew about the pardons, or the veto, and was fine with it? Maybe there is, but a document signed by an autopen ain't it.

And given Biden's condition, if there were an instance where he heard about it and didn't react, that wouldn't be evidence either. He may have just assumed he forgot about it.

[Sarcastr0]

Keep speculating as hard as you can. It won't shift the burden.

I see you've moved back away from Congress to Biden.

What a shitweasel.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I see you've moved back away from Congress to Biden."

Huh? Nobody is suggesting anybody in Congress is signing anything on behalf of incompetent congressmen, dumbass.

[John 4]

I refuse to believe this is a real comment written by a real person. Truly remarkable level of wankery.

[David Nieporent]

This argument is insincere and involves goalpost moving, and proves too much anyway. If the continued idiocy about Biden's mental state were accurate, then his own wet signature on the documents wouldn't prove that he knew about and was fine with them, either.

[Armchair]

" there is nothing sacred about a wet signature as the One True Way to express approval."

Well, except for the whole fact that the Constitution says the President is to sign the bill. Not just "approve" the bill. But "sign the bill".

[David Nieporent]

The. Constitution. Doesn't. Say. That.

[Armchair]

It literally does.

Once again.

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it,"

Seriously....are you able to read?

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. Are you stupid?

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it,

It becomes a law whether he signs it or not. (Yes, unless Congress adjourned first, I'll explain yet again.)

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

So the only real proof we have that the President signed something is in the mind of the President?

Why does that work for legislation and executive orders, but not declassifying documents?

[Magister]

Probably because the signed legislation or executive order is actual evidence that the President signed something, even if the signature is from an autopen? That is distinct from a claim that something was declassified solely in the mind of the President, which presents no corroborating evidence.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

The autopen can sign it and the President can be none the wiser. And given Biden's mental state, that's the controversy.

The President intent to sign is undocumentable. I bet you could show him one of those pardons, cold, and ask him if he remembers signing it and he couldn't recall.

[Magister]

There could be the testimony of a number of people present when the President authorized the signing by autopen, which would not apply to psychic declassification. And it's too late to start complaining about what a senile Reagan might have signed or not signed.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

>There could be the testimony of a number of people present when the President authorized the signing by autopen

It seems you and I agree that we should verify there are people who can testify the President authorized signing the EO's in his name.

I don't think Biden is capable of being asked himself, he doesn't seem to have a clue. He's like dorito & doordash level incoherent.

[Magister]

I didn't say we should verify anything. I'm saying that the possibility of such verification distinguishes signing by autopen from an alleged action claimed later to have been taken only in the president's mind.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

I take it you clearly wouldn't mind verification, given the implications.

So, we're pretty much on the same page.

[Magister]

I think it's a stupid waste of time, driven by a desire to convert some bizarre conspiracy theory into a distraction from the real stuff happening right now. So, no, I would mind.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Uh, maybe you think that because you haven't seen all the evidence.

That's okay, some people just choose to be unaware of these things.

¯\(ツ)/¯

[Magister]

No, I think that because I'm not interested in stupid conspiracy theories the way Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2 is; some examples in this thread:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/03/12/wednesday-open-thread-7/?comments=true#comment-10955748
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/03/12/wednesday-open-thread-7/?comments=true#comment-10955876

[David Nieporent]

1. What if someone else signs the bill? Someone else signs the President's name for him. Does the bill still become law? What's the logic?

Once more, you imbecile: bills become laws whether the president signs them or not. Read the fucking constitution if you're going to waste everyone's time blathering about it.

And also, just to reiterate: the fake controversy is that he signed executive orders, not bills, with an autopen. There has been no reporting about bills.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Why is it fake?

[Brett Bellmore]

"And also, just to reiterate: the fake controversy is that he signed executive orders, not bills, with an autopen. There has been no reporting about bills."

That would be even worse, wouldn't it? Because while under most circumstances a bill becomes law even if the President ignores it, executive orders by definition are only executive orders if actually issued by the President.

By making sure that the signature isn't actual evidence of Presidential knowledge, let alone intent, you facilitate staff just acting in the President's name without him actually being in the loop. Which ordinarily wouldn't be a risk, except when you happen to have a President who's mentally compromised, as we did for the last few years.

[Sarcastr0]

This is just birtherism again.

Ordinarily I wouldn't have to ask, but...

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Sacrastr0 is advocating viewpoint based self censorship via chilling effect.

[David Nieporent]

That would be even worse, wouldn't it? Because while under most circumstances a bill becomes law even if the President ignores it, executive orders by definition are only executive orders if actually issued by the President.

Executive orders do not need to be signed at all.

[Life of Brian]

I'll take a cite on that one, if you don't mind.

[Sarcastr0]

I know it's the practice, but why would they need to be signed?
They're statements of how policy will be implemented; the authority is in the implementation.

[Life of Brian]

Google "unsigned executive order" for a good time, and maybe at least a partial answer to your question if it was actually serious.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you miss where I wrote: "I know it's the practice?"

It's right there at the beginning.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, I saw the words preceding the word "but" that was followed by the question I addressed.

Did you actually try the search, or are you just playing dumb?

[David Nieporent]

They don't even need to be in writing. The vast majority of executive orders are not.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, you were being sarcastic. Hard to discern just from text.

[David Nieporent]

Apparently. Because I was not, and am not, being sarcastic.

The president saying, "Bring me a sandwich" is an executive order. The president saying, "All executive branch employees are expected to communicate solely in English while on the job" is an executive order. The president writing down, "All executive branch employees are directed to remove the word 'diversity' from all federal documents" is an executive order. The president writing down, "All contracts with Perkins Coie are to be terminated immediately" and signing it, is an executive order. None have any more or less force than any other. Each is binding on executive branch employees to the extent it doesn't conflict with any law or constitutional provision.

[Magister]

Well, we could trust that people around the president would notice that the orders are not what the president wanted done; otherwise it would have to be either a massive conspiracy of many people around him, or a president whose policies are so incoherent that loyal staff would not be able to tell.

Iran-Contra is an exemplar of the first case, a conspiracy of people around the president. And who actually made the decisions when Ronald Reagan was senile? (Spoiler: Nancy Reagan's astrologer)

Trump would be the second case. Remember how some of his appointees in the first term hid stuff that they didn't want him to sign? Remember how his briefings had to be made short and to say "Trump" lots of times so he would actually pay attention to them? Do you think Trump read lengthy executive orders to check that they were actually what he wanted? Remember how Trump's decisions often seemed to be those of whoever flattered him last and best? Have you noticed tariff whiplash the past couple of months?

[Magister]

The Wikipedia article on Autopen does report that Obama authorized it to sign legislation twice while traveling, and that Biden used it once in 2024 while traveling to sign a one week funding extension to "avoid any lapse in FAA operations", so presumably not willing to wait 10 days for it to become a law. Not really enough to drive a controversy.

It is good that the constitution doesn't overspecify ritualistic things, like signing a parchment copy with a quill pen while wearing a powdered wig. The modern understanding of "signing" now includes clicking a button on a website.

[Armchair]

Can Jill sign for Joe Biden too?

[Armchair]

"bills become laws whether the president signs them or not. "

Sigh...Once again...once again...you need correcting.

The president has not signed a bill over 1000 times in United States history, and....the bill has not become law. It's what is conventionally known as a "Pocket Veto".

Simply put, from the moment the bill is presented to the President (another requisite), the president has 10 days (excluding Sundays) to sign the bill (or veto it). If the president doesn't do so, it becomes law...unless Congress adjourns during that time.

If Congress adjourns, the President can just...not return the bill...and it doesn't become law. Congress can't even overturn the veto, they need to re-introduce the legislation de novo. It's called a pocket veto, and there's been a fair amount of case law around that. Presidents have done it many, many times.

Why this is important now?

Because Biden "may not have signed" the bills that came through. Some of them may go through anyway because Congress was still in session at the end of those 10 days., But if Congress adjourned (like it does at the end/beginning of every year)...then those "laws" that were passed during the previous 10 days potentially ARE NOT LAWS. They were never signed by the president. Congress adjourned. And by the Constitution (and all the previous precedence with pocket vetoes), they aren't legally valid.

[Sarcastr0]

You think DMN doesn't know about pocket vetos, after he told you about them 2 days ago?

5 paragraphs of supercilious nonsense and then 1 of 'it MAY have happened' unsupported breathless speculation.

[Armchair]

If he knows what pocket vetoes are, then he clearly doesn't UNDERSTAND what they are, otherwise he wouldn't make such absurd blanket statements like "bills become laws whether the president signs them or not"

Now, unlike DMN and his blanket statements of 100% assurance, I understand there are multiple possible interpretations. If the court rules that an autopen is not actually the President signing the bills, then a number of them are not actually legitimate laws.

But more importantly, I note DMN was around after the post was written and suddenly "declined" to respond, knowing he made critical errors in judgement.

[David Nieporent]

If the court rules that an autopen is not actually the President signing the bills, then a number of them are not actually legitimate laws.

1) For about the seventh time, I point out that the silly article that sparked this frivolous discussion did not say anything about any bills being signed by autopen. It talked only about examining executive orders and determining that a bunch were signed via autopen.
2) No court is going to rule about which technology has to be used to sign bills.
3) Regardless, look up the enrolled bill doctrine. (Brett can rant and rave about it for hours if you've got the patience to listen.)
4) What 'number' would that be, anyway? You've cited exactly zero instances of any laws enacted during the 1/20/2021 - 1/20/2025 time period to which the pocket veto proviso would've applied.

[Armchair]

1) I'm not referencing any article. Your failure to understand that speaks more about you.
2) You have no concept of what the court may or may not rule about
4) If you can't look up the congressional register of laws passed, that's your issue

You've repeatedly failed to comprehend and read simple items. You apparently can't understand that the Constitution literally says the President is to sign bills.

[David Nieporent]

You think DMN doesn't know about pocket vetos, after he told you about them 2 days ago?

That's what's so tiresome about people like Armchair. He doesn't know anything about the law (though he at least had the decency to drop "Lawyer" from his username), but sees something somewhere and starts repeating it without understanding. I correct him. quoting the relevant constitutional text¹ and pointing out that what he's saying is true only under one narrow circumstance. Then he repeats the same wrong statement like ten more times. And those other times I don't always include the caveat. So one of those times, he pretends that he knew what the law was and tries to use the caveat as a gotcha against me, even though — as you say — I obviously knew about it since I'm the one who told him about it in the first place.
​
​
¹ I forget if it was he or bookkeeper_joe who whined that I didn't quote the entire constitutional paragraph, but only the relevant part.

[Armchair]

1) You haven't referenced ANY constitutional text.

Try it sometime.

You seriously don't understand how pocket vetoes work, and if the president doesn't sign a bill and Congress adjourns within 10 days, it isn't a law.

[Moderation4ever]

Democrats are in a bind with the vote on the CR. I would advise that their brand is already bleeding but there is no good path out. I think the best bet is to hold fact and force the Republicans to the table. No one wants a government shut-down but this maybe the only time to make a stand. Republicans will not stand in the way of chaos, I hope the Democrats will not do the same.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Democrats are adults. They know that a shutdown has harmful consequences. Unfortunately the spoiled brats are in control at the moment.

