Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

Been watching a very interesting TV show circa 1975 -- the original SWAT.

For all the violence -- bad guys die almost every show -- I am amazed at the disciplined restraint the cops use, and the extent of the discipline in the unit. And the extent it showed cops as functional humans, not robots and not psychopaths.

How society has changed i 50 years.

[Martinned2]

Low-level civil war going on for pretty much as long as the US has existed. The only thing that's changed is who is fighting who. And yet trying to explain that fact to Americans is like trying to explain "wet" to a fish.

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

It's not a civil war, it's a neo-Marxist slow burn revolution.

[EllaWilson]

Boasberg has been assigned to the lawsuit involving the Signal chat.

I did not vote for "judge" blowsberg.

[David Nieporent]

As a bot, you really didn't vote for anyone. (I hope.)

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

Is that neat how these controversial cases always land on these hyper partisan hack judges laps?

It's almost as if it's a coordinated resistance against Sacred Democracy.

[David Nieporent]

It's almost as if you just pre-label any judge who rules even in part against Trump as "hyper partisan," even though they're not.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

There are 15 ordinary serving judges in the DC District Court (and a handful more senior status judges). Most of the lawsuits being filed against Trump are in the DC District Court because of the organizations involved and because the lawsuits relate to the conduct of federal agencies. There are 68 lawsuits filed since January in D.D.C. against the Trump administration. On average, every active judge in that court will have 4.5 cases you're mad about in the last two months and if senior judges take full caseloads, on average judges will have about 2.2. Boasberg currently has 2.

Judge Kelly (Trump appointee) got the Corporation for Public Broadcasting case. McFadden (Trump appointee) got the AP / Gulf of America case and the Catholic Bishops / refugee case. Friedrich (Trump appointee) got the "stop IRS from sharing info with DHS" case. Nichols (Trump appointee) got the USAID contractors case. There are 6 other Republican appointees. One (Lamberth, Reagan appointee) got a trans prisoners case. Bates (GWB appointee) got the AFL-CIO case and the case where the doctors sued to keep information up on some website. Leon (GWB) got the USADF case.

I have not checked all 68 cases to see the exact assignment breakdown, but I think the argument you want to use is "liberals keep abusing our courts by suing everyone" not "it's a conspiracy if one judge got 2/68 cases filed in his court".

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, for that these days you'd need to watch:
NCIS (franchise of 6 shows)
or
Criminal Minds
or
CSI (franchise of 5 shows)
or
The Rookie
or
Law and Order (franchise of 7 shows)

[David Nieporent]

Or SWAT itself! They revived the show about 10 years ago.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not the same.

[Frank Drackman]

You're wound to tight, try "Barney Miller" or "Car 54 where are you?", which is worth it just for the theme song (and the great Fred Gwynne, Pre-Herman Munster"

"There's a holdup in the Bronx,
Brooklyn's broken out in fights;
There's a traffic jam in Harlem
That's backed up to Jackson Heights;
There's a Scout troop short a child,
Khrushchev's due at Idlewild;
Car 54, Where Are You?"
remember the one where Toody goes undercover as a Gangster

Frank

[Bwaaah]

I'm a fan of those shows and of Fred Gwynne. But that prick tried to cut in front of a line I was on at the Village Station Post Office in NYC in the eighties. I loudly advised him, "Excuse me sir. There's a line here." The post office worker behind the window clearly recognized him, but shrugged when he saw how many people had taken notice. Mr. Famous plied his acting skill as he turned to the line with a look of great surprise. But not to be so easily thwarted, he surveyed the rest of the line for looks of starstruckedness. He was undoubtedly disappointed to see a bunch of mere mortals who understand the purpose, and duties, of a line. He went to the back of the line, like the rest of us schnooks.

Herman Munster would never have cut in a line. Scared it away, for sure. But never cut.

[Frank Drackman]

Well, he took the Celestial Cut when J-hay dealt him the Big Casino a few years later, but let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we
are. They are different

[hobie]

The abundance of body cam videos available has been a PR boon for police. I have never seen any policeman act any other way except politely and professionally. Usually in the face of terrible abuse by the offenders

[Bwaaah]

It's much more difficult for the police to get away with the crap they used to get away with. But like you say, the rest of the world now gets to see what the offenders are like, and more broadly, what actually transpires during police/civilian interactions. Police typically show a level of discipline and restraint that is uncharacteristic of humans. Intellectually, I very much value that restraint. But emotionally, as I listen to a lot of the offenders, I so much want them to get a quick punch in the mouth. And if they don't shut up, another one. And another. And another...

Body cams are a great new factor in civilian policing. Much more of the truth comes out. Benjamin Crump, for example, is exposed as the deceptive opportunist that he always was.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, they tried to gin up riots over the Ma'Khia Bryant shooting, and releasing the badge cam footage of her trying to gut somebody like a trout before being shot really shut that down.

Only bad cops have anything to fear from badge cams.

[Sarcastr0]

They!

[hobie]

Brett's mind operates like a large dragnet, doesn't it

[damikesc]

He could cite Lebron James for one, if you'd like. He's an anonymous nobody that nobody has ever heard of.

Cop should have sued him.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"They!"

Sorry. "You!"

Sarcastro believes that the shooting was unnecessary, and the cops should have tackled her.

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

Sarcastr0 believes whatever he is told to believe.

Thats why he's forgotten his published stance on the topic. It's better for his braintenders when he doesn't remember his past expressed positions. He's more malleable that way and doesn't resist any contradictions.

[Kazinski]

Ok it was specifically LeBron James.

“On Wednesday, James, an Ohio native, tweeted a photo of a Columbus police officer who was on the scene of Ma’Khia’s shooting with the caption, “You’re next. #accountability.” CNN has not confirmed whether the officer pictured in the deleted tweet was the officer who fired shots at Ma’Khia.”

Kendi wasn’t really helpful either.
“People, including LeBron James or including others … I know many people feel as though they did not witness police work,” said Ibram X. Kendi, author of “How to Be an Antiracist” and director of Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research, in a Thursday appearance on CNN’s “New Day.”

Nor did CNN seem to adequately characterize what happened:

“The fatal shooting devastated and outraged many demonstrators who’ve protested police killings of Black Americans and other people of color, particularly because, according to bodycam footage, the officers who responded didn’t appear to de-escalate the situation and fired on Ma’Khia, a teenager, while she was holding a knife.”

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/22/us/lebron-james-makhia-bryant-tweet-trnd/index.html

Did that help narrow it down a little the “they” Brett was talking about?

[Sarcastr0]

They was the NBA?

[TwelveInchPianist]

They was you!

[Kazinski]

I don't see the letters NBA anywhere in my comment.

I did say "Ok it was specifically LeBron James."

So lets just assume, at least for now, theys pronouns are they, they, they.

[grb]

Jame’s comment was offensive & stupid, a conclusion reached by LeBron himself, who quickly apologized for it. In a career stretching from his teens to his forties, the man has had every action, statement, and position under relentless scrutiny pretty much his entire life.

In that period he’s said 1-3 stupid things (depending on your standard), while otherwise being a responsible professional, excellent teammate, faithful husband to his youthful sweetheart, and proud doting father. Plus (for the record) being one of the top three all-time greatest in his sport and better at what he does than you’ll ever be at anything.

I was sour on him after the bloated “decision” thing, but came around. I started watching b-ball at the end of Chamberlain’s career, and then continued with Kareem, Bird, Johnson, and Jordan. To not appreciate LeBron is equivalent to ignoring a glorious work of art.

Sure he said something dumb a few times over multiple decades, but what of it? You say more stupid offensive things each & every week, Kazinski….

[Kazinski]

Oh, I got no problem with LeBron being an idiot sometimes, because he's a basketball player. Same as I don't care what Musicians, Singers,and Actors think.

Why should I? They don't care what I think either.

But LeBron's tweet could definitely be construed as a threat, or an incitement, so it did seem to answer Sarcastro's request for specifics.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

YouTube is chock-full of videos of cops continuing to do stupid things in spite of knowing that they're on Candid Camera, often their own.

[David Nieporent]

I am amazed at the disciplined restraint the cops use, and the extent of the discipline in the unit. And the extent it showed cops as functional humans, not robots and not psychopaths.

Copaganda has always existed and continues to exist.

[Sarcastr0]

My guilty pleasure was NCIS: Los Angeles. More an action show than a cop show. No privacy laws need apply.

Paper thin plots and characters so it can mainline the ridiculousness.

[Martinned2]

An Australian friend of mine (ex-Australian foreign ministry) is deliriously delighted by NCIS: Sydney. I think it would probably rot my brain, so I haven't seen it myself, but whenever I talk to her she's laughing about all the weird ways that show explains why there are US navy cops running around Australia.

[Sarcastr0]

It has got to be a trip being the legalish mumbo-jumbo advisor on those shows.

[Bwaaah]

DMN: "Copaganda has always existed and continues to exist."

But now, with body cams, your bullshit that "there's no such thing as resisting arrest" is laid bare. I suspect your absurd angle must have something to do with your profession and how you make money.

[David Nieporent]

I am quite confident that I have never said that there’s no such thing as resisting arrest, at least without a lot of other words around it that make it say something very different. (I deem it very likely that I’ve said something like resisting arrest being pretty much always a bullshit charge when cops don’t have a real crime to charge.)

Whatever your bizarre suspicions, I am not a criminal defense lawyer and I’ve never brought a claim against police either, so your notions about my alleged absurd angle are mistaken.

And none of this has anything to do with my comment about copaganda.

[Bwaaah]

I [sincerely] appreciate your clarification. I accept it. I don’t have a direct quote, but it was startling to me at the time. It may have been closer to, “resisting arrest is a charge made up by police.” That would square with what you say. Regrettably, you said it without further qualification (perhaps as a brief snipe in response to my expressed sympathy to police at the time?).

I have doubts, especially having seen so many bodycam videos, about your assertion here that resisting arrest “is pretty much always a bullshit charge when cops don’t have a real crime to charge.” For mere reasonable cause to “investigate” a possible crime, many [incorrigible] people escalate to physical aggression that leads to detention and cuffing, and ultimately, resisting arrest is their only crime. I believe most such cases are ultimately dropped without prosecution, but the “resisting arrest” charges are quite applicable. Police and the subjects of such arrests often get injured as a result of needless aggression on the part of subjects who are merely incidental to an investigation.

There are a lot of angry, angry people out there, and quite a few with outstanding warrants. Reasonable policing turns into an altercation, and not usually by escalation from the police.

Body cams seems to show us this. And in the same way, body cams should be an invaluable tool for people who seek damage awards for wrongful arrest. Alas, the videos routinely show how the interactions turn into justifiable arrests.

[David Nieporent]

I believe most such cases are ultimately dropped without prosecution,

And why do you think that is? Because the prosecutors know how bs they are. (If the person actually did something violent, they're going to be charged with assaulting a police officer.) The point of the charge is — as they say — "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

(My favorite is when people are charged with passively resisting arrest, for things like going limp when the police are making an arrest. That's the cherry on top of the bullshit sundae.)

Just to be clear: I think body cams are great, and do protect police officers from false accusations. Except of course when they mysteriously malfunction or the cops forget to turn them on. But they also reveal plenty of times when the cop (at a minimum) needlessly escalated the situation, because they're engaged in "Respect my authoritah!"

[Bwaaah]

Fair. Thanks.

[Commenter_XY]

David, are bodycams propaganda for cops? Or is it an objective recording of an interaction?

[Bwaaah]

That was just a dose of Davaganda. He has an anti-cop thing going on...a reminder of some of his severely entrenched positions.

It's nice to have emerged from the insanity of the 2020 Summer of Love, and to be able to defend civilian policing without being called a "cop lover" (as I was in VC discussions). That was just the cop haters having their moment of pride in daylight. The cop haters haven't gone a way. They've just retreated to their dark haunts, only to be fleshed out for what they are by body cams.

"Back off, pig! You have no right to ask me for identification!" That would be defensible as long as you can't know what the asshole actually did a moment before that. There have always been enough troublemakers in the world that only a few asshole cops could be bothered to go after the non-troublemakers. (Still, cops have always been guilty of silence regarding wrongdoings of their brethren. I have little reason to believe that has changed.)

"It's open season on Black people," they said. ("They" are people like Sarc who silently let that bullshit fly.) The video evidence may not be complete, but at least it doesn't lie.

[David Nieporent]

David, are bodycams propaganda for cops?

What? What possible reading of my comment would get you there? I didn't say anything about body cams. My comment was about a tv show that Dr. Ed was talking about.

[Bwaaah]

I apologize for having misunderstood you. I mistook your remark as having been about body cams and not Dr. Ed's post about TV shows. (I think C_XY similarly misunderstood.)

[Frank Drackman]

So call the ACLU when Haiti’s best and blackest eat your Cat

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Copaganda has always existed and continues to exist.

You mean like, "Hands up! Don’t Shoot!!!"?

Oh, wait....

[shawn_dude]

And now this has been replaced by shows written around a tough, macho protagonist who has to go around the broken legal system and enforce "justice" on his own terms using guns.

If we're going to debate which type of propaganda is less evil, I'd say "all cops are good and ethical" is marginally better because it at least upholds a system of laws and pretends the justice system has value.

[not guilty]

In the Alien Enemies Act case, the government has now formally asserted the state secrets privilege, declining even to present supporting evidence to the Court ex parte and in camera. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.56.0.pdf The defendants have supported this assertion with declarations from the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, all of which are conclusory, chock full of ipse dixit assertions and remarkably devoid of facts specific to this case. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#minute-entry-419399702

The Court has ordered that if Plaintiffs wish to respond, they shall file any Response by March 31, 2025.

This matter appears to be headed for findings of civil contempt as to the various cabinet officials.

[Commenter_XY]

One can be incarcerated for civil contempt, NG. I learned early in life; never, ever F with a judge. And I never have, lol.

What the likelihood of:

Judge does not act on civil contempt
Judge fines/sanctions attys for civil contempt
Judge imprisons attys for civil contempt

[not guilty]

I think that is entirely dependent on where the Defendants go from here. The assertion of the state secrets privilege is farcical. The prudent thing would be to produce the requested information ex parte and in camera for Judge Boasberg's inspection.

I doubt that the attorneys will be sanctioned for contempt -- they are not calling the shots -- but jailing one or more cabinet officers until the attorneys comply to the Court's satisfaction would not surprise me.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Which cabinet officers have committed contempt? What have they done, or failed to do?

What will happen if Boasberg orders cabinet officers jailed, they refuse to surrender, and Trump continues in defiance of the court?

[not guilty]

"Which cabinet officers have committed contempt? What have they done, or failed to do?"

The Attorney General, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security each submitted a sham declaration in support of the government's bogus assertion of the state secrets privilege, in order to frustrate compliance with the District Court's order to furnish information.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.56.1.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.56.2.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.56.3.pdf

[Stephen Lathrop]

I like Rubio's statement. The part where he says that even if everyone knows in detail what happened, it remains desperately important to the security of the United States that the court cannot officially connect him to the deportations. That part is precious.

[Kazinski]

Nobody is going to jail.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Why not? Defiance? You on board with defiance?

[Kazinski]

You're the one talking about millions in the streets.

I said a month or so ago, that I thought it was the Presidents duty to disobey laws he thinks are unconstitutional until a competent court has ruled on the issue.

I don't see why the calculus changes much when its district court judges usurping the constitutional powers of the President.

And for the record I don't think Trump is going to prevail in some of these cases, like using the alien enemies act with no notice or due process. But that doesn't mean Boasberg has authority to turn planes around after they've landed. It also doesn't mean those already removed have any remedy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So defiance. Good to know.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cue "For What It's Worth".

[Martinned2]

I thought it was the Presidents duty to disobey laws he thinks are unconstitutional until a competent court has ruled on the issue.

Most of the things Trump is doing have already been ruled unconstitutional by a competent court. (Usually the Supreme Court.)

I don't see why the calculus changes much when its district court judges usurping the constitutional powers of the President.

Wait, so you're saying that the District Court isn't "a competent court"? How do you figure?

[Magister]

The only competent court is one that rules for Trump. Duh. Same standard as for election victories.

[Kazinski]

Well certainly not the firings of the OSC, the NLRB and others. Excluding transgender service members with special medical needs, etc.

District courts are not a competent court to issue a nationwide TRO providing relief to non-parties, and certainly not without a likelyhood of prevailing on the merits, or when money damages can make the petitioners whole.

And its hardly just my idiosyncratic view:

WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr said on Tuesday that district court judges who have put a stop to dozens of President Trump’s policies illustrate the extent to which the judiciary has amassed power far beyond its constitutional authority rather than how the administration has violated the law.

“Some say this proves that the Trump administration is lawless,” Mr. Barr said in a speech on Tuesday evening to the American Law Institute. “Not surprisingly, I disagree.”

Pointing to the broad use of nationwide injunctions, in which local cases are used to block nationwide policies, Mr. Barr said that the courts have undermined executive authority. The injunctions have also thrust the judicial branch into the political process and encouraged plaintiffs with strong political leanings to bring lawsuits just to frustrate the work of the president, Congress and even other district judges, he said.

“If we consider how things ought to work, it is perverse,” Mr. Barr said. “Rather than an orderly pattern of litigation in which the government loses some cases and wins others, with issues percolating their way through the appellate courts, we have an interdistrict battle fought with all-or-nothing injunctions.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/us/politics/barr-nationwide-injunctions.html

[Sarcastr0]

Even were you right about the President having a duty of nullification, Trump isn't checking into what is legal, he's just doing what he wants.

And you come up behind trying vainly to scoop up his lawless shittery and sell it as fidelity.

[grb]

Kazinski : “… I thought it was the Presidents duty to disobey laws he thinks are unconstitutional …”

No doubt you thought it was Trump’s duty to disobey voters when they didn’t reelect him. Or Trump’s duty to disobey ethical rules preventing a big take. Or Trump’s duty to ignore reality itself when in the way of this minute’s lie.

No doubt you have a very lenient view of Trump’s “duty”.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, fwiw, I think the state secrets assertion by the DOJ is BS also. The DOJ is twisting the tail of Boasberg, who allegedly retains his clearance to see secret materials from his time on the FISA court (which I also think needs much examination).

Jailing a Cabinet officer for civil contempt. Sounds extreme. Has this ever happened before?

[tylertusta]

The ironic thing is that the court already screwed up once in the release of the 3/15 closed hearing transcript.

And we're all supposed to accept at face value that Boasberg can pinky promise to not release/leak anything and it will stay secret? Please.

[David Nieporent]

What are you talking about? What "closed hearing transcript"? The 3/15 hearing was an open hearing.

[tylertusta]

Except for that half hour period where the judge closed it right in the middle of it only to go back into open hearing afterwards.

[windycityattorney]

I thought the Judge closed it for a half hr so the DOJ could find out if any planes carrying people subject to the Proclamation had left Texas yet and the DOJ came back on the record and said “We don’t know.” It was part of the procedural history section of the Court’s ruling granting the TRO yesterday.

[David Nieporent]

Do you mean the part where they explicitly addressed it and everyone agreed there was nothing that needed to be closed?

THE COURT: All right. Let's reconnect the public
line.
THE COURT REPORTER: Your Honor, is the in camera
portion of the hearing under seal?
THE COURT: I trust not, Mr. Ensign, since we didn't hear anything. Any reason we need to put that under seal, Mr. Ensign?
MR. ENSIGN: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. So no, Tammy.

("Mr. Ensign" is the DOJ lawyer.)

[grb]

So you're proving tylertusta is completely full of shit ?!?

Who (besides everyone) could have ever guessed that?

[tylertusta]

Yes, my information was incorrect.

[grb]

Gracefully conceded! Granted, I'm very, very seldom wrong, but openly 'fess to it much less frequently still. It's good for the soul to admit a mistake, however small.

[tylertusta]

I have the same philosophy: when I'm wrong, I'll own it.

It's something I wish a few people here would do. Usually they just pull up stakes and ghost the convo.

[David Nieporent]

Boasberg does not retain a clearance as a result of his time on the FISA court. Boasberg does not need a clearance in order to access classified information because he is a federal judge, and federal judges are entitled to the information as part of their job under 50 U.S.C. § 3163.

[damikesc]

Should he try it, the courts will see the level of their power when Trump decides to ignore all of them save SCOTUS. He will also send Marshalls to remove the cabinet official.

[Magister]

The courts will certainly counter with a competing department store chain in response to such an outrageous and unlikely event.

[tylertusta]

I think it's highly unlikely that SCOTUS will sit back here and let a district court jail cabinet officials:

1) for a state secrets dispute over information that arguably falls within the privilege
2) in a case that the judge will be found to not have jurisdiction
3) when the judge has enough information already and seems to be on a fishing expedition
4) in a case that's probably going to be moot soon
5) in a case where the DCCA has even odds at ordering dismissal or reassignment to another judge

[David Nieporent]

1) for a state secrets dispute over information that arguably falls within the privilege

Arguably? What's the argument?

[tylertusta]

Disclosure of the information requested by the Court “could cause the foreign State’s government to face internal or international pressure, making that foreign State and other foreign States less likely to work cooperatively with the United States in the future, both within and without the removal context.” Such disclosure would be viewed as a “breach of the trust on which our foreign relationships are based,” and would “impair[] the foreign relations and diplomatic capabilities of the United States.”

...

Moreover, the Secretary of Homeland Security has established that responding to the Court’s inquiries would “directly compromise[] the safety of American officers, contractors, aliens, and the American public” by, for example, divulging “critical means and methods of law enforcement operations,” “confirming alleged operational details [that] would cause significant harm to the national security of the United States,” and “undermin[ing] the efficacy of American counterterrorism operations.”

...

Disclosure “would allow others to draw inferences and insight into how future, similar governmental operations will be conducted, and to use that information in a manner adverse to U.S. national security,” thereby enabling “enemies of our national security … to stitch together an understanding of the means and methods used to thwart their unlawful and sometimes violent conduct.”

(Citations omitted)

[windycityattorney]

They publicly shared a video of the prison itself where the detainees were transferred to. The information itself is not classified and Pam Bondi has spoken publicly about it on Fox News; Tom Homan has spoken publicly about it; Marco Rubio has spoken publicly about it and Trump posted about the 6million dollar deal to send detainees there publicly on his truth social account.

Everybody already knows the detainees went to CECOT prison in El Salvador due to the US GOVT paying Bukele 6million dollars to detain them and the US Govt publicly sharing videos of the detainees being transferred there in shackles and getting their head shaved as they were being processed in.

Might be a bit late to argue 'it's secret' after all that public disclosure. Don't be obtuse.

[tylertusta]

Everybody already knows the detainees went to...

Would you still say this if they didn't actually go there?

Might be a bit late to argue ‘it’s secret’ after all that public disclosure.

Did the government publicly release operational details as to the locations of flights, including exact positional information at precise moments?

[MusicAfter Midnight]

"Did the government publicly release operational details as to the locations of flights, including exact positional information at precise moments?"

Don't know, I don't read the Atlantic.

[tylertusta]

Hahaha! Nice one.

[David Nieporent]

Let's suppose they did. Were these military flights? Were their locations secret at any point in time, let alone a week or two after the fact? Were we worried that the Venezuelan Air Force was going to intercept the flights? Are you purposely being stupid or just bullshitting here?

[Magister]

Are you purposely being stupid or just bullshitting here?

Hmm, tylertusta ... probably both, then.

[tylertusta]

The fact that you're asking those questions means that it's arguably covered under the state secret privilege.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Question: Can they require Boasberg to get a security clearance?
And wisdom aside, if he leaks it, can Bondi send the FBI into his court to arrest him?

The logistics of Military Aircraft absolutely is national security info.

[windycityattorney]

They should include Boasberg on their next classified group chat.

[Frank Drackman]

Well played, now don't put that quarter in your pocket

[Zarniwoop]

Sounds like they should just invite the judge to a group chat on Signal.

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

I'm sure the CIA can manage that, after all they've recently demonstrated they can.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

"The logistics of Military Aircraft absolutely is national security info."

Not according to Tulsi.

[Bob from Ohio]

"jailing one or more cabinet officers"

Keep hope alive!

[A Japanese Student]

I think a ruling establishing a true plaintiff's facts - and in the extreme cases, default judgment - better resolves the dispute. Imprisoning DOJ attorney does not help the plaintiffs, and an order of imprisonment in a case where the very issue is the deprivation of personal liberties does nothing but contribute to the loss of legitimacy the judicial branch must preserve.

[Bored Lawyer]

"One can be incarcerated for civil contempt"

It's important to keep in mind the difference between civil and criminal contempt. Criminal contempt is punitive -- you are being punished for violating a Court order. Generally one is entitled to a jury trial for that, unless it's done in the Court's presence.

Civil contempt is "remedial." This means it can have only one of two purposes: (1) to coerce compliance with an order or (2) to compensate a party who has been damaged by a violation of an order.

A judge cannot use civil contempt to punish someone for disobeying an order. What he can do is threaten to fine or jail them until they comply. In the case of jail, there is an old expression that "the prisoner holds the keys to his jail cell." Meaning, any time the prisoner says, "Ok, I will comply," he must be let out.

OTOH, the pardon power does not apply to civil contempts as it does to criminal ones.

How any of this applies to the current litigations remains to be seen. But wanted to clarify the parameters of each law.

[shawn_dude]

Add: Judge imprisons attys for civil contempt
a. and they ignore it
or
b. Trump immediately pardons them

[not guilty]

The pardon power does not apply to civil contempt.

[Bored Lawyer]

As I said above. OTOH, it can't be punitive. It has to have some way to get out of jail by complying with some order.

[not guilty]

That's true. Judge Boasberg could lock someone up until the defense fully complies with his order originally entered on March 17 regarding the information about the March 15 flights. He could also order monetary sanctions which increase each day until full compliance occurs.

[Kazinski]

Contempt for what?

Failure to provide the flight logs?

It can't be for failure to turn the planes around because no injunction was issued until the next day.
"If an injunction is not recorded in writing then a defendent is under no judicial compulsion."
Landmark Legal v EPA

As Judge Easterbrook has written, "Oral Statements are not Injunctions".