[Michael Ejercito]

What are the harmful consequences of a shutdown?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Well, the civil servants that don't get paid vacations will intentionally create as much harm as possible to regular citizens with their old Washington Monument Syndrome.

So the harm will on citizens intentionally inflicted by sickening, evil, selfish civil servants... like Sarcastr0.

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

"... is a term used to describe the phenomenon of government agencies in the United States cutting the most visible or appreciated service provided by the government when faced with budget cuts. ... This is done to put pressure on the public and lawmakers to rescind budget cuts."

A non-violent version of domestic terrorism. Cause as much pain and anguish as you can to innocent civilians so you can impart political pressure to get your wants.

Evil fucking bastards who deserve to be loathed and hated like they are.

[Kazinski]

Trump will not be able to fulfill Judge Ali's order to pay the frozen USAID contracts.

That's a real downside.

[Josh R]

Because a majority of both the House and Senate want the CR, Democrats will get the blame for a shutdown if they filibuster. That's bad politics.

As I understand it, spending levels remain the same as they were under Biden (save a few tweaks). But, Trump and Musk will be free to ignore spending commitments and get out the chainsaw. Democrats will be better advised to permit the CR to pass and let Republicans own the consequences of what Trump and Musk cut.

[Commenter_XY]

One difference is the House bill allows for impoundment. That changes things for Team D.

[Josh R]

Impoundment = "Trump and Musk will be free to ignore spending commitments and get out the chainsaw."

[Brett Bellmore]

If the law allows for impoundments, they're not really "commitments" as such anymore, are they?

[Sarcastr0]

Impoundment for FY25 going forwards.

Not for FY24 money, nor for FY25 money passed under continuing resolutions.

Trump's been breaking the law. And you don't care because for you the ends justify the means.

[Kazinski]

There seems to be some dispute about that.

Strangely I think Trump is going to side with the Democrats, from CNN:

"Meanwhile, Democrats in the House and Senate have slammed the legislation, saying it would give more leeway to President Donald Trump and Elon Musk to redirect funding as they see fit – a charge the GOP denies."

[Sarcastr0]

There seems to be some dispute about that.
Not among honest people.
The appropriations language is right there to read.

[John F. Carr]

Once upon a time in Massachusetts Democratic state lawmakers saw a deficit coming and authorized the Republican governor to cut what needed to be cut. Romney was willing to be seen as fiscally responsible. Democrats were willing to be seen as not being at fault.

[Josh R]

Musk's cuts are either going to have little impact on the deficit, be unpopular, or both.

[Sarcastr0]

Good luck normalizing these cuts.

[Kazinski]

The Republicans should make it clear that anyone furloughed in a shutdown will not be getting paid after the shutdown ends.

If you are essential and still working that's one thing, if you are nonessential and staying home, you are probably just lucky to have a job to go back to.

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck you.

[Commenter_XY]

They should have taken the deal. The first offer is always the best one. Something to remember for the next time.

[David Nieporent]

You're not a lawyer, and you obviously aren't involved in any other profession in which negotiations are at issue. The first offer is, of course, almost never the best one.

[Commenter_XY]

Uh huh. Reality is different this time, isn't it? = The first offer is, of course, almost never the best one

Eight (yes 8) months of pay, regardless of tenure (post probationary period) was first offer. And 75K took that very generous offer. They were the smart ones.

Very few are getting 32 weeks of severance now. You'd need 21 years to match that.

[Kazinski]

Well call your Senator, there is still time to avoid the shutdown.

Its not me or the GOP that's trying to force one.

I'm sorry you're having this problem but its not our fault, or our responsibility to fix it.

[Sarcastr0]

The fuck you wasn't about the shutdown, and you know it.

Treat federal employees like people.

[Kazinski]

Treat federal employees like people?

As a former local government employee i have been furloughed before without pay without unemployment benefits. When autoworkers go out on strike they may be paid from the strike fund but no unemployment, employees of their vendors are sent home without pay until the strike is settled. When companies go bankrupt employees are laid off.

Welcome to the real world.

If the Democrats in the Senate decide they are going to filibuster your paychecks, then you don't get paid, and there is no obligation to pay people for not working. But you wiil probably be eligible for unemployment if it lasts more than a few weeks.

That's the rule of law.

[Sarcastr0]

You: “ The Republicans should make it clear that anyone furloughed in a shutdown will not be getting paid after the shutdown ends.

If you are essential and still working that's one thing, if you are nonessential and staying home, you are probably just lucky to have a job to go back to.”

Don’t pivot to Dems. You call for Republicans to visit unnecessary cruelty.

Fuck you.
I don’t care if your local government job treated you like shit. You just want suffering and it’s amazing how awful you are.

[Absaroka]

"treated you like shit"

I don't want to get in the middle of a back-n-forth between you and Kaz about shutdowns, but, generally speaking, I don't think many private sector folks get paid if they aren't working, regardless of the reason. If you're a roofer and it's raining too hard to roof today, no pay. If you're a widget maker and the widget factory is shut down because there was a fire or the raw materials are backordered, no pay. Quite a few private sector employers just don't have the financial resources to pay people for hours that aren't generating revenue. It's not employers being vindictive; it's that the roofer's paycheck comes from an account that's filled by customer's payments, and without payments coming in the paychecks will bounce.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure. But other doesn’t justify needless cruelty elsewhere.

It’s like saying because you were abused as a child and came out OK it’s only fair everyone get the same treatment.

[Absaroka]

I guess I'm not sure I'd call not paying people when they aren't working 'needless cruelty', even if they are government employees. It's kind of the way of the world.

Your point, I take it, is that since the government's checkbook never runs dry, it's cruel for the government to not pay people who aren't working, because they can, unlike the private sector. That's a straight face argument, I suppose. OTOH, the money that keeps that checkbook always full comes from people who life doesn't treat as well. That seems a bit wrong to me.

(and to be clear ... I think the real blame here is with congress not passing budgets ... as the saying goes, 'you have one job'. If they don't pass budgets on time and gov't workers get LWOP, they deserve your ire)

[Bwaaah]

I think the argument goes that in the case of a government worker not being paid, it's "cruel" because it's "at the hands of man," whereas in the private sector, it's "at the hands of the market" (which is kind of like nature).

Anyway, he rejects being subjected the reality of limited resources, skirting the fact that "cruel" or "not cruel" doesn't change that reality. He solves an unbreakable reality with emotional terms ("cruel" and "essential") that justify others suffering while he is shielded at their ["cruel"] expense.

The Marxists jump in at this point, declare it all to be "cruel," and propose a no-cruelty policy where everybody is shielded from our profligate over-use of constrained resources. They never quite address the [cruel] math.

Life can be beautiful. But it surely is cruel. Somehow, it shouldn't be, for government workers.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Kaz's original comment is not about cost savings. It appears to be about cruelty to feds.

2. In the private sector, this would still be cruel. If the business is not bankrupt, not paying furloughed employees would not go unremarked.

3. In those times where this kind of thing does happen in the private sector, that's a bug in the system not a feature.

3. The government is not bankrupt, so there is no need for this. Crap happening elsewhere does not justify being crappy here.

4. If you want cost savings, the marginal increase for screwing your employees out of their pay is not where you should look for it.

If you want immiseration of the federal workforce, on the other hand, this is how you get it.

[Absaroka]

"In those times where this kind of thing does happen in the private sector, that's a bug in the system not a feature."

I get the impression that you think the normal state of things is that private employers have large cash reserves and so can and do routinely pay employees even when circumstances prevent the employees from working. My impression[1] is that most private employers just don't have that luxury.

Bwaaah uses the phrase 'unbreakable reality'. I think that's apt. From time to time a hawk uses our songbird feeder as a hawk feeder, or we see the tracks in the snow where a fox caught a hare. We like song birds and bunnies, but OTOH hawklets and fox kits starve if Mom and Dad don't bring precious little birds and bunnies home to eat. That is the 'unbreakable reality' of existence.

And only getting paid when you work is the unbreakable reality of employment in general, IMHE. It's true for roofers. It's true for doctors or lawyers in private practice.

If Fred Fed hires Ralph Roofer for a three day roofing job, Fred doesn't expect to pay Ralph for six days if a three day storm comes along in the middle of the job; Fred expects to pay only for the work Ralph actually does.

Ralph agrees to pay taxes for Fred to do whatever Fred's job is. If Fred can't do that job, why is Ralph morally obligated to keep paying Fred while Fred isn't working? That kind of asymmetry seems hard to justify.

[1]emphasis on 'impression'; this has been my experience, but I don't have numbers

[Kazinski]

Speaking of needless cruelty, if Schumer decides to completely abandon his responsibility, then it puts OMB director Russell Vought in charge of deciding what is essential and what expenditures can be made. Vought was the nominee democrats tried hardest to kill:

"Senate Democratic leaders said on Thursday President Trump’s pick to oversee the management of federal agencies and their employees is “at the very top of the list” of the president’s most unpalatable appointees, vowing to push some Republicans to join them to sink his nomination."
https://www.govexec.com/management/2025/01/dems-say-thwarting-trumps-controversial-omb-pick-top-priority/402447/

And that's the guy Schumer is putting in charge:

"How do executive agencies prepare for a shutdown?
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provides instructions to executive branch agencies on how to prepare for and operate during a shutdown in the annually revised Circular No. A-11.4 The circular also establishes two "policies" regarding the absence of appropriations:

1. a prohibition on incurring obligations unless the obligations are otherwise authorized by law; and
2. permission for agency heads, in consultation with their general counsels, to decide what agency activities are excepted or otherwise legally authorized to continue during a lapse in appropriations."

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, get a clue on how the private side works. It is not what it was 20 years ago.

[Kazinski]

I'm not awful, I'm advocating thoughtful leadership, action, and a commitment to fiscal responsibility.

The Democratic Governor of Washington just announced 4 billion in cuts including employee furloughs because of a budget shortfall February 27, why is the federal government the only place that treats their employees like bubble boys.

Ferguson proposes $4B in cuts, furloughs in face of WA budget shortfall

OLYMPIA — Gov. Bob Ferguson wants state workers to take one unpaid furlough day each month for the next two years as part of a proposal to trim about $4 billion from projected state spending in the face of a budget shortfall.

At a news conference Thursday, Ferguson unveiled the furloughs and an array of other cuts and spending delays throughout state government to help solve what he estimated will be a $15 billion gap between expected taxes and planned spending over the next four years.

“It’s a challenge that is going to demand thoughtful leadership, action, and a commitment to fiscal responsibility,” Ferguson said

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/ferguson-proposes-4b-in-cuts-furloughs-in-face-of-wa-budget-shortfall/

[Satchmo_Lives]

Offering my selection for most unpopular opinion of the the day. I just watched The French Connection for the first time. Boring as hell. Took me three sessions to get through it. Not boring in the sense of 15 edits in a minute. I LOVE old movies. I really do. Boring in the sense there was five pages of dialogue and two of those were in french without subtitles. It was a 1970s French Art House flick where the director didn't give a shit about telling a story. He wanted everybody to know how clever he was.

[Moderation4ever]

I think you have to have seen the movie in the time it was made to appreciate the film. It was gritty and Gene Hackman's portrayal of a truly unlikeable character was great. It has a relatively simple plot, and I think we expect much more in today's stories.