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1904725826135863509?t=u2T4ZqpcbM_iz9YWI9nBZA&s=19

[Sarcastr0]

The Federalists' legal correspondent seems to be pettifogging here.

States secrets doesn't seem supportable.

I predicted it (getting the name wrong), but only because it was the stupidest idea possible.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/03/21/friday-open-thread-12/?comments=true#comment-10969654

[David Nieporent]

This was a TRO, not an injunction. And neither of the cases you cite from the joke Margot Cleveland, parroting the administration's arguments, represent controlling law.

[tylertusta]

A TRO is an injunction.

What is the controlling law here?

[Voize of Reazon]

Some contrary if not controlling law is Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F. 3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 1999) (referencing Henry v. Sneiders, 490 F.2d 315 (9th Cir.1974)) which explains that

mechanical application of the separate document requirement of Rule 58 only concerns dispositive orders, from which a party must timely file a notice of appeal. As Henry makes clear, an oral minute order, noted in the clerk's docket, can serve as the basis for a sanction for noncompliance when the parties have knowledge of the order's contents.

The precedent the government is citing is Rule 58-based.

[tylertusta]

How is the 9th Circuit going one way controlling on the DC district courts and a 7th Circuit opinion going the other way not? My understanding is that neither actually controls.

Doesn’t a fellow district court judge’s decision in a prior case provide guidance (albeit not precedential) for other judges in that come across similar situations?

More importantly, what does the DC Cicuit or Supreme Court say for this?

[Kazinski]

That was the actual filing of the DOJ's argument to the court.

If that's not good enough for you fine, but its what Boasberg is reading, and is part of the record, when its appealed.

[Sarcastr0]

So you no longer stand by the argument.

Well, that was quick.

[Kazinski]

What do you mean, not stand by it?

I think its correct, I just made sure that the source was clear, since DN seemed to be unclear about that. I don't think that is ambiguous at all.

As a practical matter an order from the court has to be in writing especially in a case like this where the Attorney arguing the case and hears the judges words is not the one who has to comply.

So at the Pentagon or the Whitehouse, or Homeland security, they get word the judge said 'turn the planes around', then they ask will what did the judge actually say, does he know where the planes are now? Do we know whether they will have to refuel? Does the judge know if they will have to stop to refuel? And about 50 other questions they may have, that might not be answerable without examining the actual written order.

[Sarcastr0]

Your original posture was adopting the argument, as made via the Federalist.

Upon pushback, you’re all ‘its what Boasberg is reading, and is part of the record.’

[Kazinski]

My current posture is exactly the same as my original posture, I agree with the that portion of the brief, which is the only part I've read.

I don't see anywhere above where I am backing away from anything.

My point about its what the Judge is reading is that the argument is directly before him, not some rando interjecting their own take on the issue that the court will never see.

[David Nieporent]

they get word the judge said ‘turn the planes around’, then they ask will what did the judge actually say, does he know where the planes are now? Do we know whether they will have to refuel? Does the judge know if they will have to stop to refuel? And about 50 other questions they may have, that might not be answerable without examining the actual written order.

Why would the DOJ lawyer lie to his clients? That's not what the judge said, as I've pointed out multiple times. He said to return the people to the U.S., however you have to do it. "So, Mr. Ensign, the first point is that I -- that you shall inform your clients of this immediately, and that any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States, but those people need to be returned to the United States. However that's accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the plane or those people covered by this on the plane, I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately."

[Kazinski]

So the DOJ attorney is supposed to memorize that verbal orders, and make sure he convey them to his bosses at the DOJ, and have them pass on the order to Homeland Security the Whitehouse for immediate action Saturday evening?

Sorry, that's why TRO's have to be in writing.

[David Nieporent]

I hear that sometimes lawyers have to memorize cases, and rules of evidence, and everything! Can you get any more pathetic than this, Kaziniski?

[Kazinski]

Of course Lawyers have too memorize lots of stuff, case cotes, names, facts, rules, etc.

Very few people, lawyers included, can memorize whole paragraphs verbatim on first hearing.

You are being ridiculous.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

This was a TRO, not an injunction.

Isn't that a bit like saying, "This is a sofa, not a piece of furniture"?

[David Nieporent]

Well, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 is entitled "Injunctions and restraining orders." Do you think that's "Pieces of furniture and sofas"?

Do you think the fact that 65(a) is entitled "Preliminary Injunction," and 65(b) is entitled "Temporary Restraining Order," is just a scriveners error and that they're really identical, legally?

[Kazinski]

Elizabeth Price Foley in the WSJ points out:

"Rule 65 authorizes district courts to issue preliminary injunctions but is silent as to whether they have nationwide effect or apply only to parties before the court. This ambiguity can be eliminated by an amendment to Rule 65, without the need for new legislation."

She also points out that the Supreme Court can modify rule 65 on its own authority under the Rule Enabling Act of 1934. Although it wouldn't take effect until December.

Of course the court can also rule on its own to eliminate the ambiguity and make it clear that relief is limited to the actual parties. There is nothing in the rule that permits nationwide Injunctions.

[Noscitur a sociis]

She also points out that the Supreme Court can modify rule 65 on its own authority under the Rule Enabling Act of 1934. Although it wouldn’t take effect until December.

That’s almost certainly not true, given 28 U.S.C. 2072(b).

[Kazinski]

Which part isn't true?

Maybe the part where she claimed they'd have to wait until December for the new rules take effect.

"28 U.S. Code § 2072 - Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe

(a)The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals.
(b)Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.
(c)Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291 of this title."

Thats a pretty sweeping delegation of power.

[John F. Carr]

Civil contempt for failing to produce information required by the court. The judge wants to know if his order was obeyed. A judge can issue binding orders in a case where the court ultimately has no jurisdiction. It would not be legally inconsistent for the end result to be (1) the court lacks jurisdiction to review the deportations in question, but (2) the court can throw people in jail for not turning the planes around. It is also possible that (1) the government technically complied with the order, but (2) some people go to jail for being evasive instead of telling the truth.

[tylertusta]

Slight nitpick: There are two contempts on the table.

The first is the civil contempt for not providing information for the judge.

The second is criminal contempt on whether the judge's TROs were followed. The judge says he needs information related to the former to determine the latter.

[Thought about __ all my life]

You illustrate why they do that. You don't say the Alien Enemies Act is bad, you don't say the privilege can never be asserted, you don't say that legally they have to supply ex parte and in camera , etc.
You basically say 'me no like it'

[hobie]

States secrets, eh? Funny

[EllaWilson]

I did not vote for "judge" boasberg.

[BBSquatter]

Or as the biggest fraud of them all once stated:

"elections have consequences"
- Michelle Obama's beard

[Riva]

“Devoid of facts specific to the case”? You mean state secrets? The appropriate next step is Boasberg’s impeachment hearing.

[windycityattorney]

The state secret's that up until yesterday the US GOVT shared publicly from their social media accounts, spoke about on Fox News and other media outlets and acknowledged from the podium in presidential briefings?? Those 'secrets?'

Here's the transfer to CECOT on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvgHC1tuY7o <0-----This secret? Pretty sure you would be able to identify at least one of the secret detainees getting their head shaved.

[Brett Bellmore]

Huh. I'd have assumed the state secret was something like how they'd identified them as gang members. Since, you know, that's the sort of thing which could actually cause trouble for catching the next batch, if exposed.

[John F. Carr]

The D.C. Circuit just denied the government's request for a stay of the TRO pending appeal. The vote was 2-1. There are many unnecessary words following the per curiam order. Basically, two judges thought the government would lose on the merits and one thought the government would win. Judge Henderson recommended that the TRO be modified to exclude the President, who by longstanding custom is not subject to injunctions.

https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2025/03/25-5067.FINAL.2.pdf

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link. Oral argument in this matter was held the day before yesterday. It is encouraging that the Court of Appeals did not tarry long in rejecting Trump's bullshit.

[windycityattorney]

not guilty: appellate court denies govt emergency motion for stay

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41844/gov.uscourts.cadc.41844.01208724047.0_3.pdf

Link to DC Circuit opinion(s) Looks like 2-1. Dissenter says they should have filed habeas petition in Texas.

[not guilty]

Two appellate judges found that the temporary restraining order is appealable. One of these two ruled against the stay on the merits; the other would have granted the stay. The remaining judge on the panel opined that the TRO was not appealable but on the merits agreed that a stay is not warranted here.

So the ruling is 2-1 as to appellate jurisdiction and a different 2-1 lineup on the merits.

I note that even though the government claims that the only appropriate venue is the Southern District of Texas, it does not appear from the docket sheet that the government moved the District Court to transfer the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#minute-entry-419399702

[John F. Carr]

Why should the government request transfer? 28 USC 1406(a) makes dismissal the presumptive remedy. The judge has the option to transfer "in the interest of justice". It's the plaintiff (petitioner) who should be requesting transfer if venue is found to be improper in D.C.

[David Nieporent]

But venue wasn't found to be improper, so I'm not sure what your point is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was a reporter once, and what is not being said about the Signal mess is that if a source high up in the university admin was to have included me in some top level confidential discussion, I would have called that person and said "do you know what I am receiving"?

It's an honor thing -- a "you look out for me and I look out for you" and the flip side is being told to check something "a little bit more carefully" -- i.e. you really want to.

But what is the law on getting top secret stuff sent to you accidentally? Is it the same thing as with IP that is accidentally sent, that you can't use it?

And for what it is worth, I still think that either (a) they wanted to see what the reporter would do or (b) someone in the Biden admin left a bug to do something nefarious like this.

[santamonica811]

Ha ha ha. Rarely have you been more full of shit. And that's saying a lot. To blame this clusterfuck on Biden is priceless. And, if you can't blame it on Biden, to then spin it as being done intentionally by Trump's team of BRILLIANT minds . . . as, I guess, some sort of honeypot. But of all your recent whores that you've been churning out, well, this one is impressive.

I suspect that, among the MAGA Trump supporters--even the ones with TDS--there will be a lot of them who will sheepishly say, "Yeah, this was embarrassing." Or something like, "This was not as awful as the media are reporting it. But it was bad, and we're not gonna put lipstick on a pig." People who want to post here with some level of integrity and credibility and self-respect.

But whores gotta whore, and so we'll also see those other people who must reflexively defend Trump on anything and everything, and therefore insist on dying on this particular hill as well. Fish gotta swim, and birds gotta fly . . . .

[Dr. Ed 2]

Biden's folk used Signal.

[Sarcastr0]

How do you know? Did they include you in a chat?

[Martinned2]

It's a good thing then that the NSA warned everyone a month ago to stop using Signal:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nsa-signal-app-vulnerabilities-before-houthi-strike-chat/

[Absaroka]

Your characterization is incorrect. The (apparent) NSA documents are here.

They don't say to not use Signal; it is still one of the more secure ways to talk/chat on vanilla phones. They do point out that it is vulnerable to the underlying device being compromised, which is why you don't use it for highly sensitive data like details of imminent attacks.

[damikesc]

Except no such details were issued on the app. At all.

Nothing remotely classified. Nothing remotely controversial.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Is this sarcasm? Hegseth posted “information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.” John Ratcliffe posted the name of an active intelligence officer.

[Magister]

There's nothing controversial? Weird that it's most of the top results for a search for Trump administration controversy.

[David Nieporent]

They in fact do say not to use Signal for anything other than unclassified accountability/recall exercises. They expressly say not to use it for even unclassified information that's nonpublic. Let alone classified information!

[ThePublius]

"Adopt a free messaging application for secure communications that guarantees end-to-end encryption, such as Signal or similar apps," the guidance states. "CISA recommends an end-to-end encrypted messaging app that is compatible with both iPhone and Android operating systems, allowing for text message interoperability across platforms. Such apps may also offer clients for MacOS, Windows, and Linux, and sometimes the web. These apps typically support one-on-one text chats, group chats with up to 1,000 participants, and encrypted voice and video calls. Additionally, they may include features like disappearing messages and images, which can enhance privacy."

[David Nieporent]

Yes, for things that it's appropriate to put in unsecured media, Signal is fine.

[David Nieporent]

Ha ha ha. Rarely have you been more full of shit.

No, no, he's a high school teacher, and a college professor, and a lawyer, and a journalist, and a dessert topping, and a floor wax.

[Ridgeway]

You should see him core a apple

[Martinned2]

But what is the law on getting top secret stuff sent to you accidentally?

For someone who spent years obsessing about Hillary's emails, you've suddenly become very ignorant about things you were very confident about only a few weeks ago.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't recall Hillary's emails going to third parties.

[Martinned2]

Me neither, yet I do recall a solid decade of you and other Trumpists frothing at the mouth about them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

About the 3rd parties they went to?

[David Bremer]

About the 3rd parties they went to?

No, you idiot, about the potential that a third party could get them.

Here, they one-upped Hillary by actually sending them to the third party. And you act like it’s no no big deal.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : “I don’t recall Hillary’s emails going to third parties”

A reminder:

1. The Hillary email controversy wasn’t based on her using private email or the server itself. That wasn’t illegal. All the investigations were based on email thought to be unclassified by the sender but later upgraded to classified by subsequent review.

2. Excepting a handful (less than five) of instances, these were emails sent to Hillary on standard .gov State Department email not rated for secure traffic. Per all the hysterical wailing about Ms Clinton, every other sender & recipient should have faced jail time too. But somehow that never occurred to her critics.