[Jmaie]

That movie is also the reason that trailers must have rear bumpers no more than 27 inches above the pavement

[Longtobefree]

The French Connection - 1971.
Jane Mansfield crash, On June 28, 1967.
After her death, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recommended requiring an underride guard (a strong bar made of steel tubing) on all tractor-trailers; the trucking industry was slow to adopt this change. In America, the underride guard is sometimes known as a "Mansfield bar."

[John F. Carr]

The latest safety move is side underride guards. There is a pattern around Boston of bicyclists passing trucks on the right only to be squished when the truck turns right.

If I recall correctly, for the past few years Boston and state owned vehicles must be equipped with such guards. Privately owned trucks can run over whoever their insurance is willing to pay for.

[Jmaie]

ICC bumpers were required starting in the early '50's, however they were not standardized until much later. I am more thinking of the maximum height requirement.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No -- underride bumpers were never required in the US.

[Ska]

I'm not even sure that's true ("you have to have seen the movie in the time it was made to appreciate the film"). I saw it... 25 years ago for the first time? I thought it was pretty cool. It's no Chinatown or anything, but I dug it.

[Satchmo_Lives]

"It has a relatively simple plot, and I think we expect much more in today's stories."

I really don't watch contemporary movies. I prefer older movies. Maybe you are correct re modern movie making, but my objection is not comparative. I didn't like the movie because of what the director did with the movie.

I appreciate your input, and thanks for replying!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I have found multiple classics unsatisfactory, including film, television, or (though I have seen few) the latest platforms.

I never watched this one (except maybe for a few minutes), but there is nothing wrong or too surprising in not liking it.

[Ridgeway]

I am wondering if OP watched FC II instead. I'd never have thought of FC as boring, or lacking in dialogue.

I'll give you a "great" film that I find really boring: 8 1/2. And I like Fellini movies -- La Dolce Vita is one of my all-time favorites.

[Satchmo_Lives]

No, I watched FC, not the sequel. My comments are about the original. I was so bored it took three sessions to get through it. And like I said, being bored is not a modern view of needing edits every four seconds. FC was all about the director's vision. I greatly dislike movies that sacrifice storytelling for vision. That is exactly what FC does.

As far as finding movies great even if you find them boring, I can't do that. I can do it with music. I can define music as great--even if I don't like it (cue Velvet Underground and anything Lou Reed has done). I expect movies to entertain me.

[Stella Link the dog]

I heart me some old movies as well. "Absence of Malice" is good as is "The Verdict". Been recently Jonesing for two old Bogart flicks, "To Have and Have Not" and especially "The Caine Mutiny". The latter for many reasons including the spectacle of Humphrey clacking his balls. "Anatomy of a Murder" is another fine old flick.

Recently watched "The Damned Don't Cry". 1950 with Joan Crawford. Won't go into why we watched it, but it was pretty much awful.

"Shadow on the Wall" (1950) wasn't very good either but it did have Ann Sothern, Barbara Billingsley and Nancy Davis (later Reagan).

"The Window" (1949) wasn't terrible but it did have Barbara Hale who later became Della Street on Perry Mason.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree = Absence of Malice, The Verdict. Great movies.

[Moderation4ever]

If you like old movies it coming up on St. Patrick's Day and time for a John Wayne classic The Quiet Man.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is an interesting Quora answer from Murphy Barrett.

https://www.quora.com/People-who-call-themselves-pro-life-are-usually-merely-pro-birth-Why-do-they-want-to-massively-increase-the-number-of-unwanted-kids-being-raised-in-poverty-Are-all-of-them-religious-fundamentalists-who-refuse-to-use/answer/Murphy-Barrett

This is a dumb line of argument and pro-choicers should really just drop it entirely. It’s not the “gotcha” that you think it is.

And I say this as someone who is pro-choice.

Your argument here boils down to, “Well, if you’re not a Marxist, then you can’t really be pro-life!” Yes Marxist. Or possibly, literally, fascist (fascists believed that the State should take care of people from cradle to rifle to grave). Whatever flavor of socialism it is you believe in. That’s what you’re arguing. If you don’t support every position I can twist by linguistic chicanery into being “pro-life”, well, then you’re a giant hypocrite!

Bull. Shit.

Words mean things and context is key. Just because someone is pro-life doesn’t imply that they believe it is immoral to execute a serial child-rapist. It means that they are opposed to abortion, and that is all it means.

What you are doing, with this line of idiocy, is the same sort of stupid as a Bible-thumping born-again Baptist claiming that atheists worship the Devil and hate America. You are assigning a bunch of nonsense to the opposition in order to “beat” them without ever address any point that they’ve actually made.

And you make all pro-choicers look dumber when you do it.

It would be as if the pro-lifers asserted that if you’re not pro-choosing to fuck children or pro-choosing to kick dogs or pro-choosing to use retards for slave labor, then you’re not really pro-choice are you? You only care about the choice to murder babies! Which is also hogwash.

Pro-Choice and Pro-Life, as ideological positions, only pertain to abortion, and anybody with at least a room-temperature IQ knows that. Anyone who doesn’t is either a liar or an idiot.

Pro-Lifers oppose abortion because they believe that it is murder. If your argument for being pro-choice doesn’t address that concern, then keep your tongue firmly behind your teeth, because you’re not helping.

Personally I agree with pro-lifers that abortion is homicide, but it is not murder. And while I’ve only convinced a few of them to change their position, if nothing else I’ve at least given many pro-lifers an explanation of a pro-choice position that they can at least understand and accept, even if they disagree with it.

If you’re going to argue the pro-Choice position, for the love of god, do a good job of it. Not this trash.

[Brett Bellmore]

As a personal matter, I find the extremists on both sides tedious.

The biological reality is that you start out at one end of pregnancy with a fertilized egg that has all the moral significance of a hangnail, and end up significantly before the other end of pregnancy with a human being possessing full moral rights, even if they happen for a while to be inside another human being. And in between? You're in between!

But both movements have been captured by extremists who hate nuance.

The pro-life organizations are run by people who object to any form of birth control that has the potential to keep a fertilized egg from implanting.

The pro-choice organizations are run by crazies who think women should be able to kill their baby for any reason or none, right up until the cord is cut, and maybe a little while after if you can avoid documenting what happened.

I tend to think the pro-lifers are a bit more honest, because the pro-choice movement usually pretends they're not really trying to protect elective abortions of viable infants. Except the Guttmacher institute: I think they're monsters, but they're honest monsters anyway, they're quite open about the reality of late term elective abortion, and not being bothered by it.

But neither side in this debate would have any political strength if not bolstered by a mass of people who don't fully agree with the extremists in charge.

[Michael Ejercito]

I remember this web site called the Stentorian.

One o f the ideas it mentioned is that if hate speech is to be used in a political campaign, it should be directed only at the leadership, not the rank-and-file.

I would add that spokesholes and financiers are acceptable targets.

[SRG2]

A brainless bimbo speaks: ""He is actually not implementing tax hikes," Leavitt said. "Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries that, again, have been ripping us off. Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people, and the president is a staunch advocate of tax cuts."

Interesting and amusing how the same story is reported differently - according to the Fox headline, Leavitt shut down the AP reporter.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/karoline-leavitt-shuts-down-ap-reporter-after-insulting-question-on-tariffs/ar-AA1AIFyB?ocid=BingNewsSerp

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5188744-ap-reporter-white-house-tariffs/

But it's quite clear that Leavitt is either a liar or an ignorant bimbo - and given that Krasnov appointed her, quite possibly both

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let's say the income tax was replaced by a tariff on imported tea which was passed on to consumers. Are Americans paying more taxes -- or just different ones?

[Moderation4ever]

I would say that it depends on the amount of money you have and make. If you are wealthy you pay less, if you are midclass or lower you pay more.

[SRG2]

The price of tea would be impossibly high. The idea of replacing income tax with tatiffs has always attracted some people, but nowadays it's ralised that this is so stupid, that only cranks advance the idea.

But no comment on Leavitt's remarks?

[bernard11]

The value of US imports is about $4T/year.

The individual income tax brings in roughly $2T.

So you would need a 50% tariff if the dollar volume of imports stayed the same. But it won't, of course. It will drop dramatically because of the much higher price.

[bernard11]

He is actually not implementing tax hikes,"

Yes he is, you lying POS.

"Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries that

No. They are not. They are a tax on Americans.

have been ripping us off.

Idiocy. Apparently Trumpists believe, because The Leader keeps saying so, that when we pay for imports we are being ripped off, or are subsidizing the exporting country. This is complete fucking idiocy. When you buy a screwdriver you are not being ripped off, nor are you subsidizing the hardware store. You are making a mutually beneficial trade.

Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people,

I can't even imagine how someone would say or believe this.

Of course I heard Lutnick, our not-very-bright Secretary of Commerce, on the radio, saying tariffs lower prices on American products.

Wow. When will people realize Emperor Trump is naked?

[tylertusta]

The NTSB has released a preliminary report on the collision between a US Army Black Hawk helicopter and a CRJ700 airliner near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The NTSB found that the CRJ saw the Black Hawk about a second before the collision but by then it was too late to do anything about it.

Additionally, the NTSB has examined past records and found 85(!) near misses near that airport in just three years(!). This was a disaster waiting to happen.

The NTSB has asked the FAA to close down two helicopter routes when certain runways are being used as a prevention measure.

Link to the report:

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/DCA25MA108%20Prelim.pdf

[Don Nico]

That should have been done years ago. Those flight paths invite a disaster

[Dr. Ed 2]

85 near misses and no investigation?!?

[John F. Carr]

Trump says recent anti-Tesla violence is terrorism. He is right. Federal law says politically motivated violence is terrorism. If somebody attacked your Tesla you can call yourself a victim of domestic terrorism. The practical effect of Trump's declaration is limited. If the FBI catches the people who burned Tesla chargers, a judge should give them longer sentences than ordinary arsonists would get.

[tylertusta]

This lawfare is a bad idea.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Domestic Democrat Terrorists who are attacking random Teslas and Tesla dealerships getting justice isn't a bad idea.

[Commenter_XY]

Until both sides mutually disarm, lawfare is here to stay. But remember, they don't do lawfare, they're saving (D)emocracy.

[SRG2]

Do you think that the case against Trump U was purely lawfare? Likewise against the Trump Foundation?

[Commenter_XY]

No, and No.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Notice how he chose the safest example. It's just a variant of the motte-and-bailey fallacy.

[SRG2]

No it isn't. It makes what should be the obvious point, that going after a politician is not inherently nor automatically lawfare.

Yet I find that cultists in general take it almost as an article of faith thar any investigation of Dear Leader is lawfare.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

>It makes what should be the obvious point, that going after a politician is not inherently nor automatically lawfare.

Most strawman are obvious. That's why they're such good logical fallacies.

>Yet I find that cultists in general take it almost as an article of faith thar any investigation of Dear Leader is lawfare.

No, that's just a stupid low-information trope of the Democrat Drone Army that they mind control.

[SRG2]

Yes, one often encounters people claiming as fallacies things that are not, either through ignorance or as a tactical approach to debate.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Likewise against the Trump Foundation?"

Yes, just like her attack on the NRA.

[Brett Bellmore]

Vandalizing private property for political reasons isn't lawfare, though, and if you can prove political motives for violence, it's not lawfare to prosecute it appropriately.

Seriously, Sarcastr0, I don't see how we can maintain civic peace if people can't keep from responding to politics they don't like with violent attacks. We could easily end up with something like the Irish "troubles", if this isn't quashed fast.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't like political violence, and I don't think crimes are useful to push political ends.
But I also don't think Telsa vandalism is going to set off Civil War 2.

You've been on the Civil War 2 bandwagon for the past month, and I expect you to find more and more that confirms your latest hot take.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, of course Tesla violence isn't, by itself, going to set off a civil war.

The attitude that politically motivated violence is no big deal, on the other hand... That could do it.

We need to keep politics inside its guardrails, and Democrats have been going further and further outside the guardrails every year.

[bernard11]

We need to keep politics inside its guardrails, and Democrats have been going further and further outside the guardrails every year.

Only the Democrats, of course, Brett. Trumpists were just touring the Capitol and looking at the art on Jan. 6. Right, Brett?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah, only Democrats. Who came up with cancel culture, anyway? Was it Republicans tracking down people whose politics they don't like, and trying to get them fired?

Whose motto was, "The personal is the political"? Pretty sure it wasn't Anita Bryant.

Who came up with the idea that people with the 'wrong' politics shouldn't be able to eat a peaceful meal at a restaurant?

Is doxing a right wing sport?

It was absolutely the left who got the idea of hopping over that particular guardrail.

This is just another guardrail the left has hopped over, and I'm hoping the legal system can encourage them to hop right back, before it becomes as entrenched as cancellation.

We need to be able to keep political arguments limited to politics, and out of the rest of our lives.

[Sarcastr0]

The Republicans could be slaughtering people in the streets, and Brett would blame the Dems for having started it by being rude once 4 years prior.

[Joe_dallas]

Your response is pure BS

[Stella Link the dog]

"Well, yeah, only Democrats. Who came up with cancel culture, anyway? Was it Republicans tracking down people whose politics they don't like, and trying to get them fired?"

Joe McCarthy, famous Democratic senator from Wisconsin.

[David Nieporent]

Was it Republicans tracking down people whose politics they don't like, and trying to get them fired?

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

[Sarcastr0]

Politically motivated violence is a crime.

A crime, by itself, is no big deal.

A widescale waive of crime, as you describe, whether politically motivated violence or other, would be a big deal. It is not in evidence.

Democrats have been going further and further outside the guardrails every year.
Haha, you are such an impossibly partisan tool.

[Bob from Ohio]

"A crime, by itself, is no big deal."

It is to the victim.

Its just arson, you are already on record from 2020 that arson is an insignificant crime.

[David Nieporent]

Prosecuting criminals for things that every reasonable person agrees is a crime — whether pro- or anti-Trump — is not "lawfare." And vandalism is something that every reasonable person agrees is a crime.

[tylertusta]

Crafting novel legal theories to elevate charges and the resulting sentences is lawfare regardless if there was an underlying crime that was otherwise worthy of prosecution.

My example- that you will undoubtedly disagree with- was how the DOJ used 1512(c)(2) to charge J6 protestors with felonies, and then sought excessive sentences for people that were convicted.

[Kazinski]

At least a half dozen people have been arrested vandalizing Tesla dealerships or charging stations, it isn't going to take much of an investigation to find out if their is a conspiracy and if they are getting paid.

I don't know if you saw the video of the demonstrator (but not a vandal) in Oregon who openly admitted he was getting paid, so its not just something being made up.

[tylertusta]

If they admit to it, their acts plainly fit an existing statute, and the regular method of handling those acts was to prosecute under that criminal statute, then there is no lawfare.

But if you take a business records statute that is rarely enforced in a particular fashion and turn it into a proxy for an elections law violation that is actually just a substitute payback for winning an election in the first place then that's lawfare.

I'm skeptical of the attacks on Tesla being terrorism or a conspiracy until shown otherwise, and so far I've seen nothing that alleviates me of my skepticism.

[Kazinski]

You know what else is a bad idea?

Masked man sets self ablaze trying to torch SC Tesla stations in protest

https://www.postandcourier.com/news/arson-tesla-north-charleston-sc/article_13450bc2-fe7b-11ef-96e1-0fc9352b2375.html

[Sarcastr0]

you can call yourself a victim of domestic terrorism
Victimhood-seeking behavior.

But yeah, if you can prove the elements of the higher crime, you get to charge the higher crime.

[tylertusta]

Per Politico, Senate Democrats plan to decide today whether to block the continuing resolution and force a government shutdown:

House Republicans passed their stopgap funding bill Tuesday evening, which means Senate Democrats can now no longer delay their long-dreaded decision: Do they give up a chance to stand up to Donald Trump or let the government shut down in three days?

Democrats plan to huddle around lunchtime to try and hash out their strategy for confronting the government funding fight. They have already held one “vigorous discussion,” and even the chattiest senators emerged from their Tuesday meeting tight-lipped about their strategy. Many declined to say if they were unified in their approach.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/03/12/congress/senate-democrats-schumer-shutdown-spending-00225872

[John F. Carr]

BBC reports on a fight over language education in schools in southern India:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w19242l63o

Modi's government wants children to learn Hindi in school. The government of Tamil Nadu is happy to have its children learn only Tamil and English.

To give an idea how big a deal this is, the civil war in Sri Lanka was triggered in part by an attempt to suppress the Tamil language in favor of Sinhalese. Hindi, Sinhalese, and most of the languages of the region are related to Sanskrit. Tamil belongs to a different language family.

The Indian central government does not have as much power over state schools as the US Department of Education does.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I know married couples from India who speak English at home because it is the only language the two share.

[SRG2]

Well, English too is Indo-European 🙂

[John F. Carr]

The Guardian reports on the government's back door into sanctuary jurisdiction surveillance. Officially, Westchester County, New York does not cooperate with ICE. Westchester County has lots of license plate readers. License plate scans go into a corporate database which ICE has access to.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/11/ice-car-trackers-sanctuary-cities

[apedad]

Pro-immigrant archbishop takes over D.C. church amid Trump crackdown

Cardinal Robert McElroy took over leadership of the D.C. archdiocese Tuesday, bringing a well-known advocate for immigrant rights to one of the most prominent posts in the U.S. Catholic Church.

McElroy, 71, takes leadership of the archdiocese, which includes D.C. and suburban and rural parts of Southern Maryland, at a time when it is facing a budget crunch and potential fallout from Trump administration efforts to cut funding for some church priorities.

It also comes as high-level members of the Trump administration and allies of the president have leveled attacks on religious groups, including Catholics. Earlier this year, Vice President JD Vance — who converted to Catholicism in 2019 — criticized the U.S. Catholic Church’s efforts to help immigrants and refugees, suggesting the Church is motivated by money, and alleged without evidence that it works with millions of “illegal immigrants.”

Because about 40 percent of the budget for Catholic Charities, the social welfare arm of the archdiocese, comes from government funding, potential Trump administration cuts to federal social programs could impact the kinds of service the archdiocese will be able to provide, said Monsignor John Enzler, former head of Catholic Charities and a longtime leader in the archdiocese.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pro-immigrant-archbishop-takes-over-d-c-church-amid-trump-crackdown/ar-AA1AIfDg?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=ecb6658028f54f6a85d8ddd1883c759d&ei=45

This is the war on Christianity Trump was talking about, right?

[Michael P]

No. Why do you always ask such stupid questions?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"about 40 percent of the budget for Catholic Charities, the social welfare arm of the archdiocese, comes from government funding"

James G Blane is rolling in his grave...

[Zarniwoop]

PerkinsCoie sues Federal Gov’t over Trump EO:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278290/gov.uscourts.dcd.278290.1.0_1.pdf

I hope some (non-Josh) Conspirator makes this a separate post.

[Commenter_XY]

Wow, that Prayer for relief is really something.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Perkins Coie respectfully requests that the Court:
169. Declare the Executive Order unconstitutional as violative of the Separation of Powers and Article II of and the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution.
170. Immediately enjoin implementation of the Order pending consideration of a motion for preliminary injunction.
171. Preliminarily, then permanently, enjoin implementation of the Order.
172. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

I am just surprised at the phrase 'prayer for relief'.

[Michael P]

I understand that is the usual wording in a civil complaint.

[Zarniwoop]

It seemed restrained to me. I don’t practice in the area, so I don’t know why they didn’t include a specific request for monetary damages. I hazard a guess that either it’s precluded because the gov’t is immune from monetary relief, or it’s subsumed in “other relief as the Court deems just and proper”, or … something else 😉

[Michael P]

I meant "prayer for relief" is the usual wording. I don't have any opinion on what scope should be included in this complaint's prayer for relief as a legal or tactical question.

[not guilty]

"It seemed restrained to me. I don’t practice in the area, so I don’t know why they didn’t include a specific request for monetary damages. I hazard a guess that either it’s precluded because the gov’t is immune from monetary relief, or it’s subsumed in 'other relief as the Court deems just and proper', or … something else"

The defendants are all federal agencies or officials. I don't think that monetary damages are available. The doctrine of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), has been so curtailed that it may as well not apply to any plaintiff whose first name is not Webster or whose last name is not Bivens.

I do note ¶88 of the complaint, which states:

There is no enumerated or inherent executive authority from the Constitution to regulate and to sanction lawyers for professional misconduct. That is not part of the President’s “core constitutional power[].” Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 606 (2024). Nor is it one of his “incidental powers, belonging to the executive department, which are necessarily implied from the nature of the functions.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749 (1982) (quoting 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1563 (1st ed. 1833)).

Some or all of the defendants may be suable for damages (individually or as civil conspirators) under state law for tortious interference with contract and/or tortious interference with economic relations. Perkins Coie LLP is headquartered in Seattle, where Washington recognizes both of these torts.

https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/I2cd3bf75e10d11dab058a118868d70a9?contextData=%28sc.Default%29&bhcp=1&transitionType=Default
https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/I2cd3bf7be10d11dab058a118868d70a9?contextData=%28sc.Default%29&transitionType=Default

Under Washington law “an actionable civil conspiracy exists if two or more persons combine to accomplish an unlawful purpose or combine to accomplish some purpose not in itself unlawful by unlawful means.” Corbit v. J.I. Case. Co., 70 Wn. 2d 522, 528 (Wash. 1967). In order to establish a conspiracy the plaintiff must show that the alleged coconspirators entered into an agreement to accomplish the object of the conspiracy. The plaintiff has the burden of preponderating the evidence; and furthermore, the existence of an alleged civil conspiracy must be established by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Id., at 528-29.

[not guilty]

That is indeed the traditional wording. I did not use that phrase, in that I don't pray to judges or any other mortals. Instead I used "demand for relief" as referred to in Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(3).

[Bwaaah]

Interesting. A "demand for relief" flies reasonably in a written form, to be granted or denied. But imagine addressing a judge verbally, directly, with a "demand" of any kind. It can look a little stand-offish. It would have to be used in a passive voice, such as, "Your honor, I wish to proffer a demand for relief," as opposed to, "Your honor, I demand relief."