3. But no one – repeat nobody – has ever faced jail time for a honest mistake on whether something requires classification or not. And Clinton – as well as Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice – all objected to many of the retroactive classification decisions as being unwarranted. Of course Powell & Rice both did the exact same thing as Clinton. In Powell’s case, messages sent on AOL were upgraded.

4. Of course in the latest case with Signal, the talk was clearly classified all along. There’s no comparison with Clinton.

[hobie]

Need you people further proof that Ed lives in a world different than ours?

[Moderation4ever]

"It's an honor thing"

What a joke. You are talking about an administration that has no concept of honor. You expect people to act with honor when they are treated with disrespect. The Trump administration didn't do the honorable thing and say "Hey we messed up". They called the journalist that caught them a bunch of disrespectful name instead.

Ed2 you either have one standard or no standards make a decision.

[David Nieporent]

It's also a joke because it's not an honor thing. Goldberg was under no legal, moral, or ethical obligation not to publish. There was no agreement not to, formal or informal, no "off the record" or anything like that. Indeed, if someone gratuitously provides a journalist with newsworthy information, he has a professional obligation to publish it. If anything, Goldberg went above-and-beyond by (a) waiting until after the fact, so that it could not harm the operation; and (b) withholding some details.

(Note that he has today published those details since the government adamantly insisted that none of them were classified.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-group-chat-attack-plans-hegseth-goldberg/682176/?gift=kPTlqn0J1iP9IBZcsdI5IWzhvFf3q4jecuzTA5cASGg&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

[not guilty]

Mr. Goldberg would have been well within his rights to publish at any time. See New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The restraint that he showed is commendable and patriotic.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" See New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)"

Unfortunately that case is not as clear as one might hope.

[David Nieporent]

The Pentagon Papers case stands for the proposition that prior restraint is forbidden; it does not immunize the publisher from prosecution. And I'm not sure that the current court would hold that 793/794 don't apply to the press.

[damikesc]

He would have been wise to not. They disproved his laughable claims.

[EllaWilson]

Goldberg says is holding Top Secret War Plans.

- Does he have the appropriate clearance?
- Does he have a "need to know"?
- Is he holding the Top Secret information in an approved, inspected container and room?

[BBSquatter]

Is he holding the Top Secret information in an approved, inspected container and room?

Eric Swallowswell did when canoodling with the Communist Chinese spy. Motel Six I believe was the room.

[SRG2]

Fuckwit troll

[TwelveInchPianist]

Um, no? Isn't that the problem?

[Absaroka]

"(b) someone in the Biden admin left a bug to do something nefarious like this."

I'm fascinated to hear the technical details of how one might do that!

[Bwaaah]

Are you not familiar with techniques of transmogrification?

[Riva]

Seems like more fat col. Vindman like antics from the NSC. This matter occurred on March 15 but only published right before the senate intelligence hearing yesterday? B f’ing S.

[David Nieporent]

Seems like more fat

Look, another childish insult tantrum!

[Riva]

Fat Col. Vindman, show a little respect for the fat slob's rank, he went through a lot of trouble in his illicit scheming against his commander in chief.

As to the present matter, I probably should have added published to provide background for the carefully rehearsed histrionics of the senate committee members, concerns that were somehow hidden throughout the corrupt and incompetent Biden years.

[not guilty]

Has any commenter who previously accused Gen. Mark Milley of treason weighed in here on what should happen to Secretary Hegseth?

[not guilty]

No, I didn't think so. Why am I unsurprised?

[Riva]

Milley was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff when he engaged in traitorous communications with the CCP. Hegseth is the Sec. of Defense who has just overseen a spectacularly successful military strike against enemies of the US. And we can add that the Biden administration authorized the use of Signal, Hegseth didn't add the democrat "journalist," and no classified information was disclosed. But I would agree that the NSC staffer who may have pursued a Vindman, as well as any other co-conspirators, should be exposed and suffer all possible consequences the law allows. Democrats and their ilk are essentially stupid, aggressive, but stupid. They just keep doing the same thing over and over again.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Diseny went woke with Snow White and is losing LOTS of money on it.

[Frank Drackman]

Perfect chance for 7 Dwarfs to get some work and they used CGI

[Martinned2]

They made a whole bunch of terrible moves and are losing lots of money on it.

(Although they'll be OK in the end. Parents need something to show their kids so that they're quiet for two hours.)

[John F. Carr]

I know a small child who spent a lot of time entranced by the 1989 Little Mermaid where Ariel's goal is to find a prince.

[Sarcastr0]

NPR didn't like it. This isn't about wokeness.

The anti-woke crowd does love to come in after a failed movie and declare victory, but in the end they are a bunch of petty terminally online snowflakes who matter only to their own little circle.

[Ed Grinberg]

"The anti-woke crowd ... matter only to their own little circle."
Hmmm... You must've missed last year's presidential election...

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty big slam on MAGA if you think the main thing is stuff like Snow White being a bit too dusky of hue.

Just because you read and post VDARE doesn't mean everyone is there with you.

[Don Nico]

Based only on Bill Maher's comments, I thought the stupidity of the film was the lack of real small people playing the 7 dwarfs denying work to folks for whom there are not lots of parts available.

[Sarcastr0]

NPR said it looked and felt cheap and washed out. They compared the dwarf's CGI to Polar Express(2004).

Brutal.

[BBSquatter]

which is why Democrats are irrelevant today and Trump (for whom I never voted) has become ascendant. As James Carville Mark Penn and many other Democrats have stated, Democrats have prioritized moronic issues that only matter to elitists, while everyday Americans and Whites (yes, Whites) have abandoned Democrats. Disney's WOKE Snow White is indeed a perfect example of how Democrats have screwed the pooch

[David Nieporent]

As James Carville Mark Penn and many other Democrats have stated, Democrats have prioritized moronic issues that only matter to elitists,

Seems like they matter very very very much to the nutty MAGA right, which is obsessed with them.

[Bwaaah]

And you, too, are not attracted with stupid doings?

[Don Nico]

Fortunately such movies are not on my viewing list.
But I do recommend the Netflix documentary series "Turning Point" about the history of the age of nuclear weapons.

[David Nieporent]

That was kind of a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. They use real dwarf actors and some complain that it's demeaning; they use CGI ones and some complain that dwarf actors are being cheated out of jobs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Her defining trait as a character is that she's really pale, her name is literally "Snow White".

I'm not particularly offended by dusky skin, I am literally in an interracial marriage. But it appears that the only reason for casting somebody who wasn't white, was to establish that, "up yours, white people!", and nothing more. It's like deliberately casting Tom Cruise as Shaka Zulu.

And that sort of thing gets tiresome.

[Sarcastr0]

"I'm not particularly offended by dusky skin, I am literally in an interracial marriage. But..."

There it is.

It's actually super easy to choose not to care about Snow White's skin color.
Maybe she's Walter White's cousin or something.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

"Maybe she's Walter White's cousin or something."

Of Barry White's.

[Estragon]

“I'm not particularly offended by dusky skin, I am literally in an interracial marriage. But”

Just…. Wow

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, you totally missed the point, which is that Snow White is literally the story of an especially white white woman, and it makes about as much sense to cast somebody dark skinned, however attractive, in such a role, as it would make to cast an albino as Shaka Zulu.

The reason it was done wasn't because she was a good fit for the part, it was because she wasn't. It literally was an intentional act of cultural appropriation.

Sadly for Disney, she turned out to be a lousy pick for non-cosmetic reasons, too.

[Absaroka]

I'm getting on in the years, I guess. I remember it being about an evil stepmother, a charming prince, and a glass shoe.

[Bob from Ohio]

"glass shoe"

That was Cinderella.

[Absaroka]

You're right ... I am getting on in the years :-(.

I just went and read wiki's version. Yikes! I had the bowlderized version - poison apple, but no cannibal lungs and liver.

Obligatory Far Side cartoon.

[Magister]

I was expecting "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry'."

[Sarcastr0]

Snow White's beauty is plot-relevant.

Her whiteness is not.

cultural appropriation
What culture, Brett?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's. Right. In. The. Name. You do notice that, right?

[Sarcastr0]

The title matters and the plot doesn't school of literary analysis, eh?

I guess if a version of Cinderella doesn't deal with fireplaces, that's also a sin against myth?

[MusicAfter Midnight]

"It literally was an intentional act of cultural appropriation."

That's the funniest thing I've read today.

[shawn_dude]

Name one element of the story that her "especially white white" skin supports? What role does that white skin play in defining the overall theme or message? If you watch the movie in black and white, do you miss this theme entirely?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

“I’m not particularly offended by dusky skin, I am literally in an interracial marriage. But”

Just…. Wow

The point...you missed it...by a country mile.

[Estragon]

No, I think I got it

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, your skin is even paler when there isn't oxygenated blood to color it.
But my issue is her rejection of men and marriage.

[Riva]

It’s not just a movie. It’s reflective of the corrosive effects of DEI on industry and culture.

[Thought about __ all my life]

if they matter only to their own little circle then you must be in that circle.they sure matter to you

[hobie]

What's woke about it? All the dwarfs and main characters are still Caucasian. Or is it the dwarfs themselves? Too DEI for air traffic controlling, so maybe too DEI for mining now?

[Riva]

You go ahead and work out the appropriate racial quotas for the fictional 7 dwarves and get back to us.

[Stephen Lathrop]

MSNBC reported that Trump has issued an executive order purporting to give DOGE subpoena power over election records. Is there anyone left who does not believe the nation is under threat of totalitarian governance?

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, the Republic has survived, despite:

Being invaded and bitchslapped by colonial power, circa 1812
A civil war, circa 1860
A world war, circa 1917
A second world war, circa 1940
A presidential resignation, circa 1974
Multiple presidential impeachments, circa 1998-2020

The Republic has survived and endured, despite the occasional 'bad' POTUS (let the Reader decide bad) who occupies the office.

The sun rose in the east, and set in the west. Your SS deposit was made on time. Some perspective would help you.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot assassinations, both attempted and successful.

[Commenter_XY]

Correct...We have had 4 POTUS' blown away, and a number of others shot. It is a very dangerous job. The Republic survived.

[A Woman of No Importance]

The Republic will survive, but in what form? Most people living under authoritarian regimes have jobs, families, homes, and life goes on, at least so long as they don't get on dear leader's bad side. I will acknowledge that as much as I detest Trump, so far he has not had a direct impact on my own life, just as a Kamala Harris administration would probably not have directly impacted most of the Kamala haters here.

But that's not really the point. Whether or not Mr. Trump himself technically fits under the definition of fascist may be debatable, but there's no real question that at bare minimum he has tendencies in that direction. How far in that direction he will move the country remains to be seen.

And that means there will be fewer checks on arbitrary executive power, less willingness for lawyers to advocate for disfavored clients, less dissent, less academic freedom, and fewer personal liberties. Any law firm, seeing how Trump is punishing law firms doing work he disapproves of, has got to think twice about challenging the administration. I'd like to know how those here who consider themselves either conservative or libertarian can possibly be on board with that.

So yeah, the republic will survive. It's what it will look like after this is over that has me worried.

[Martinned2]

The Islamic Republic is also a republic. They even hold elections.

[Don Nico]

Woman,
The ship on excessive Presidential power sailed long ago. And many of the instances in which it is used do effect most Americans.
Yet there are more than 100 legal challenges to this President's ERs. The republic will do more than just survive, but now that its debt payments exceed its defense expenditures its days as a great power are likely to be fewer.

[A Woman of No Importance]

Ah, but the difference is that past administrations, both Democrat and Republican, respected the judiciary when it reined in their power. No other president responded with threats of impeachment or jurisdiction stripping legislation. That's a first. It's entirely predictable that at some point this administration may simply decide to ignore court orders; they're close to that already with Judge Boasberg. I hope that doesn't happen but will anyone really be surprised if it does?

[BBSquatter]

No other president responded with threats of impeachment or jurisdiction stripping legislation. That's a first.

Who needs such pitiful measures when throwing incendiary devices, chucking Molotov cocktails, vandalizing properties and calling for the elimination of Americans ala Jasmine Crockett are more immediate?

[A Woman of No Importance]

Which has what to do with what we're actually discussing?

[damikesc]

Biden ignored rulings. Democrats have, repeatedly, threatened to stack the court to get what they want.

WTF are you talking about?

[A Woman of No Importance]

Which rulings did Biden ignore? Did Biden threaten to have judges impeached, or ask Congress to strip them of their jurisdiction?

Appointing your own people to the court, and ignoring the court, are not exactly the same thing.

Other than that, not a bad comment.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't get to keep the republic by being complacent.

[Don Nico]

You also don't keep your democracy by its turning into a juristocracy as in Israel.

It is all a matter of balance. I predict that Trump will cave on every suit he loses in the courts. Litigation will have served its purpose

[A Woman of No Importance]

Same question I've repeatedly posed when the subject has come up: Under any system of government, somebody gets the final word when there's a dispute as to what the law is. Baseball needs umps, basketball needs refs, and the US needs a judiciary.