As for a "prayer for relief" being a prayer to a judge, I think that's an unhelpful take. It could easily be understood to be a prayer [to god] for relief [by a judge]. In any case, your purported unwillingness to submit, rhetorically, to a mortal doesn't negate the fact that you submit, in practice, to that mortal. A prayer for relief is exactly what it is, and once submitted, the wait for an answer is filled with little else but prayer, to whomever or whatever you may wish.

[not guilty]

The applicable rules of civil procedure expressly provide for a complaint including a demand for relief. Federal Rule 8(a) states:

(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

My state's corresponding rule, Tennesse Rules of Civil Procedure 8.01, states:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded.

I was quite comfortable conforming my pleadings to the verbiage used in the rules.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I am just surprised at the phrase 'prayer for relief'."

Its a "demand" technically but many [most?] lawyers don't like to demand stuff from the court. More polite to ask I guess.

Here its a federal case and most district judges think they are God so prayer is appropriate.

[Commenter_XY]

This translation makes sense to me = Here its a federal case and most district judges think they are God so prayer is appropriate.

[Zarniwoop]

Having now read the full thing, it’s going to have serious legs. I would surprised if their request for TRO doesn’t successfully kick off the litigation.

[Zarniwoop]

successful motion for TRO to kick off the litigation ... called it.

[not guilty]

The challenged Executive Order is not Donald Trump's first rodeo tangling with Perkins Coie. As noted in ¶38 of the law firm's complaint, on March 24, 2022, Trump sued a number of defendants, including Perkins Coie, Hilary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, and Fusion GPS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the defendants “maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative” that Mr. Trump was colluding with Russia and engaged in actionable conduct regarding Fusion GPS and Alfa Bank. See Dkt. 1, 2:22cv-14102 (S.D. Fla.). Mr. Trump asserted civil RICO claims against Perkins Coie for conspiring with the Clinton campaign and sought to recover damages in excess of $24 million, before trebling, as well as attorney’s fees and lost profits. On September 9, 2022, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, writing: “As [defendants] view it, ‘whatever the utilities of the Amended Complaint as a fundraising tool, a press release, or a list of political grievances, it has no merit as a lawsuit.’ I agree.” Trump v. Clinton, 626 F. Supp. 3d 1264, 1284 (S.D. Fla. 2022).

Following that dismissal Judge Middlebrooks issued an order holding Trump, lead attorney Alina Habba and Habba Madaio & Associates jointly and severally liable for $937,989.39 in sanctions. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Trump-v-clinton-order-sanctions-usdc-southern-florida.pdf

Like the Bourbon kings of France, Trump appears to have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not seeing how they've got a case. As a private law firm, they simply and unambiguously are not entitled to these security clearances. At most they can make a case for temporary clearances when required for specific cases, not maintaining standing clearances.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If an individual is not entitled to a clearance and has no due process claim, how does a corporate individual?

[Zarniwoop]

Perhaps you should actually read the complaint. It’s far broader and deeper than “just security clearances”.

[David Nieporent]

Perhaps you should actually read the complaint.

Zarniwoop made a funny.

[Kazinski]

It better be more than just about security clearances, those are gone for at least 4 years.

[John F. Carr]

Sometimes in law a person can do an act for any reason or no reason, but not for an illegal reason. You can fire an employee because you woke up on the wrong side of bed. You can't fire her because she's black. Ordinarily security clearances are discretionary. The government can grant and revoke them on a whim. In this case there is reason to suspect an improper motive for revocation.

Courts are very reluctant to intervene in national security even when constitutional claims are involved. The judge might say "You can't get your security clearances back. You can get off the government contracting blacklist."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Maybe, Josh can write his reply in song ala Hamilton.

[Zarniwoop]

update:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5191623-trump-executive-order-perkins-coie/

A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily froze parts of President Trump’s executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, which claims its past work for Democrats made it a subject of retaliation by the administration.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Obama, temporarily blocked the administration from preventing Perkins Coie personnel from entering federal government buildings and requiring government contractors to disclose if they do business with the firm.

At the law firm’s request, the temporary restraining order addresses only three of the order’s six sections, an effort to tackle only the “most immediate” harm at this early stage of litigation.

Parts that are notably not about "security clearances" per the shallow understanding of people who pretty obviously haven't read/understood the full scope of the complaint.

The whole article is worth a read.

[Zarniwoop]

here's the Motion for TRO and Memorandum in Support. No sign of the Judge's written order or opinion yet.

[Commenter_XY]

I think we are up to a record here with TROs. 😉

[Bob from Ohio]

Some info for our Dutch friend.

The statute playfully known as "Invade the Hague Act" authorizes the President to use force when a "Covered Person" [current or past official or military member] is arrested by the ICC. "Covered Person" is not just US persons but those from "major nonNATO alies". The Philippines is a "major nonNATO ally". The former president of the Philippines was just arrested by the ICC.

Trump can now do the funniest thing.

[John F. Carr]

Countries can opt out of the protection of the the Hague Invasion Act .

COVERED ALLIED PERSONS.—The term ‘‘covered allied persons’’ means military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), or Taiwan, for so long as that government is not a party to the International Criminal Court and wishes its officials and other persons working on its behalf to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Lawyers could also argue about the effects of withdrawl from the ICC after the alleged wrongful acts and before the ICC does its thing. That's what happened here.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I respect those in the Senate who are worried about not supporting the continuing resolution but find this analysis convincing:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/here-are-the-arguments-for-why-senate-ds-should-vote-yes-and-why-theyre-wrong

There is no good solution here. Both ways will cause serious problems. If you sign off on the House pro-Trump war on the Constitution / full of horrible stuff program, you "own" it at least in some sense of the word. Not good, Bob, as the saying goes.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice.

This is riling the liberal and leftist fora I read.

I think I come down as your link argues.
It's a close thing - the right is really good at driving the narrative, but also they're internally riven with those crazy enough to loudly proclaim how awesome a shutdown is.

[ThePublius]

Whopper or Big Mac, and why?

(I use the phone apps, and never pay full price. I'm going for a Quarter Pounder medium meal for $7 right now. I highly recommend using the apps if you occasionally get fast food cravings. BTW, my favorite is Jersey Mike's.)

[Commenter_XY]

Neither....no way I pay 10-12 bucks for a Big Mac, or a Whopper. But of the two... Whopper, flame broiled.

Jersey Mike's is tough to beat (for a chain). The app is unfriendly.

Hands down, Chik-Fil-a trumps them all. Five Guys is excellent, but very, very pricey.

[not guilty]

Chick-Fil-a has a tasty chicken sandwich. I elect, however, not to subsidize anti-LGBT bigotry.

I resumed eating at Cracker Barrel when they modified their policies.

[Brett Bellmore]

If I had to choose... Whopper. Though I like the MacDonald's fries better, the Whopper just has a better tasting burger, I like the flame grilled taste. Better selection of veggies on it, too; I like my burgers with a salad built in.

Locally we have a superb selection of hamburger joints; Whataburger, Hamburger Habit, and my favorite, Hip Burger.

That last is local to only the Greenville area, but not only are the patties good, the toppings include fried jalapenos.

But I seldom buy drivethru food unless I'm on a road trip. I'd rather just grill burgers in the backyard. I actually make something like this, except that I mix in some shredded cheddar, and substitute oyster sauce and Lipton's beefy onion soup mix for the fish sauce.

Nothing against fish sauce, it's good that way, too.

[Kazinski]

The Texas double whopper is probably the greatest fast-food burger ever.

Carl's Jr has a similar version but its overproduced.

[Frank Drackman]

1/4 Pounder with Cheese, cooked when you order it, and no "Special Sauce" or extra bun in the middle

[Ska]

Sounds like a double cheeseburger.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

> A senior USAID official on Tuesday ordered the agency's remaining staff to report to their now-former headquarters in Washington DC for an "all day" group effort to destroy documents, many of which contain sensitive information, Politico reports.

What should be done about these people?

[John F. Carr]

Some of the best entertainment of the Iran-Contra affair came during a discussion of shredding documents. Prompted about shredding documents Oliver North replied, "Did we get them all?"

[Michael P]

This was discussed up-thread. If these are just convenience copies and the official "government record" copies are retained in digital -- or some other hard-copy -- form then there is nothing inherently wrong with destroying the documents.

[PaulS]

USAID is a part of the state department. This agency allows employees to use remote/private servers so that they can legally delete the digital information too. Ms Clinton can explain the process.

[M L]

Why did Trudeau implement tariffs? I guess he is an ignorant Trumpian who doesn't understand economics?

[Brett Bellmore]

If you look at the relative dependence of the US on trade with Canada, and Canada on trade with the US, it's hard to see how Trudeau thinks he can actually win a trade war. But maybe winning on the trade front isn't his objective, it's just internal politics.

[SRG2]

Perhaps Trudeau thinks that Canada can find comparable goods elsewhere. Recall what happened to soy farmers in the US when Krasnov played silly buggers with China last time.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the situation is perfectly comparable, given the long land border we share with China.

[SRG2]

Not perfectly, but it's not as though there are no reasonable alternatives

[M L]

Right but even if that was different - I thought tariffs were like punching yourself in the face, all the tax would be paid by Canadian people anyway, so there's absolutely no reason Trump or anyone in the US or anywhere else will care at all?

Further, it has been explained ad nauseam that anyone who doesn't understand this is profoundly stupid AND ignorant. So is Trudeau profoundly stupid and ignorant, or is it the Canadian people? Has to be one of those because surely all the people whining about Trump here at Reason and elsewhere aren't wrong.

[grb]

M L : "So is Trudeau profoundly stupid and ignorant...."

Nope. But you are. That's the only possible explanation for you repeating this braindead nonsense over & over & over.

Let's use an analogy so childishly simple anyone can understand: You may think a war pointless. You may believe it without cause or purpose. You may be certain it will bring only suffering and misery. But if attacked, you have to fight.

Is it possible you can't see that ?!?

[bernard11]

it's hard to see how Trudeau thinks he can actually win a trade war.

Nobody wins a trade war. It's an economic disaster.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What Trudeau does not understand is that Canada largely exports bulky, low-value items like toilet paper, lumber, and potatoes. The only economic market for these is the US to which they are shipped by truck and rail. It's not economical to ship them by ship, and damn not by airplane.

The only exceptions would be seafood, lobsters, and whiskey.

[Absaroka]

"Canada largely exports bulky, low-value items like toilet paper, lumber, and potatoes"

Canada's top ten exports:

"Mineral fuels including oil: US$145 billion (25.5% of total exports)
Vehicles: $58 billion (10.2%)
Machinery including computers: $41 billion (7.2%)
Gems, precious metals: $34 billion (6%)
Electrical machinery, equipment: $17.4 billion (3.1%)
Plastics, plastic articles: $16 billion (2.8%)
Wood: $13.5 billion (2.4%)
Aircraft, spacecraft: $13.2 billion (2.3%)
Aluminum: $12.8 billion (2.3%)
Ores, slag, ash: $11.7 billion (2.1%)"

'Wood' and 'Ores, slag, ash' seem to meet your definition. Everything else seems to be things that are routinely shipped between continents.

[grb]

In an another thread, someone asked Ed why he never does a simple internet search to confirm his facts before posting. That would eliminate his falling (plop!) on his face every other post. I don't think he gave an answer, but I'd love to hear one.

[Joe_dallas]

Today Judge Irving of the Mann v Steyn/simberg trial has responded with a ruling sanctioning Mann for submitting and testifying to false information in his trial.
The order provides Mann with 14 days to provide reasons not to sanction and requires Styen to provide an accounting of costs to be reimbursed within the 14 days.

https://portal-dc.tylertech.cloud/app/RegisterOfActions/#/D71396C82ECD1A3BD3F9353D4EDBF6DC93A0975858B9A671863AE5073F2368E4/anon/portalembed

[Kazinski]

This is going to be good:

"Mann’s lawyers had introduced into evidence a document, which was blown up for the jury and about which Mann testified, that contained a list of grants that Mann allegedly didn’t get as a result of the defendants’ purported defamation. The value of one of those grants, per the exhibit, was $9 million.

On cross-examination by Simberg’s lawyer, Victoria Weatherford*, it turned out that the exhibit reflected sworn interrogatory answers that had been served by Mann, but later superseded by revised answers, also given under oath. The $9 million had been reduced to $112,000. To say that Weatherford’s cross-examination was effective is an understatement. And Mann didn’t get away with the misrepresentation, as the jury found only nominal damages of $1."

From the Judges ruling:
"Given such circumstances, the Court can only find that Mr. Williams and Mr. Fontaine knew about the errors in Exhibit 517A prior to Mr. Fontaine’s use of Exhibit 517A in his redirect examination. The Court further finds that Mr. Williams and Mr. Fontaine could not have reasonably believed otherwise, as a “reasonably diligent inquiry” would have revealed that Exhibit 517A was erroneous and outdated, especially where Mr. Williams and Mr. Fontaine have been personally involved in this case since at least 2012, when the case was filed, (1) as longtime counsel for Dr. Mann in this litigation, (2) as the attorneys who assisted Dr. Mann in preparing his original, supplemental, and amended discovery responses, and (3) as Dr. Mann’s lead counsel who prepared for trial and engaged in the necessary tasks related to reviewing Dr. Mann’s likely testimony and the Parties’ related exhibits on such a central issue in the case. … They each knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court and Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavoring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information."

Looks like the judge is going to require at least partial reimbursement of attorneys fees.

Anything that can be reasonably related to refuting and discovering the false testimony.

[Joe_dallas]

I personally dont think the minor changes in grants from the amounts presented in the interogatories to the trial exhibits are/were a big deal.

The one that stuck out to was the initial grant in the earliest of 4 years which was a grant going to several researchers. correcting for that distortion, Mann actually had an increase in funding after the Simberg/Steyn post.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump just excommunicated Schumer from Judaism.

Love the lack of antisemitism in MAGA.

[Bob from Ohio]

Who made you Antisemitism Pope?

Trump is in no way a Jew hater. He's just making a point that Charlie has betrayed his people.

[bernard11]

Who made Trump the Pope of the Jews.

His statement is absurd, of course, though apparently not too absurd for you.

And it's absurd not just for its content but for Trump's assumption that he has any business whatsoever declaring who is a Jew.

But you worship the guy, so you don't care.

[Bwaaah]

President of the United States, Commander in Chief, Pope of the Jews.

You didn't get the memo?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Who made Trump the Pope of the Jews."

A bunch of us had a meeting. You weren't invited?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Meanwhile you guys have spent decades deciding who was was really black and who wasn't.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

lol, shit. Trump is more MIGA than MAGA, even.

[Joe_dallas]

schumer excommunicated himself several decades ago

[Sarcastr0]

Tell us more what True Jews are like, and how Schumer isn't one of them.

[Sarcastr0]

There was a survey that went into speeches of the favorite film of every President since Wilson.

No film was mentioned more than once.

Except one.

It was the favorite of 4 Presidents.

Any guesses?

[David Nieporent]

Debbie Does Dallas?

[Sarcastr0]

Got it in 1!

Clinton, of course.

Johnson felt strongly enough he changed his vote from "The Searchers" even though he'd been dead for 5 years.

Ford, for the sports angle.

And surprisingly Jimmy Carter!

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "There was a survey that went into speeches of the favorite film of every President since Wilson."

DMN: "Debbie Does Dallas"

I couldn't even understand what he was saying. And yet, you just went and nailed it.

Impressive.

[Sarcastr0]

The answer is High Noon.

Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton's favorite.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton's favorite."

Eisenhower also picked The Longest Day. I don't believe any other POTUS selected a movie where he himself had a role in the subject matter. It's been a long while since I've seen it, so can't remember whether DDE puts in an appearance or is mentioned.

[John F. Carr]

Hindu professors at California State University lost a challenge to a policy that equated caste discrimination with racial discrimination. They said they didn't intend to discriminate on the basis of caste and did not show how there was any credible threat of enforcement of the policy against them. The trial judge found that the policy did not and was not intended to stigmatize Hinduism. Without harm plaintiffs lack standing to sue.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/12/23-4363.pdf

[Mr. Bumble]

Since Democrats are once again engaged in Kristallnacht-style violence because the electorate rejected their policies, it’s time once again for my periodic reminder that all Democrats are fascists.

I love the fact that whenever I point this out, some Democrat invariably claims “Derrrrr… you don’t even know what fascism is!” So let’s explore fascism a little, shall we?

Listed below are attributes and practices that all 20th Century fascists have in common with the Democrat Party of 2025:

1. Laws promoting the seizure of guns from law-abiding citizens and/or the denial of gun ownership rights for law-abiding citizens.
2. Censorship of free speech by pretending such censorship protects the citizenry from faulty information (i.e., so-called “disinformation”).
3. Government control of industry.
4. Government control of the mass media.
5. Control of the entertainment industry as a means of propaganda. (See: Leni Riefenstahl; Walt Disney Corporation.)
6. Children belong to the State and not their parents.
7. Political dissidents and opposing political leadership are to be persecuted for fabricated “crimes” under the color of law through the courts.
8. Political dissidents are locked up for months/years without a trial.
9. Leading political opponents who are a threat to the fascist order are to be assassinated.
10. Extreme nationalism (Democrats hate the United States of America, but are extreme nationalistic zealots for the Woke States of America).
11. Purposeful division of the population along racial and ethnic lines as a means to power.
12. Leadership of the ruling fascist party is chosen by party leaders without any input from rank-and-file party members, but an illusion of democracy is perpetuated. (See: Kamala as nominee with zero votes.)
13. Certain party criminals are turned into martyrs upon their demise. (See: Horst Wessel; Saint George Floyd.)
14. Destruction of statues, symbols and art of the pre-fascist order.
15. Accuse dissidents of the very crimes you yourself commit.
16. Justify all of it for the “common good.”

The Democrat Party of 2025 is a fascist party. Spread the word.

They aren’t all fascists. Some are commies.
https://x.com/CynicalPublius/status/1899554649465921797

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

The Democrats are proof God exists.

No one can be as evil as the Democrats without Satan. So the beliefs of the Democrats strongly suggest Satan is real.

If Satan real, then so is God.

Ergo, the vileness, the evil, the downright inhuman cruelty of Democrat beliefs prove there is a God.

QED

P.S. And that doesn't even include the Catholics or the Jews which are further proof of Satan being real.

[Magister]

Lent is over already?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

So, apparently some judge just ruled that Trump must give Perkins Coie their security clearances and must give them access to federal buildings.

Was that the same judge the ruled actual government employees of DOGE can't be given access to federal buildings?

Democrat jurisprudence is as gerrymandered as their districts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That is unmitigated bullshyte.

You do not have a right to sue for a security clearance!

[Zarniwoop]

Well then it's good today's TRO has absosmurfly nothing to do with the "security clearances" part of PC's complaint.

But please carry on with shaking your fist at imaginary clouds, gramps.

[M L]

These judges are really out of control.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So, apparently some judge just ruled that Trump must give Perkins Coie their security clearances "

Are you sure? From what I saw part of the order was blocked, but not the part about security clearances.

[Zarniwoop]

Correct. PC did not ask the court to rule on the security clearances issue in this TRO.

See the brief in support of TRO at p. 14: "Although the entire Executive Order is invalid, this Court should temporarily restrain at least Sections 1, 3, and 5. The constitutional violations are plain." PC explains that it wanted to get the most immediately-damaging aspects of the EO taken care of quickly, and the court obviously agreed.

The TRO brief does not even mention the security clearances, so the court did not rule on that issue at this time (just in case Grampa Ed says "gotcha, PC lost on security clearances!!1!"

[John F. Carr]

The order directs the adminstration to

* Stop bad-mouthing Perkins Coie. Specifically, stop "using the statements laid out in Section 1 of Executive Order 14230 in any interactions with plaintiff or plaintiff’s clients, or employee of plaintiff or plaintiff’s clients".
* Stop terminating federal contracts.
* Stop blacklisting Perkins Coie employees from federal jobs.
* Grant access to federal buildings even when that would threaten the national security of the United States. (Blocking this order: "The heads of all agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide guidance limiting official access from Federal Government buildings to employees of Perkins Coie when such access would threaten the national security of or otherwise be inconsistent with the interests of the United States.")

This order is called a TRO but by its terms it does not expire. If Trump feels lucky he could appeal it as a preliminary injunction.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69725919/perkins-coie-llp-v-us-department-of-justice/

[Zarniwoop]

I strongly suspect the last bullet point is part of the TRO because

1) the administration has absosmurfly no basis whatsoever to assert that any current Perkins Coie lawyer or employee actually meets that term of the order (Trump is butthurt at PC because of a small handful of lawyers who left the firm years ago), and

2) the "to the extent permitted by law" is a fig leaf with so much uncertainty that the practical effect would be unfettered discretion to exclude 2500 lawyers and clients from being able to represent clients, because of some unsupported handwaving about "inconsistent interests" that's also little more than Trump's butthurt.

I don't think has a snowball's chance in heck of being reversed on appeal as a TRO, and the gov't will need some mighty strong arguments (that it strangely didn't make today) to prevaiel on appeal of a similar PI.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link, Mr. Carr.

[Zarniwoop]

So, apparently some judge just ruled that Trump must give Perkins Coie their security clearances

False. Read here: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5191623-trump-executive-order-perkins-coie/

(also linked above, with quotes)

[Dr. Ed 2]

EVERY Federal Judge in the State of Maine has recused on a state rep's suit against the speaker. Reportedly the father of the tranny behind the issue works for the Federal Court in Maine. Are we surprised???

https://www.themainewire.com/2025/03/in-unprecedented-move-all-maines-federal-judges-recuse-from-gop-reps-challenge-to-democrat-speakers-vote-stripping-censure-order/

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Democrats stripped her right to vote, disenfranchising all of her constituents in order to save Democracy!

[John F. Carr]

Eugene Volokh recently posted a case where every judge in the District of New Jersey recused from a case that would determine whether it was legal to report where a judge lived.

[SRG2]

Where's the NRA when you need them?

Chris Dunn was exonerated. Missouri’s attorney general wants to put him back in prison

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is asking the state Supreme Court to let him appeal the release of Christopher Dunn, who spent more than 30 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. At the same time, Bailey opposes a bill that would expand who is able to pursue innocence claims.