If you don't want the judiciary having the final word, what would you substitute? Disputes as to what the law means will come up, and they will need resolution, and the loser won't like it. So if not judges, then who?

[Don Nico]

It is fine for the judges to have the last word as long as they are not a self-perpetuating and self-selective entity as they are in Israel.
In the US the federal judiciary is appointed and confirmed by the elected representatives of the people. That is as it should be to avoid a tyranny of the judiciary.

[Brett Bellmore]

And you can argue for "the Judiciary" having the last say on legal matters, just as you can argue for "the Executive" having the last say on military tactics during a war.

But this dude isn't "the Judiciary", he's just a single lower level judge. Decisions this consequential should be automatically kicked up the chain to the Supreme court, rather than handing every random judge the power to order about an entire co-equal branch of government.

[A Woman of No Importance]

Brett, lower level judges are where all cases are sent in the first instance, and it would not surprise me if this case makes it to the Supreme Court. But it's remarkable how many lower level judges, both Republicans and Democrats, have independently reached the conclusion that Trump is breaking the law. This is not one or two rogue judges; this is almost every judge who's been called on to look at something Trump has done. As with the person who's been fired from five jobs in the last six months, at some point you look at it and say maybe the problem isn't the employers.

[Sarcastr0]

Decisions this consequential should be automatically kicked up the chain to the Supreme court

BrettLaw.

[Brett Bellmore]

“This is not one or two rogue judges; this is almost every judge who’s been called on to look at something Trump has done.”

That’s kind of what you’d expect with judge shopping, isn’t it? It’s not like they’re random judges.

Analysis: Trump Admin Besieged by Record Number of Injunctions from Partisan Courts

" Of the 69 District Court judges presiding over cases involving the Trump administration, 21 were appointed by Republican presidents: two by Ronald Reagan, one by George H.W. Bush, eight by George W. Bush, and 10 by Trump himself."

That's over 2/3rds of them nominated by Democrats, in a 50-50 judiciary. Yeah, judge shopping.

Sarcastr0, not BrettLaw, Brett Policy: I’m not saying it’s legally obligatory, I’m saying it’s highly advisable, that if you’re going to pit the judiciary against an entire co-equal branch, you kick it up the chain ASAP, not declare the matter unappealable.

[A Woman of No Importance]

Brett, I gather you either didn't take statistics, or have forgotten it. It's not a 50/50 judiciary.

Which party has appointed most of the judges over the past four years? Since Biden is the one who just left office, one would expect the current judiciary to have more Democrats.

But never mind, I actually looked it up. Currently, of the active duty judges, 504 were appointed by Democrats and 374 by Republicans. Which means it's 57% Democrats. And, in 2029, when the Republicans have been in power for four years, it will be majority Republican.

Doesn't mean there isn't some judge shopping going on. But my point still stands: The cases that are being heard by Republicans, he's losing those cases too.

[Sarcastr0]

Samuel Bray takes Brett's numbers to school:

"The claim that the courts are giving universal relief now against the Trump administration so much more than against the Biden administration might be true, but that’s not really clear. And even if so, it is an apples-to-oranges claim for the reasons Jack articulates, including the much greater number of executive orders in the current administration (I can remember when Republicans thought governing by executive order was unconstitutional!), as well as what we might charitably call the administration’s attenuated degree of attention to what the law requires. If you issue more illegal executive orders, you’ll lose more cases, and if you lose more cases, you’re going to face more injunctions, universal or otherwise."
...
"As appellate courts grew more skeptical of universal injunctions in the Biden administration, courts and litigants started switching to requests for vacatur as the remedy. That means that any count of universal remedies against the Biden administration that leaves out vacatur will seriously understate the degree to which those remedies stopped the Biden administration in its tracks. The Biden administration issued a lot of rules that were stopped with vacatur; the second Trump administration is at present relying a lot on executive orders, and they are being stopped with injunctions. Any narrative that counts only injunctions and leaves out vacatur will miss the fundamental equivalence in the judicial action against both administrations."

https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/whats-new-and-whats-not-new-with

[David Nieporent]

But this dude isn’t “the Judiciary”, he’s just a single lower level judge. Decisions this consequential should be automatically kicked up the chain to the Supreme court, rather than handing every random judge the power to order about an entire co-equal branch of government.

1) Again, stop with the "co-equal."
2) That's not how the legal system works. The judicial power is vested in each court.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Caving would be to stop doing the same stuff in another instance, because the court had taught that was illegal. I expect Trump to ignore every legal impediment. He expects the Supreme Court to endorse impunity for everything he does. And given Trump v. United States, why shouldn't he expect that?

[shawn_dude]

There's a long-running debate on whether national debt, within the scope that we experience it today, is really that important or not to the economy. The voices get louder when conservatives have less political power and then they champion tax cuts for the rich that drive up that debt by trillions. Trump is cutting entitlements but raising defense expenditures further into the stratosphere. If you believe debt-cutting is critical, then voting for the GOP is a strange choice; Democratic administrations have been better on the national debt in my lifetime.

Question: Do you care about being a "great power" more or being a free, democratic republic more? Me? I'd choose the latter over the former every time. I cherish my free speech more than my "great power" bragging rights.

[Dr. Ed 2]

At least two would have lived with circa 1981 medicine, probably Lincoln as well. Conversely, Reagan would have died 15 years earlier.

[David Nieporent]

The Republic has survived and endured, despite the occasional 'bad' POTUS (let the Reader decide bad) who occupies the office.

We have never until now had a POTUS who was an enemy of the United States. Stupid, weak, corrupt, but not someone who actively hated the country until now. (Closest was James Buchanan, I guess, who did essentially nothing in the face of active insurrection.)

[Commenter_XY]

John Tyler was arguably worse than Buchanan.

[Bob from Ohio]

"POTUS who was an enemy of the United States."

You are a step away from the loony bin at this point.

[Martinned2]

...because the President *is* the United States?

[Bob from Ohio]

No, because it is crazy to think Trump is an "enemy of the United States."

You are a half step away from the bin yourself.

[shawn_dude]

We are a nation of laws based on a constitution and guarantees equality under the law and a basic set of civil rights. Trump doesn't value those things. He's ignoring the separation of powers, acting outside of the law, and has starting ignoring the courts. Now he's going after voting rights with his latest EO. He is an authoritarian at heart and attempting to remake our nation into something more closely resembling Hungary, Russia, or Venezuela.

[bernard11]

The implication of your comment is that yes, Trump seeks total authority, and you disapprove, yet somehow you never actually criticize him for his behavior.

So, leaving aside all the sunrise/sunset bs,what do you think of giving Musk subpoena power over election records?

[Commenter_XY]

The clear implication was....no, we don't live in a totalitarian state, and we are not becoming one anytime soon.

[A Woman of No Importance]

I sure hope you're right. We'll find out soon enough.

[Brett Bellmore]

We have for some time now been morphing into, not a totalitarian state, but at least an authoritarian state. For instance, ever more intrusive digital surveillance of the population.

And it's been happening with the enthusiastic support of the left.

The hysteria is that somebody who isn't them is the Authority, something they somehow completely failed to anticipate.

[A Woman of No Importance]

You're right; we thought better of the American voters than that they would actually elect Trump a second time.

I have some concerns about intelligence gathering, which takes place no matter who is in charge. But, I see authoritarianism as more about how that intelligence is used. And by that standard, Democrats are far less authoritarian toward the American people than the Republicans are, and it's not even close.

To me, stopping authoritarianism means curbing police abuses, vigorously enforcing the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and not using the state to take revenge on your political opponents. I would think most conservatives/libertarians would agree with that. Kind of ironic they mostly voted for Trump.

[bernard11]

The clear implication was….no, we don’t live in a totalitarian state, and we are not becoming one anytime soon,....... despite Trump's many unlawful, authoritarian actions.

[Life of Brian]

Is there anyone left who does not believe the nation is under threat of totalitarian governance?

Yes, at a minimum those who don't uncritically swallow whatever latest breathless characterization MSNBC is trying to sell. Here's the relevant part of the actual order, which I'm going to go way out on a limb and predict your MSNBC article did not link to:

(iii) the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the DOGE Administrator, shall review each State’s publicly available voter registration list and available records concerning voter list maintenance activities as required by 52 U.S.C. 20507, alongside Federal immigration databases and State records requested, including through subpoena where necessary and authorized by law, for consistency with Federal requirements.

[Martinned2]

Oh, that's alright then. They have to purge the voter rolls, but if they want to subpoena something they have to follow the law. That will be fine then.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're actually supposed to purge the voter rolls, you know. It was part of the same law that established voter registration when applying for a driver's license.

That part just wasn't being enforced.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett knows election law now, too.

Are you alleging that general maintenance of voter rolls wasn't going on?
Because as I recall NVRA strictly regulates purges of the voter rolls more than it mandates them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I am alleging that general maintenance of voter rolls was largely being blown off.

As I've related before, I'd routinely glance at the voter roll when I voted in my rural precinct in Michigan, and my brother and sister were listed there for a couple decades after they moved away, my dad was listed long after he died.

You're not going to see that sort of thing if voter rolls are being properly maintained.

[Sarcastr0]

Even if I did believe you, you're BrettLawing the definition of routine maintenance.

Neither you nor Trump gets to define that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, so you're claiming that maintaining voter rolls doesn't involve removing from them people who have died or moved someplace else.

Yes, we apparently have a different notion of what maintaining voter rolls involves.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, Sarcastr0 has a (D)ifferent idea of voter roll maintenance. 😉

[Sarcastr0]

See here is the tell. You're saying the law was broken. Based on *your personal notion*. That's BrettLaw.

I'm following the legal lay of the land. Which doesn't follow BrettLaw.
My personal opinions run contrary to a ton of state election laws since the execrable Shelby County. But I'm able to separate is from ought. Most people can.

Meanwhile the Trump admin agrees with me not you on the VRA. That's why they're not using the VRA they're planning to use threats.
It's authoritarian as hell, but you're into that these days in service of owning the libs.

You've never seen a law or policy that you didn't like that wasn't illegitimate.

[Bob from Ohio]

"NVRA strictly regulates"

Sarcasto knows election law now!

[Sarcastr0]

I know how to read a statute and not to go on vibes.

You and Brett don't bother.

[shawn_dude]

Several Red states use voter roll purging to their partisan advantage. There's lots of articles out there on Florida's adventures in disenfranchisement there for you to read if you're interested. The basic theme is "delete anyone on the list who's a felon or an immigrant." Then they get a list of all the felons/immigrants and find folks like "Robert Johnson" (or "Jose Garcia") and then purge "Robert" and "Bob" and "Rob" and "Bobby" Johnson. The purges are broad and don't spend a lot of effort to make sure they got the right one so it's not uncommon for non-felons with the same names to find their voter registration cancelled and that they're unable to participate in the election.

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-politics/florida-weighs-warning-against-voter-purge-idUSBRE85011X/

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — No, neither DOGE, not anyone DOGE is empowered to direct, is properly empowered to purge voting rolls. U.S. elections are not conducted under the purview of the POTUS. A moment's thought ought to inform you what a dangerous change it would be to empower the President to supervise national presidential elections. Trump's bogus executive order is just more evidence of an ongoing totalitarian power grab.

[Martinned2]

The internet is your friend: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preserving-and-protecting-the-integrity-of-american-elections/

Lots of "orders" that are (wildly) unconstitutional. Must be a day that ends in y.

[hobie]

They'll have to add another E on DOGE for Enfranchisement since we're extending their already gigantic, extrajudicial mandate. Remember all the tech bros MAGA used to try and illegally break into voting systems to try and steal 2020? This any different?

[Riva]

What exactly are you babbling about ? Not sure what, but likely, if anything, the president is directing federal agencies under presidential control to coordinate with his presidential advisers.

The elected president actually governing is not “totalitarian“ just because you don’t like the president.

[David Nieporent]

No, the president doing totalitarian things is totalitarian even if elected and even if you like worship him.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Coming any day now. Massive expansion of credit card debt as Social Security checks stop coming on time. Credit card interest rates will soar. Unpaid balances will explode. Credit card cancellations will soar.

Expect whatever investment opportunities those occurrences create to get the immediate attention of Trump's wealthy cronies. Is it possible to short the U.S.A.?

[Kazinski]

For once you are right, nobody is getting anymore checks starting September 30th:

"Under a new executive order from President Trump, effective Sept. 30, the U.S. Treasury will no longer issue paper checks for disbursements, including tax refunds, vendor payments, benefit payments and intergovernmental transfers."
https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2025/03/executive-order-phases-out-u-s-treasury-paper-checks/

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, it seems clear that the Fed gov't wants more easily trackable electronic payments, and the ability to cancel. At some point, the gov't can/will refuse cash as a payment option. I am reminded of an apocryphal story were some taxpayer paid their 80K tax bill with pennies (took a truck to carry them).

Extending this logic further, can the Fed gov't just eliminate cash outright? And do you think it will?

[A Japanese Student]

I don't think they can eliminate cash at least without Congress establishing another legal tender.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Extending this logic further, can the Fed gov't just eliminate cash outright? "
The better to control you my dear.

[Brett Bellmore]

Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by a desire to save a little money.

Let me remind you that, a few years ago, Biden tried to nominate as comptroller of the currency a literal communist who advocated nationalizing everybody's bank accounts, and the usual suspects here declared that there was nothing to see, move along.

And now they try to just avoid the cost of issuing paper checks, and you're freaking out?

[Commenter_XY]

No, no freak out, Brett. Eisenhower once spoke of creeping socialism, and look where we are today. Was he wrong?

The gov't orientation and permissiveness toward cash transactions has changed. Constitutionally, is there a requirement for cash? Meaning, must we as a country have cash because the Constitution specifies it. To coin money, isn't the same as digital currency, to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, constitutionally we're supposed to have a currency. This doesn't actually mean that the government has to pay people in it, though it does mean the government has to accept payments in it.

[Kazinski]

I am surprised to see the IRS still does accepts cash, bit you better have already made your reservation to pay:

"Call 844-545-5640 to schedule an appointment at an IRS TAC that accepts cash. You should call 30 to 60 days before the day you want to pay."

The Government already doesn't pay anyone but the mulluhs in actual currency, or other rogues that can't use banks.

Your Social.Security comes in a check not currency, what's the big deal about EFT instead?

[Martinned2]

You guys still use cheques??? What is this, the 19th century?

[David Nieporent]

You guys still use cheques???

No; we're not communists. We use checks.

[Martinned2]

If you're going to use 19th century payments technology, you should at least also use the spelling that goes with it.

(Of course you should generally use proper spelling, but that's a separate issue.)

[Brett Bellmore]

They're just groping around for an excuse to be upset, and any old thing will do, it doesn't have to be realistic.

You'd think there would be enough stuff for them to be upset about without having to grasp at straws. But as I've remarked before, they're caught up in a sort of moral arms race, and this drives a need to be more upset every day, and realistic causes don't escalate that way.

[Krayt]

Governnent sitting with a control panel, watching everything everybody buys is another one of those tools of tyranny we should never build.

Buying things anonymously precisely so people can't watch and know what you bought is a feature of freedom, not a problem.

Do not build tools of tyranny. Then they cannot be abused.

[Martinned2]

Isn't data privacy as a human right great? If it was possible to amend the US Constitution it seems like the sort of thing you might consider advocating for.

[Don Nico]

Krayt,
I had just that feeling during my last trip to Sweden, As usual I changed a couple hundred dollars in to kronar at the airport, Then, on my trip I learn that no business would accept cash, not even for a cup of coffee. Every monetary exchange that I made was digitally recorded for the Swedish government to be able to see.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus Christ she wasn't a Communist she wrote a paper years earlier you redbaiting weirdo.

We don't live in a political thriller.

[Brett Bellmore]

"She wrote a paper years earlier", he said in a mocking voice.

It wasn't just one paper. It was multiple papers, and they were quite recent at the time she was nominated.

She told us where she stood on the proper relationship between government and the private sector, and it was ugly beyond belief. And you wanted us to ignore it.

But a proposal to save a little money by SS moving to direct deposit instead of paper checks? The sky is falling!

[Sarcastr0]

We've been over this before.

Her history upon coming to America is not that of a communist. She's a well respected lawyer and economist and has taken many positions that would be anathema to a communist.

But anyone who knows you knows that there is no amount of explaining will shake your belief; it's too alluring a narrative for you and your paranoia about the libs.

[Don Nico]

Geez, your bottom line is always the same
"too alluring a narrative for you and your paranoia about the libs."
Be original. It's more fun.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's got a problem, and you blame me for it.

[Don Nico]

I did not blame you. I said that you fall for it every time.

[Bwaaah]

And Sarc's weak arguments typically slide into ad hominems about Brett, not Brett's points. His arguments structurally dissolve into insults, from whence they seem to have come.

I've come to learn that what Sarc's actually saying, poetically, is, "No, Brett."

BDS.

[Brett Bellmore]

She's 'well respected' because much of academia is so far left they regard Stalin as a conservative.

[Sarcastr0]

Political thriller.

And not a well written one either.

[David Nieporent]

It wasn't just one paper. It was multiple papers, and they were quite recent at the time she was nominated.

No, it was one paper.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it was more than one paper.

Bank Governance and Systemic Stability: The "Golden Share" Approach

The People’s Ledger: How to Democratize Money and Finance the Economy

Private Wealth and Public Goods: A Case for a National
Investment Authority

Did you genuinely think all this controversy was over one solitary paper? That she just had a brain fart one day, and otherwise was writing sensible, mainstream stuff?

Dream on. The more people looked into her CV the worse she turned out to be.

[bernard11]

Could we see a list of said papers?

[David Nieporent]

Let me remind you that, a few years ago, Biden tried to nominate as comptroller of the currency a literal communist who advocated nationalizing everybody's bank accounts, and the usual suspects here declared that there was nothing to see, move along.

Because there was nothing to see. She was not a "literal communist"; you found some academic paper she had once written and decided that this was her plan for a job that of course would not have allowed — at least in the pre-DOGE-the-president-doesn't-have-to-obey-the-law days — her to do it even if she wanted to.

And "nationalizing" isn't the correct word anyway for what the paper said, anyway. People would have continued to own their own bank accounts.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, except for the part where the federal government could take money out of “your” account any time they thought it was a good idea, sure. Seriously, go READ The People’s Ledger: How to Democratize Money and Finance the
Economy

“Beginning with the liability side of the central bank balance
sheet, this Article contemplates the issuance of general-purpose CBDC (the “digital dollar”) and concurrent migration of all transaction deposit accounts from private banks to the Federal Reserve. Focusing on the ultimate “end-state” whereby central bank accounts fully replace— rather than uneasily coexist with—private bank deposits, the Article explores the full range of new monetary policy options the proposed structural shift would enable”

Hm, what sort of policy options?

“Yet, dynamically adjusting the cost of money rentals via manipulation of interest on FedAccounts is not the only—or even the
most powerful—new monetary policy tool that the proposed reforms
will put on the table. Far more importantly, offering deposit accounts
to individuals and entities will enable the Fed to modulate the
aggregate supply of money and credit by directly crediting and debiting the accounts of all participants in economic activity, without interposing intermediary-banks.”

[Absaroka]

I recall that, and I think Brett is calling this one right. It's not really my own bank account when the govt is debiting and crediting away as they see fit.

[David Nieporent]

No, he's misrepresenting it. She is not even remotely suggesting that the government could take money out of your accounts "as they see fit." (And again, this was an academic paper, not a legislative proposal.) The point was on "directly," not on "debiting." She was saying that when money is added or withdrawn from the account — which, you know, happens whenever one buys or sells — the government would be doing it directly, rather than having a private bank playing a role.

I'm not saying you should like that — I don't! — but don't listen to Brett's ranting about the notion that the government was taking your account. It wasn't.

[Absaroka]

"She is not even remotely suggesting that the government could take money out of your accounts “as they see fit.”"

I'm reading page 1261, 1262, and 1263 differently than you are.

One example: "It would also make sense to exempt from mandatory debiting by the Fed accounts of individuals with incomes or assets below a certain level, ..."

[Absaroka]

"No, the "at will" part is something you inserted."

I dunno. I saw a lot of the government decoding it would be a good idea to credit/debit. I didn't see any 'with the permission of the depositor, of course'.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm not misrepresenting it, she was quite clearly advocating that everybody be moved into bank accounts directly run by the fed, which the fed could add to AND subtract from at will.

Really, read the papers I listed. It's scary stuff, which is why Senate support for her nomination cratered the moment people started looking at her papers.

[David Nieporent]

No, the "at will" part is something you inserted.

[A Japanese Student]

Osaka High Court ruled yesterday that nonrecognition of same-sex marriage violated equal protection (Article 14) and the principles of personal dignity the Constitution requires in family law (Article 24(2)). With this, the only judicial decision upholding this ban - Osaka District Court decision below - has been overturned. It did reject plaintiffs' claims based on unenumerated rights (Article 13) and constitutional right to marry (Article 24(1)). However it also rejected the Government's alternatives (like civil unions found in other countries, or domestic-partnership registration offered by many municipalities) as insufficient.

But on paper, the plaintiffs lost. They had to seek nominal damages, which was denied due to lack of negligence by the Government (as they followed then-clearly established law in denying marriage). Therefore, the plaintiffs can still not marry.

[Commenter_XY]

AJS, I am not following this. Plaintiffs win on articles 14, 24(2), and lose on articles 13, 24(1). And the Court rejected a government alternative (civil union). So they're left in legal limbo (no solution)?

BTW, we had a similar thing happen in the Peoples Republic of NJ. The Legislature passed civil unions, the Courts later rejected it.

[A Japanese Student]

Here's what's happening:

The Government has no sovereign immunity in cases sounding in tort. Meanwhile, the courts likely cannot order the government to recognize same-sex marriage via injunction/mandamus because the legislature hasn't acted. The total opposite of US, where injunctive relief is more widespread than damages.

Plaintiffs in civil rights cases thus seek nominal damages. Their refusal to recognize same-sex marriage allegedly caused emotional distress - a tort. This bypasses all the procedural issues that could arise from Administrative Case Procedures Act - such as standing and possibility of Prime Minister's veto.

The whole constitutional analysis is a dicta. The actual judgment has always been dismissal, because tort requires negligence, and one cannot be negligent for simply following a statute (unless it is patently unconstitutional, like in the eugenics case). Sorta like qualified immunity, except only applying to facial challenges to statutes. (The plaintiffs therefore "lost", and must appeal.)

For political reasons, the executive will follow a dicta if it is written by the Supreme Court. But they are technically not bound, in the American injunction sense, by the decision.

[Commenter_XY]

Wow, there are some real differences btwn the systems. Thx for the explainer. Has the Executive ever acted contrary to dicta (meaning, they were not bound and acted on that)?

[A Japanese Student]

Because the Supreme Court has invalidated laws on very few occasions, I can't think of any. When a statute is declared facially unconstitutional, they usually propose bills curing the error as soon as possible. The tort-claim procedure has only been used in three of those cases, and the Court allowed nominal damages in two of them. The other was 2015 decision regarding marital law, but the statute was amended the next year.

Although neither were tort claim cases, there are two cases where the Government did not propose amendments as quickly. In the first exercise of judicial review, the Court struck down in 1973 a sentence enhancement for killing parents, on the ground that mandatory life sentence was too disproportionate compared to regular murder offense (where probation was authorized). The Government only repealed the provision in 1995, as part of hundreds of technical amendments. Until then, the prosecutor simply never charged a person with parricide statute.

The legislature has not yet cured Act 2003-111, which imposed as a condition for gender marker changes sterilization - a requirement struck down unanimously in 2023. They are still debating if there should be additional requirements, or what to do with other gatekeeping conditions (that are likely, but not yet held, unconstitutional).

[Commenter_XY]

Nemawashi permeates Japanese law, doesn't it?

[Riva]

Yeah, same-sex ”marriage.“ What a smart way to confront Japan’s dwindling birth rate.

[Bwaaah]

Catching your drift, might it make sense for them to pass a law that forces fucking?

[Riva]

No. The bad policy choice is to redefine institutions to the detriment of a community as a whole. One can avoid doing that without addressing the option of an absurd "forced fucking" law, which, since you seem to be confused, is not a healthy (or sane) substitute for a marriage anyway.

[grb]

Riva : " ...redefine institutions to the detriment of a community as a whole..."

How does allowing same-sex marriage do that? Of course you're only a bot - and one governed by primitive bug-ridden programing at that - so I hardly expect a rational response from you.

But no one in Right-Wing-World can rationally answer that question either. That's why your side on this issue has shriveled to a tiny minority of the American public.

[Riva]

I don’t mind a witty insult but consistently parroting the same childish bs is not that thing. Try thinking. Thinking is important.

And it should be obvious even to a simpleton like you that a same-sex “marriage” redefines the institution of marriage. Marriage has always been understood, basically in every place and in every time period, as a relationship between a man and a woman. While there there have been some variations (not the norm) involving multiple partners, the relationship has never included same-sex couples. The same-sex union is a relatively brand new peculiarity that seeks to legitimize itself by using the term “marriage.”

[David Nieporent]

I don’t mind a witty insult but consistently parroting the same childish bs is not that thing.

Yeah, grb, you should call Riva "fat." That's the bot's idea of "wit."

[Riva]

I would, however, wholeheartedly support the union between crazy Dave and another another man. The world doesn't need any more crazy Daves.

[grb]

Riva : ” …a same-sex “marriage” redefines the institution of marriage.”

It’s predictable that the primitive bot “Riva” would share the pathology of its programmers, however inept they are. In this case, that includes the Right’s addiction to zero-sum thought. Today’s average Rightie is a white male without advanced education obsessed with his own victimhood status & convinced some nebulous “other” is trying to “take something” from him.

That’s the entire right-wing movement of today : Whiny butthurt snowflake wingnuts obsessively trying to see themselves as “victims” without cause. The bot Riva provides a prime example here. Allowing same-sex couples to marry took nothing away from anybody, but the Right’s Perpetual Victimhood Machine can’t allow that.

I remember their wailing, whining, and whinging after Obergefell. Marriage was dead, they cried. Marriage no longer existed, they screeched. Well, I had just attended my niece’s marriage to a nice upright young man and found their posturing bullshit ludicrous.