Bailey really is a vile individual. But apparently his kind of tyranny is acceptable.

[M L]

Germany's foreign intelligence service in 2020 put at 80%-90% the likelihood that the coronavirus behind the COVID-19 pandemic was accidentally released from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, two German newspapers reported on Wednesday.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/german-spy-agency-concluded-covid-virus-likely-leaked-lab-papers-say-2025-03-12/

[M L]

Question for thought: What sort of liability should there be for releasing a virus that causes a pandemic?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

The CDC should be out trillions, imho, and every administrator, e.g. Fauci, involved in the coverup should be held personally liable.

[David Nieporent]

Assuming hypothetically that any of these utterly made up facts were true, who was damaged by this "coverup"? What would the "personal liability" be for, and to whom would it be owed?

[John F. Carr]

Missouri won a $24 billion default judgment against China. That's in the right ballpark as far as dollar value is concerned, a few thousand dollars per capita.

[Kazinski]

You ever hear of sovereign immunity?

No doubt the release was negligent, but I don't think you will get far suing either in the US, or China.

And was the proximate cause the awarding of the grant, or the negligence of the lab?

[grb]

M L : "Germany's foreign intelligence service in 2020 put at 80%-90%...."

So did ours and it's interesting to see why. The CIA reported they couldn't determine the origin by available facts. Then they got a new Trump-appointed boss who is a fervent lab-leak fanboy. He loudly demanded a conclusion, so the underlings dusted off the report, changed the conclusion, and added there was no new evidence & the finding was very wobbly.

Thus politics. Meanwhile, scientists (outside of politics) continue to release peer-reviewed studies that strongly support a natural origin. One came out recently from the journal Nature :

"Today, mounting evidence from more than a dozen studies point to a person, or people, catching the virus from a wild animal.... And the animal at the top of the list is the raccoon dog..... One of the reasons raccoon dogs were suggested as a prime candidate early on is because they were probably involved in passing another, related, virus to people. In 2003, researchers isolated close matches of the virus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in several civets and a raccoon dog at a live-animal market in Guangdong, China.

This finding prompted researchers in Germany to investigate these animals’ susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2. They found that raccoon dogs can be infected by SARS-CoV-2, and — despite not getting that sick themselves — can pass on the infection to other animals ..... Further evidence to support the raccoon-dog theory came in 2023. Chinese researchers published genomic data of swabs taken at the Huanan market in January 2020, after it was shut down, including of stalls, rubbish bins and sewage. Studies found mitochondrial DNA of raccoon dogs in several swabs, including those that also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.....Most researchers agree that SARS-CoV-2 probably originated in Rhinolophus bats living in Yunnan, southern China.... That is why it is important to consider the geographic ranges of suspect intermediate animals to see whether they overlap with those bats.... Among the animals at the Huanan market, the ranges of wild raccoon dogs...overlap with that of the bats. Fitting with this hypothesis, the mitochondrial DNA from raccoon dogs at the Huanan market did not match those from farmed animals in northeastern China, and were instead closer to wild-caught animals in central and southern China."

https://jabberwocking.com/are-raccoon-dogs-the-key-origin-of-the-covid-virus/

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

https://nypost.com/2025/03/12/us-news/trump-aide-gives-inside-look-at-bidens-fake-oval-office/

Ok, so I'm beginning to think the fake Oval Office they had Biden was one of those "in-your-face" things the Left likes to do, e.g. drag queen opening ceremonies, pedo symbols on pizza parlors, Baal worshipping at bridge opening ceremonies or world fairs...

A fake president in a fake Oval Office. In your face. "This president is so fake, we built him a fake Oval Office!". I wonder if they even told Biden he was going into the fake Oval Office and not the real one? Do you think he even knew?

I bet when Joe Biden was signing stuff in his fake Oval office, they were fake documents, and in the meantime Valerie Jarrett was at the real Resolute Desk autopenning all those subversive EO's.

[BrotherMovesOn]

If the Germans think it was accidental, wouldn't that negligence mean that an action lays in tort?
So, monetary damages.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

As noted by a separate post, Purim is coming up.

The supposed origins of the holiday are discussed in the Book of Esther, which is a work of historical fiction. It is an entertaining (if somewhat sexist) tale that is often given a "safe for the kiddies" telling that tones down a few things.

"Purim" comes from a word arising from the practice of casting lots by the Haman (BOO! HISS!) to determine when to gain revenge.

The book is likely a sort of "just so" story that explains a practice that was already occurring. One popular Purim practice is getting so drunk that you can't tell who the hero of the story is.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/purim-origins/

[BrotherMovesOn]

"The supposed origins of the holiday are discussed in the Book of Esther, which is a work of historical fiction. It is an entertaining (if somewhat sexist) tale that is often given a "safe for the kiddies" telling that tones down a few things."

The Producers of the movie "Home for Purim" in 2006's For Your Consideration sure 'toned it down' to zero.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Another day, another set of absurd Democrat Judge decrees.

First, Biden Judge Anna Reyes is commanded the Secretary of Defense to declare transgender people can serve.

Second, Corrupt Democrat Judge Tanya Chutney ruled the DOGE employees must be doxed , I'm guessing, so that Leftists or Ukrainians can murder them like they did that Alex Jones fella.

So now we have a handful of Democrat judges pretty much running the Executive Branch.

[SRG2]

So now we have a handful of Democrat judges pretty much running the Executive Branch.

There are 6 Replican justices on the SC

[Kazinski]

February inflation report came out today, looks like good news across the board:

The consumer price index for both all-items and core increased 0.2% in February, slightly below expectations.

On an annual basis, headline inflation was at 2.8%, while core was at 3.1%. Both also were 0.1 percentage point below the Wall Street consensus and the previous month’s levels.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/12/cpi-inflation-report-february-2025.html

Is it too early for Trump to start claiming credit?

Its never too early:

“Today’s CPI report shows inflation is declining and the economy is moving in the right direction under President Trump. Core consumer prices, which is the best measure of inflation, dropped to its lowest level in FOUR years. This inflation report, much like last week’s jobs report, is far better than the media predicted and the so-called ‘experts’ expected. When will they learn to stop doubting President Trump? As he successfully did in his first term, President Trump is driving down costs through massive deregulation and energy dominance. The entire Trump Administration will continue to focus on fixing the economic and inflation nightmare created by the Biden-Harris Administration to unlock the Golden Age of America.” — Karoline Leavitt, White House Press Secretary

[attis]

Anyone have a good guess who the 4th vote on Chiles v. Salazar was? Tingley v. Ferguson had a dissent from Kav/Alito/Thomas, and I don't see why the liberals would grant cert.
The idea of the SCOTUS ruling for Skrmetti then Chiles in quick sucession sounds like an optics nightmare, so maybe that counts out Roberts, leaving Gorsuch/Barrett.

I would find it incredibly funny if Gorsuch writes the opinions that:
1) ban LGBT discrimination in employment (Bostock v. Clayton County)
2) allow businesses to refuse service to LGBT people (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis)
3) strike down all the blue state conversion therapy laws (Chiles v. Salazar)
Who knows, maybe even:
4) a dissent on United States v. Skrmetti or, in the most contrarian timeline, a concurrence/majority with the liberals and Barrett that establishes intermediate scrutiny for transgender status.

[Kazinski]

"allow businesses to refuse service to LGBT people"

That's not what 303 Creative held.

It held that business professionals could decline to use their creative efforts to create a message they disagreed with:

"In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance....But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is
Reversed"

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Gorsuch left open the issue of religious exemptions in Bostock so is a reasonable guess here since it has a mixture of free speech and religious liberty (talk of a Christian making choices etc.) issues.

Barrett can be an option. She plays the long game & might be okay now that the case won't be decided until next term. Not quite "quick succession" to decide things around a year apart.

[David Nieporent]

Putin reminding someone who's the boss and who's just the junior associate in the relationship: https://www.newsweek.com/russia-rejects-trump-temporary-ceasefire-ukraine-2044077

[ThePublius]

David, the nonsensical negative spin on anything and everything Trump and his administration does is tiring. You remind me of the father of the bride in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," who could trace any word to a Greek origin. It's almost comical.

This is a negotiation. Not every offer or proposal will be accepted. If your first offer is accepted, you offered too much!

Witkoff and company arrived in Moscow this morning to meet with Putin's team, perhaps Putin, and there might be a phone call between Putin and Trump. They are working towards a peace. Putin apparently rejected the 60 day cease fire because he wants a permanent solution.

Trump is working towards a cessation of hostilities and a peace. This is much more, and more progress in this direction than we've seen in the previous three years. We should applaud and encourage this.

[Absaroka]

Based on Trumps earlier comments, we can expect him to metaphorically hit Putin in the face with a 2x4. Because Trump is on record that that's how to deal with intransigent leaders of warring countries, right?

I wonder if it will be massive new sanctions on Russia, or Tomahawks for Ukraine, or what? But we can be confident that Putin will be sorry he messed with The Donald, because The Donald won't stand for that.

[grb]

Absaroka : " ...metaphorically hit Putin in the face with a 2x4...."

Nah. Bully-boy stuff like that is only for allies of this country, where Trump knows the reaction to his threats is constrained by the rules of alliance. He knows he can playact toughness with Denmark, Canada, Greenland, and - yes - Ukraine.

But with Putin? His eyelashes flutter, his voice turns into a high-pitched simper, and he pleads & cajoles like a love-struck tart. Hell, he couldn't even negotiate with the Taliban without going down on his knees first. Someone asked whether Trump would object to Russia redoubling attacks during negotiations. Well, the mullahs truck-bombed Bagram Air Base in the middle of talks and that didn't slow Trump's giveaway to the Taliban a bit. Concession after concession followed and the Taliban wasn't asked for anything in return. Here's what other world leaders know about Trump:

1. He's grotesquely stupid.
2. He only picks on people who can't fight back.
3. He has no discipline or strategy against an obstinate enemy.
4. Given he's satisfied by an empty treaty or words, he'll give away the store.
5. Give him a good day's headline & he's happy. He won't care about follow-thru.

Those facts explain Russia, China, Afghanistan, Panama, Denmark, Greenland, and Canada. The fact that Putin is Trump's Daddy is another further factor.

[David Nieporent]

They are working towards a peace. Putin apparently rejected the 60 day cease fire because he wants a permanent solution.

A final solution, one might almost say.

A yeoman's effort on your part, which might almost be convincing if it weren't for the fact that the Trump apologists explained just a few days ago that his efforts to force Ukraine to surrender didn't really count because a ceasefire was the necessary first step and then they could work towards a reasonable resolution.

[ThePublius]

Oh, so now you resort to invoking the Holocaust. Kind of a corollary to Godwin's Law.
Nice. And I'm supposed to take that seriously?

[ThePublius]

Donald Trump on Truth Social:

"The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S."

FAFO

If you like French wine you should run out now and load up.

[grb]

ThePublius : "If you like French wine you should run out now and load up"

Uh huh. And if you like your recession, get ready for the first one in ages induced solely by presidential bungling, incompetence, and economic illiteracy. And no doubt you'll mindlessly cheer it too!

[ThePublius]

One's attitude is something one chooses. Consciously or not. If you want to be miserable, go right ahead. I'm not.