I could never be a Right-winger. I find victimhood boring.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

I have been in a "traditional" heterosexual marriage for over 50 years--all those years to the same person. The normalization of same sex unions, same sex marriage, has not affected my marriage at all in any way nor has it devalued it in any way. I see no reason why anyone involved in a traditional marriage relationship, or contemplating entering one, would find the fact of same sex marriages at all deleterious or devaluing.

[Bwaaah]

^^^THIS^^^

[Riva]

Really? You don’t see how fundamentally changing the definition of an age old institution could possible affect the institution or society as a whole? Well, before we engage on an entirely new argument, the societal/cultural consequences of fundamentally changing the meaning of marriage, I think it is appropriate to note that you don’t dispute that fundamental change. You are simply trying to change the topic with your particular to universal nonsense “logic.”

[MusicAfter Midnight]

I'm not trying to change any topic at all and I'm certainly not initiating any exchange or interaction with you. I am simply stating that recognizing the age-old fact of long term stable same sex unions and giving them the same legal status in the eyes of the state has no affect on any heterosexual relationship and therefore cannot be to the "detriment of a community as a whole." Just as legalizing and recognizing marriages between people of different races or religions.

[not guilty]

The recognition of same sex marriage as being legal did not "fundamentally chang[e] the meaning of marriage". Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), was decided on June 26, 2015. Everyone who was eligible to marry on June 25 remained eligible to do so on June 27, with all rights and obligations attendant thereto.

The decision merely broadened the universe of which couples were eligible to marry.

Let's hypothesize a heterosexual married couple living next door to an unmarried hetero couple on one side, a married gay couple on the other side, and an unmarried lesbian couple across the street. Please explain, Riva, how the marital status of any of these couples affects the marital status of any other one whit.

[Riva]

"the age-old fact of long term stable same sex unions" MusicAfter Midnight? What age was that? The late 1990s? Not really that age old after all, a relatively modern perversion.

[Riva]

Yeah, uh huh Not Guilty, "broadened the universe of which couples were eligible to marry." By redefining the meaning of marriage. And by judicial fiat. So much for democracy.

[not guilty]

No, Riva, the rights and obligations of marriage were and are the same both before and after Obergefell.

Would you return us to the days when King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 side pieces? (Was the national anthem of the Kingdom of Israel Help Me Make It Through the Night?)

[Riva]

Solomon in this context was an example of bad behavior and someone who chose to act contrary to God’s will, you repulsive anti-semitic clown. And he suffered the consequences.

And how your ignorant recitation of Biblical events would provide support for a same-sex union is something only a deranged anti-semite like yourself can understand.

[not guilty]

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), which held that the Massachusetts Constitution requires the state to legally recognize same-sex marriage, was decided more than twenty years ago. Nearly a decade has elapsed since Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), extended recognition of ssm nationwide.

Are the Chicken Littles on Eric Rudolph's side of the culture war ever going to admit that the sky has not fallen in the interim?

[David Nieporent]

Is the bot programmed to pretend that if gay people couldn't get married to each other they would just get married to members of the opposite sex and then start procreating with those people?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. Have families, raise children, and sneak out every once in a while to take care of business.

Like God intended.

[shawn_dude]

I'm old enough to remember the claim that "God" created HIV to punish exactly that behavior.

[Riva]

Sounds more like you know something about crazy Dave's childhood.

[Riva]

Then they wouldn't be gay in that context you imbecile. They might swing both ways in other aspects of their lives, who knows or cares. That's their problem. Yours is being an imbecile with TDS.

[not guilty]

Marriage and begetting/bearing offspring are often, but not necessarily, related. A child's biological parents may be married to each other. They may be both unmarried. One or both may be married to someone other than the other parent.

Gametes don't ask about the marital status of their progenitors before combining.

[Riva]

You what can’t ever bear/beget offspring? A same-sex couple.

[shawn_dude]

I remember the brief few years where it was impolite to slur homosexuals by calling them pedophiles or suggesting they were in some way disordered. I haven't even seen the word "gametes" since then (a few whackos had some sort of homophobic "gamete" theory they'd trot out on the regular.) At least the crazies haven't returned to the "I could marry my dog!" arguments. But hey, the year is young. The way things are going, we'll be returning to sodomy laws and Twinkie defenses by 2027.

[Kazinski]

First it was announce Usha Vance was going to Greenland, then JD says hes going too, now a buch of other officials.

"Vice President Vance said he’s traveling to Greenland on Friday, a move that comes after the Trump administration provoked backlash from officials in Greenland and Denmark when it was announced that second lady Usha Vance would be heading there."

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5213452-vance-travels-greenland/

[Stephen Lathrop]

Apparently Trump intends an ongoing Denmark crisis, as a sideshow to deliver distraction and cover for other stuff he plans in the U.S.

[Martinned2]

Weird that Greenland and Denmark haven't told them to stay home.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't understand the issue here, M2. Greenland has awesome skiing, and Usha/JD like skiing. High temp today in Nuuk is 26F, with light snow. Perfect ski weather. 🙂

[Martinned2]

There was an amazing case in the ECJ in 2012, kind of equivalent to the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction cases. It was Hungary v. Slovakia, where Hungary sued Slovakia because Slovakia had banned the president of Hungary from entering its territory, notwithstanding Schengen and all the other EU law that usually lets EU citizens go wherever they please.

In this judgment (by the Grand Chamber), we read:

40 In order to rule on the first head of complaint, it should be stated from the outset that citizenship of the Union is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States (see, inter alia, Case C‑184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I‑6193, paragraph 31; Case C‑135/08 Rottmann [2010] ECR I‑1449, paragraph 43; and Case C‑256/11 Dereci and Others [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 62).

41 To that end, Article 20 TFEU confers the status of citizen of the Union on every person holding the nationality of a Member State (see, inter alia, Case C‑224/98 D’Hoop [2002] ECR I‑6191, paragraph 27; Case C‑148/02 Garcia Avello [2003] ECR I‑11613, paragraph 21; and Case C‑34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 40).

42 It follows that, since Mr Sólyom is of Hungarian nationality, he unquestionably enjoys that status.

43 It is true, first, that, in accordance with Article 21 TFEU, citizenship of the Union confers on each Union citizen a primary and individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and restrictions laid down by the Treaties and the measures adopted for their implementation (Case C‑162/09 Lassal [2010] ECR I‑9217, paragraph 29, and Case C‑434/09 McCarthy [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 27).

44 Second, it is necessary to note that EU law must be interpreted in the light of the relevant rules of international law, since international law is part of the European Union legal order and is binding on the institutions (see, to that effect, Racke, paragraphs 45 and 46, and Joined Cases C‑402/05 P and C‑415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I‑6351, paragraph 291).

45 In the present case, it is therefore necessary to establish whether, as the Slovak Republic claims, the fact that Mr Sólyom, while a Union citizen, was carrying out, at the material time, the duties of the Hungarian Head of State is liable to constitute a limitation, on the basis of international law, on the application of the right of free movement conferred on him by Article 21 TFEU.

46 To that end, it should be noted that, on the basis of customary rules of general international law and those of multilateral agreements, the Head of State enjoys a particular status in international relations which entails, inter alia, privileges and immunities.

47 In particular, Article 1 of the New York Convention of 14 December 1973 on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, states, inter alia, that every Head of State, while on the territory of a foreign State, enjoys that protection.

48 Thus, the presence of a Head of State on the territory of another State imposes on that latter State the obligation to guarantee the protection of the person who carries out that duty, irrespective of the capacity in which his stay is effected.

49 The status of Head of State therefore has a specific character, resulting from the fact that it is governed by international law, with the consequence that the conduct of such a person internationally, such as that person’s presence in another State, comes under that law, in particular the law governing diplomatic relations.

50 Such a specific character is capable of distinguishing the person who enjoys that status from all other Union citizens, with the result that that person’s access to the territory of another Member State is not governed by the same conditions as those applicable to other citizens.

51 Accordingly, the fact that a Union citizen performs the duties of a Head of State is such as to justify a limitation, based on international law, on the exercise of the right of free movement conferred on that person by Article 21 TFEU.

52 In the light of all of the foregoing, it must be held that, in the circumstances of the present case, neither Article 21 TFEU nor, a fortiori, Directive 2004/38 obliged the Slovak Republic to guarantee access to its territory to the President of Hungary and that, therefore, the first head of complaint must be rejected as unfounded.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There's money to be made....

[ducksalad]

Weird that Greenland and Denmark haven't told them to stay home.

Martinned, you know more about it than I do, but is it possible the Danes and Greenlanders have some notion that the granting and denying of entry should be a ministerial decision based on objective, pre-existing regulations, rather than the personal decision of the chief executive? Perhaps both PMs have a strange belief that there are legal limits on their authority?

[Martinned2]

I do think that. Which is one of the reasons why I referred the interested reader to Hungary v. Slovakia.

If you want to dig out the relevant Greenlandish and/or Danish law that governs the exact procedure for denying someone entry, go ahead.

[grb]

Martinned2 : "Weird that Greenland and Denmark haven’t told them to stay home."

Weirder still, Greenland and Denmark never invited the Vances or their entourage. Unless something has happened behind the scenes, the Vice President is visiting a country at dispute with the U.S. without any invitation. Of course there must be some background coordination for security purposes, but that's not the same.

Can anyone come up with anything similar?

[shawn_dude]

We do have military bases in Greenland which likely changes the calculus a bit. I would think that if Trump caries this too far, Greenland might signal a desire for those bases to leave.

[Kazinski]

Well I think JD, and the other officials are headed to a US military base and will not clear customs or need a visa, or even a passport.

Access to the base is governed by the base treaty.

“I’m going to visit some of our guardians in the space force on the northwest coast of Greenland, and also just check out what’s going on with the security there of Greenland,” Vance said in a video on X.

Whereas the White House said earlier that Usha Vance’s trip would “celebrate Greenlandic culture and unity,” a statement from the vice president’s office Tuesday only made mention of the Pituffik base, saying that the Vances would be receive a briefing on Arctic security issues and meet with US service members."

[grb]

I suspect the itinerary change came precisely because the Vances were uninvited & unwanted. That's only a guess, but probable still.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, "47" doesn't like to talk about all of the "stuff he plans" (Anton Chigurh voice)

Frank "Call it, you have to call it"

[hobie]

He'll be dern popular in 'pathetic' Greenland; a protectorate of 'pathetic' Europe

[Martinned2]

He already got booed in Vermont. Imagine what might happen in Greenland. (Although Greenland is pretty empty, so he might just end up seeing a few polar bears in the distance and otherwise nothing but snow, depending on his exact travel plans.)

[hobie]

Last month, a local Vermont news outlet posted a video of Vance's motorcade passing along the road for his skiing vacation there. Ignoring for the moment the need for the poor man to have a vacation with less than two months on the job, the motorcade was well over 100 vehicles and took several minutes to pass by

[Martinned2]

Well of course. How else would the peasants know that there is someone important in town?

It's the same in Greenland. It looks like every single inhabitant is going to get a USSS babysitter.

[Frank Drackman]

Exaggerate much? Population of Greenland is 55,000, or about the capacity of Yankee Stadium.

[Bob from Ohio]

"less than two months on the job"

He had a job previously. It was a family vacation.

I'm not counting cars in any video but even the President's motorcade is not even close to 100.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What's the over/under on the date when literal millions of Americans will be in the streets to demonstrate?

How about over/under on the date when demonstrators first encounter massive displays of military opposition?

[Kazinski]

Let them. Nobody cares.

Trump's approval rating is holding steady at about 49-50, here is the RCP average and the polls dropped in the last week:

RCP Average 47.9 48. -0.9
Rasmussen 3/18 - 3/24 51 47 +4
YouGov 3/16 - 3/18 47 50 -3
FOX News 3/14 - 3/17 49 51 -2
RMG Research* 3/12 - 3/19 53 45 +8

March 25, 8 years ago he was at -10.

[Martinned2]

It's like the proverbial frog in the boiling pot.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nice poll lineup, but a few months too soon. Cherry season comes in June.

By the way, do you suppose it is wiser to consult polls for rhetorical ammunition, or to try to discover accurate social insights? And how do you think the politicians who pay for some of those polls would answer that question?

[Brett Bellmore]

RCP is a polling aggregator, Lathrop, and their numbers were consistent with 538's before ABC pulled the plug. The fact of the matter is that Trump's approval has dropped less than 2% since he took office.

Nate Silver basically agrees: "Trump's approval ratings have declined but in a way quite typical early in a president's new term."

There's no particular reason to expect his approval to crash; He's doing what he campaigned on doing, and what he campaigned on doing was popular enough that he won the election.

[David Nieporent]

He is not doing what he campaigned on doing, and what he campaigned on doing got less than 50% of the vote.

[Kazinski]

Funny story about 538 and polling bias. The dropped Rasmussen from their polling average for supposed bias in March last year.

While most of the national polls showed Harris surging to a lead in August and September Rasmussen consistently showed Trump up by 2 and within one point of his actual margin. Rasmussen also got all the swing states right except Michigan where they had Harris ahead by 1 point, where Trump won by about 1.5%. But their biggest miss was they had Trump up by 2 in AZ, when he won by 6%.

And now 538 is no more.