[grb]

A lame retort like that offers the opportunity for questioning : Did you police these comments pre-Trump for meanie harshness? Do you police them now for Righties disturbing the Safe Space of the other side? Do you care that your orange-tinted Holy God is petty, mean, vicious, and cruel - or is "decorum" only for people below the office of president?

For that matter, per your "theory" above, is Trump miserable? Should he choose a new attitude?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There was a concerning past report about the uptick of threats to judges in the last few years. It put into some context Trump's continual pushing the envelope criticizing the judges on his cases.

It also helps explain Chief Justice Roberts's choice for his theme in the end-of-the-year report.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/12/politics/barrett-sister-bomb-threat/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judges-face-rise-threats-musk-blasts-them-over-rulings-2025-03-05/

[ThePublius]

Oh, you mean like when the assassin showed up at Brett Kavanaugh's house?

Or the Alaska man threatening 6 SCOTUS justices?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/19/politics/alaska-man-threatening-supreme-court-arrest/index.html

Suddenly you're concerned?

And, by the way, the bomb threat email to Coney Barrett's sister ended with "Free Palestine," hardly something you can pin on Trump. Virtually all of the violence, threats of violence, and vandalism come from the left.

(Your Reuters link is paywalled, BTW.)

[ThePublius]

"MSNBC justifies violence against Tesla as "a form of protest, NOT domestic terror""

"Tesla dealerships under attack are fiery but mostly peaceful."

To all of you Democrats, progressives, liberals - your side is violent! You kill, maim, vandalize, arson, in response to politics, policies, politicians you don't like. You are the baddies. Do you know that? Do you ever reflect on what is done in the name of the political side you take? Do you care? Are you secretly cheering this on?

I'd like to see some Molotov-cocktail wielding man-bun liberal prog radical shot down by an armed guard at a Tesla dealership. I really would. And, it's my understanding that it's perfectly legal to shoot an arsonist in the act. Maybe that would squelch this for a while.

[Estragon]

“I'd like to see … I really would”

When you fantasize about this scenario, how does it make you feel? Tingly? Warm and fuzzy? Dr.Ed, is that you?

[ThePublius]

None of the above. It's because I think it would be a deterrent to future vandalism, arson, shooting, and other violence. Deterrence works.

[Estragon]

So you sit around fantasizing about murder— but it’s more in sorrow than anger?

[ThePublius]

Shooting an arsonist in the act, to prevent the arson, is not murder!

[Estragon]

Intentional killing of another? When you are fantasizing about such things how would you prefer to refer to it?

[Estragon]

And you didn’t answer. How does it make you FEEL to imagine your political enemies murdered?

[ThePublius]

It's not political enemies, it's criminal arsonists. Don't you think there's a difference?

[Estragon]

You didn’t say criminal arsonist. You said “man-bun liberal prog radical”

[ThePublius]

You lie! I said "Molotov-cocktail wielding man-bun liberal prog radical." You truncated that when you quoted me, to lie.

[Estragon]

I guess I don’t understand this frantic spinning. You sit around fantasizing about “man-bun” liberals being shot outside Tesla dealerships. It’s OK! You went ahead and shared that with the class unprompted because you felt so strongly about it. Lots of your fellow travelers indulge in such frivolity. Why backtrack now?

Oh no, you protest! I only sit around fantasizing about CRIMINAL ARSONISTS being shot outside Tesla dealerships. I added “man-bun liberal prog radicals” in my personal fantasy for… uh… flavor!

[Estragon]

despite my inclusion of “man-bun liberal prog radicals” I assure you my murderous fantasizing is STRICTLY NONPARTISAN! I am not a crackpot!

[Estragon]

And you still seem unwilling to answer. When these fantasies play out in your head, how do you feel?

[grb]

ThePublius : " .... your side is violent!"

Why are you always such a clown? Newsflash: Both sides of this country's ideological divide are "mainly peaceful". Both sides have a handful of "supporters" (however nebulous) that aren't. I can produce a list of Rightist violence as long as my arm. You'll claim that doesn't reflect the Right even while you peddle the horseshit above. You're too disabled by brainless Cult obedience to notice the contradiction.

Here's a personal story which I suspect is common to many others: Whenever news breaks about some horrific act of political (or more likely, semipolitical) violence, I inwardly cringe while waiting to see if the perp was "my side" or not. Of course he's usually a mentally ill loon, but I still feel a rather sordid relief when he's the other side's responsibility - however tenuous the connection.

[ThePublius]

Yours is more of what the left does, is known for: attack the person. Why can't you stick to the issues instead of attacking me? Can you legitimately refute anything I said? Do you thin it's conservatives vandalizing, torching, shooting, and burning Teslas and dealerships and charging stations? Why are you guys so violent?

[grb]

Why bother? You ignored my points above just like you ignore all evidence or arguments that worry your pathetic Cult fantasy of a new Utopia. Let's try a question : Do you honestly think I can't match your list of "Left-wing violence" with an opposing list of "Right-wing violence". Are you so freak'n blind you contest that?

Instead you play victim, but that's inherent in being a Right-winger. There has NEVER been a U.S. political movement so obsessed with professional victimhood as today's Right.

[Magister]

The right doesn't wait to see which "side" is implicated. As soon as there's news of a mass shooting, they immediately amplify the first lie they come across that the perpetrator is trans, an immigrant, or whatever other their two minute hate* takes aim at. They latch on to any trivial fact that can be distorted into a left wing connection; "aha, loves Hitler, so therefore a socialist, of the national sort" or "hmm, quoted a Groucho line once seven years ago on social media, so therefore a marxist" or "I bet that random person is actually the shooter on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever!".

* 720 two minute hates per day, or maybe it's one 24 hour hate.

[Estragon]

A huckleberry play in two acts:

Act one

“your side is violent!”

Act two

“I'd like to see some […] liberal prog radical shot down. I really would.”

Et fin

[ThePublius]

So, shooting a Molotov-cocktail wielding radical who's about to toss that at a Tesla dealership makes "my side" violent? Are you kidding?

[Estragon]

Hey man— it’s your fantasy

[not guilty]

"I'd like to see some Molotov-cocktail wielding man-bun liberal prog radical shot down by an armed guard at a Tesla dealership. I really would. And, it's my understanding that it's perfectly legal to shoot an arsonist in the act. Maybe that would squelch this for a while."

Your understanding is incorrect. The right to use deadly force applies to defense of persons against a serious and imminent threat of serious bodily harm. The right to do so in defense of commercial property, absent a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to yourself or another person, is more circumscribed and varies from state to state.

Professor Volokh discussed the topic at some length here: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/06/02/are-people-allowed-to-use-deadly-force-to-defend-property/

[ThePublius]

"Did you know that American aid - just through USAID - amounted to 40%!!!! of Somalian GDP?"

Let that sink in. Time to end USAID.

https://x.com/willchamberlain/status/1900178903513088372

[grb]

OK. I let it sink in. So what? Somalian GDP is 10.97 billion (2023). It's a mess of a country with massive problems, so your triple-exclamation point means very little.

Let's talk soft-power. I hear a constant refrain from Left and Right worried about China's spreading influence around the world. That is almost always "soft power", which is a country trying to expand its impact and influence through good deeds, assistance and aid. It's what superpowers do - and we did it back when we were still Leader of the Free World.

Of course that was pre-Trump. Now our own friends think our word is meaningless. Everyone mistrusts us. Everyone thinks we stand for nothing more than crude shakedowns, thug hustles, and imbecilic threats. And since our country is now nothing more than a gangster regime on the make, it has no need of soft power. So the Right whines about China's spreading influence while sabotaging ours. All to impress people like you. How stupid is that?

Also : I was & am proud of the good my country did around the world. But that just means I'm not a Rightie. Zero-sum is hardwired into their tiny little brains & microscopic souls. They can't function without faux-rage over being "cheated" by everybody & everything. Preferably the "cheater" has dark skin. That really makes them faux-righteously faux-happy.

[ThePublius]

1. "so your triple-exclamation point means very little."
It wasn't my triple-exclamation point, I was quoting someone. Don't you understand that, what a quote is, what quotation marks mean?

2. Somalia can rot in their own filth for all I care, there's no U.S. interest there, and they've been in their pitiful position for decades, and won't help themselves, so who cares?

[grb]

1. Apologizes if I assumed you took ownership of the: !!!
2. I describe you to a tee above, didn't I?

Also, you again duck substance (as always). I'm curious : Are you concerned about the spread of Chinese influence around the world? Why do you think China has increased their aid & influence globally? Do you think Trump's childish bullying and huckster shakedowns have improved America's global influence or gutted it? Will Vladdy (dreamboat hunk in Trump's eyes) really be a good substitution for the NATO allies Trump insults and spurns?

PS : As David Nieporent notes below, your numbers are crudely false. But you're probably used to that sort of thing by now.

[David Nieporent]

1) It's not clear why that fact would be a reason to end USAID.

2) The claim is laughably false. (There's a community note now present on the tweet that explains.) It appears to have originally been based on an honest misunderstanding, but one only a utterly fucking innumerate person could make.¹ The moment I read it, it failed the "Only a really really gullible person could believe that" test. Somalia's GDP is roughly $11B. 40% of that is $4.4 billion. The entire USAID budget is only about $40 billion. USAID is not spending 10% of its budget on Somalia. Think for 30 seconds, people.
​
​
¹To be clear, the original mistake was not Will Chamberlain's. But he still passed it along uncritically, rather than having the above-room-temperature IQ required to say, "Hey, wait, that can't be true."

[grb]

Great. Now I feel embarrassed for not checking myself! With Trump or Musk it's automatic, but I guess every Right-wing talking point now has to be researched. They are so very much addicted to lies.

For the record :

"The United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, spent $369 million in Somalia in 2021, supporting everything from sanitation programs to emergency nutrition with funds channeled through government and non-governmental groups."

https://apnews.com/article/somalia-usaid-trump-internally-displaced-people-714b61139eea538201c6227bf491d914

[Bwaaah]

DMN: Good catch. A lot of your arguments and corrections are dead-on, and much more substantive than mere pedantry (despite my routine attacks on that basis). Thanks for your tireless effort; much of it is as sobering as it is correct (from my limited view).

[grb]

.

[ThePublius]

Putin agrees in principle with Ukraine ceasefire proposal but says more discussions needed

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that he agrees in principle with a U.S. proposal for a 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine, but he emphasized that the terms are yet to be worked out and noted that any truce should pave the way to lasting peace.

“The idea itself is correct, and we certainly support it,” Putin told a news conference in Moscow. “But there are issues that we need to discuss, and I think that we need to talk about it with our American colleagues and partners and, perhaps, have a call with President Trump and discuss it with him.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/putin-agrees-in-principle-with-ukraine-ceasefire-proposal-but-says-more-discussions-needed

[Absaroka]

Musk apparently retweeted 'Stalin, Mao and Hitler didn't murder millions of people. Their public sector workers did'.

That's disgusting. I remember taking Sarcastro to task a while back for calling ICE detainment facilities 'concentration camps'[1]. The Holocaust/Holomodor/etc just aren't things to joke or try to be clever about.

[1]to his credit, I think he agreed it was an inappropriate comparison.