[apedad]

Hey Kazinski - screw your polls.

This is the only thing that counts.
~~~
Democrat wins special state Senate election in Pennsylvania in major upset

Democrat James Malone has won an open Pennsylvania state Senate seat in a major upset in a district that comfortably voted for President Trump in November, Decision Desk HQ projects.

Parsons was considered likely to win in the conservative-leaning district, which President Trump carried in November with 57 percent of the vote and McCormick won with 56 percent. Aument had even been unopposed in his last election in 2022.

But Malone was able to overcome the odds, and the Democratic Party continued its strong performance in under-the-radar elections since Trump took office. Democrats notched another major upset in a strongly conservative Iowa state Senate district in January, also winning a county executive seat in New York, among other more low-key successes.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5214236-democrat-james-malone-wins-pennsylvania-senate/

[Bob from Ohio]

"This is the only thing that counts."

The only thing!

Special elections highly favor democrats now.

Special election entrails reading is always quite fun.

[Voize of Reazon]

The last time Lancaster County elected a Democrat to the state Senate was in 1889.
Until now.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz:

'Break all the laws you want, so long as the approval rating stays high!'

Pure populist authoritarianism.

If we climb out of this, I hope you and the many other tools on here have their decision to discard America's republican institutions never forgotten.

[tylertusta]

You're trolling again, and it's not even pithy.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : ‘Break all the laws you want, so long as the approval rating stays high!’

This is accurate regarding Kazinski’s lack of ethical standards, but that’s only to be expected. Today’s Right is an empty nihilistic shell. It has no ethical standards. Besides, I’d criticize his shortsightedness first. Let’s zoom up to 10,000ft and divvy up the country’s electorate:

1. Rational people who are appalled at Trump’s lawlessness, performance chaos, and willful destruction of everything he touches.

2. The nihilistic Right, who think it’s all great WWE-style entertainment.

3. The under-informed, who know something’s happening here, but what it is ain’t exactly clear.

At this stage we’re in the phase of stunts and gimmicks. That’s the reason DOGE is such a blundering scattershot mess that can’t release a document not riddled with lies and errors. Everything is geared towards theatrics that provides pro-wrestling-style fireworks and require no thought, effort, or discipline. Now, this does bring reward from both Category 2 & 3 above. The nihilistic Right gets their TV-viewing yuks; the uninformed passively wait to see how the excitement pans out.

But it’s not sustainable. The appalled will remain so, with their judgement proving true over time. The uninformed will discover this cartoon nonsense affects them too. Even MAGA-types will find find Trump’s brat-child mischief is detrimental to people like them, not just foreigners & those with darker skin.

Even if Trump doesn’t succeed in singlehandedly creating a recession thru stupidity alone, his numbers will steadily decay as the vaudeville routine gets old. And if he does? There ain’t no valley low enough for where his polling will head.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Fairly stupid to posit millions demonstrating in the streets, and, "no one cares," in the same hypothetical.

[Frank Drackman]

Will they be wearing Vagina hats?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Anyone suppose the Roberts Court will do anything but snooze through the upcoming national governance crisis? Business as usual?

[Michael P]

If you say "crisis" another five or eighteen times, you might actually identify one. But given your track record, I'm not holding my breath.

[Ska]

Chicken Little and the Boy Who Cried Racist are still popular stories after 2,500 years.

[shawn_dude]

"Immigration Crisis!"

[Brett Bellmore]

What national governance crisis? You being unhappy about how we're governed isn't a crisis, you know.

[Martinned2]

But people being shipped abroad without due process in violation of a court order is.

[Frank Drackman]

You’re right, why waste all that jet fuel, have the Coast Guard dump them right outside US territorial waters

[Thought about __ all my life]

Not illegal that they are here but illegal that they are shipped back. Makes no sense. Tren de Aragua has never been anything BUT ILLEGAL

[SRG2]

How do we know that they're TdA? Because the regime said so?

[ThePublius]

Maybe because they tattoo their membership on themselves?

https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/09.16.2024_TdA_Slides-Combined_.pdf

[SRG2]

Thank you. And now explain why people without those tattoos but with other tattoos – e.g., someone with a Real Madrid tattoo – were also picked up.

Having Tattoos While Hispanic should not be grounds for deportation.

[ThePublius]

You asked "How do we know that they’re TdA?" And I told you. I don't know why people without those tattoos were picked up, other than that they were in the country illegally. You know, it's illegal to be here illegally, and if you are, you are subject to deportation.

[SRG2]

You are intentionally missing the point.

Yes, I certainly believe that some people who were picked up were TdA, and their tattoos prove it.

But I also believe that ICE picked up other people who were innocent on the strength of their having tattoos, and it seems you don’t care. You clearly think either that everyone kidnapped must have been illegal, because if they were innocent, ICE wouldn’t have kidnapped them or that id mistakes were made, fuck ’em anyway.

https://english.elpais.com/usa/2025-03-21/a-tattoo-of-real-madrid-the-trump-administrations-proof-for-deporting-a-venezuelan-to-el-salvador.html

[David Nieporent]

Nope. That's not it. Not a single tattoo there with the words, "Member of TdA."

[Ska]

Your tattoo, doesn't it say "Die Bart, Die?"

No, no, that's German for "The Bart, the."

Well, nobody who speaks German can be a bad man.

[ThePublius]

That's baloney, David, these tattoos are well known and cataloged by law enforcement. Not the train (locomotive) tattoo, for example. Think there's a connection?

I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

[Sarcastr0]

these tattoos are well known and cataloged by law enforcement

Are they?

[David Nieporent]

these tattoos are well known and cataloged by law enforcement

Q: What's the difference between a "gang expert" and an astrologer?
A: Astrologers have professional standards.

It's literally all masturbation. A so-called gang expert says that his experience at being a gang expert makes him a gang expert, and then makes completely unfalsifiable claims about what indicates someone is a gang member. There is nothing at all to show that these things are actual gang symbols, rather than just random tattoos that some gang members, and millions of non-gang members, have.

[ThePublius]

"When asked how authorities had been able to determine whether the individuals were in a gang, border czar Tom Homan said that authorities had relied on social media, surveillance, sworn statements from gang members, and wiretaps to determine Tren de Aragua affiliation."

[Sarcastr0]

And we can see that evidence and the process of evaluating it...when?

[Stephen Lathrop]

The national governance crisis which just attacked and crippled one of the nation's leading universities, and is drawing a bead on several others . . . and other stuff so thick and fast no one can keep up.

You have been posing as a patriot Bellmore—a patriot with an ongoing cover of self-delusion. Soon, you will have to abandon that pose, or count yourself openly as a . . . well, what will it be, an authoritarian, a fascist, a totalitarian, so many to chose, so little time.

[Don Nico]

Columbia did (or should we say didn't do) a lot to bring this on itself. Violation of civil rights laws can have consequences. In this case it did.
A larger issues for universities that that of the allowed level of indirect costs and the possibility of taxing the realized income from endowments.

[Martinned2]

Yes, it's Columbia's own fault for not paying Trump hundreds of millions back in the 1990s.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/21/nyregion/trump-columbia-university-400-million.html

[Sarcastr0]

If this was a violation of civil rights laws, why didn't the administration use those laws?

Hell, no new issues are even being cited. This is just attacking universities because MAGA hates universities.

Whoever you're talking to, it's not university leadership - the administration's defunding rampage is absolutely in their mix of concerns.
Especially smaller schools with smaller budgets who don't need to be directly targeted to suffer from the grants terminations.

[Don Nico]

What was done was faster and got Columbia's attention.
"Whoever you're talking to, it's not university leadership - the administration's defunding rampage is absolutely in their mix of concerns."
Did you actually read that? That issue of a severe cap on indirects is deep concern at every university. The range presently is from ~40% to almost ~70%. When the universities settle (I predict at ~40%) the universities that have been most hard-nosed about billing direct costs as such will not be hurt much. Mine at nearly ~70% will take a hit of tens of millions of dollars annually.
The suggestion of the level of the hit was by the President of my university.

[Sarcastr0]

What was done was faster and got Columbia's attention.
So would a DoJ lawsuit. No, this is spite.

There are lots of areas of concern. The indirect costs cap is huge but it doesn't obviate the administration's other attacks on our higher education system, including captious funding-based attacks.

You're using indirect costs to deflect from the whim-based defunding issue. It doesn't work like that; it's yes and.

When I talk to VPRs they've got a list. Except for the ones that try to put a happy face on all the chaos. Which is, so far, about 4 out of 9.

[Don Nico]

"You’re using indirect costs to deflect from the whim-based defunding issue. It doesn’t work like that; it’s yes and. "
More dishonesty on your part. I point out a huge concern on every R1 campus, a concern that is being challenged in court and you call it deflection.
My gosh, where is your mind when you write?

[David Nieporent]

It is a deflection, because nobody is talking about the cap on indirect costs. That's not how Trump has targeted Columbia.

[Don Nico]

Wake up David.
The Administration wants to cap indirects at 15%

[David Nieporent]

The Administration wants to cap indirects at 15%

I am aware of that. But that is not the topic of this discussion, which is about the targeted attack on Columbia specifically for political reasons, not about the administration's general disdain for academia.

[Sarcastr0]

You pointed it out, not out of the blue, but as a response to a different issue.

That is deflecting from the initial issue.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, check the particular (weird) consequences. It wasn't a legal penalty, it was a fascist hit job.

[Don Nico]

Call it what ever names you want. Columbia will clean up its act.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — Unless Columbia soon finds a way to turn capitulation into defiance, Columbia is newly destined to be captured by MAGA, as a right-wing campus. Students and faculty who are not right wing will find other places to go.

Nobody with any academic ambition—as opposed to political career ambition—wants to attend a university with an administration pledged for years to do the bidding of one political party. Let alone with an administration so pusillanimous that if it ever gets out of line it invites another increment of lawless economic punishment.

If Columbia ever recovers from this leadership blunder, it will probably be a long time hence. Other leading universities would do well to take the lesson, and make plans for unified resistance if any of them get similarly targeted. They will undoubtedly be required to take near-span economic hits to maintain their independence. Long-term, defense of their independence should pay off after the MAGA anti-intellectual insanity becomes a receding memory.

[Don Nico]

Columbia is not going to be a right-wing campus. Geez, that level of paranoia needs a prozac or at least a cut of tea.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — Can you clarify? Do you think Trump's recently accepted orders to turn over to political control faculty, curriculum, and student governance decisions will somehow get turned back? Or is there some other mechanism you envision, which somehow leaves that political control in place, but prevents it from operating without its intended effects? Are you just offering an argument from incredulity. Or do you have some other insight to offer.

[Don Nico]

Sure, Provost Olinto will run the school the way a top university should be run, by the academic officers and the faculty. Columbia is not going to be run by the federal government. It will follow the Civil Rights laws with respect to all on campus.
There is a reason that Columbia caved. It was in a cannot-win situation.
You are in hysteria right now. Calm down.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What is it that you think the Roberts Court should have done with regard to the Columbia situation?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Did the Columbia case already get to the Supreme Court and I missed it?

[Don Nico]

No it didn't. Columbia caved.

[Sarcastr0]

And then continued to be targeted.

[Noscitur a sociis]

There is no Columbia case, and it doesn’t look like there’s going be one, which is why it seems strange that you’re blaming the court for it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I offered the Columbia case as a baleful example of ongoing government-created crisis, which indeed looks like it can only be stopped by either unaccustomed Court initiative, or the various kinds of anti-systemic activities such crises provoke—stuff like military mutinies, massive citizen revolts, violent coups led by rival political figures, and civil wars.

My first choice on that list, as I have already written previously, would be unaccustomed Court initiative. Let me know if you did not see that comment. Maybe I should repeat it. It attracted no more favorable response than I expected. Which led me to suspect too little critical attention to the alternatives.

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, in continued winning at the Department of Government Efficiency:

Tax revenue could drop by 10 percent amid turmoil at IRS

Staff cuts and disruptions related to the U.S. DOGE Service have officials bracing for a sharp loss of revenue.
(...)
Treasury Department and IRS officials are predicting a decrease of more than 10 percent in tax receipts by the April 15 deadline compared with 2024, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share nonpublic data. That would amount to more than $500 billion in lost federal revenue; the IRS collected $5.1 trillion last year. For context, the U.S. government spent $825 billion on the Defense Department in fiscal 2024.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/03/22/irs-tax-revenue-loss-federal-budget/

[Martinned2]

It's almost as if firing tax inspectors and incentivising billionaires and immigrants to dodge their taxes is a bad idea.

[Bob from Ohio]

"billionaires and immigrants to dodge their taxes"

Billionaires don't dodge their taxes, they do have expensive tax lawyers and accountants to take advantage of every possible deduction and credit.

Fewer C student IRS employees won't stop them

[Martinned2]

And yet those C student IRS employees still send billionaires to prison for tax dodging, so I guess you might be somewhat inaccurately informed.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Hui Qin, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, for making political contributions in the names of others"

Not tax dodging, election fraud.

[Frank Drackman]

Shouldn’t it be Tax “Doge-ing”?

[Ska]

Only because I've been the guy standing between the IRS agent and the taxpayer, most IRS employees do in fact have no fucking idea beyond matching errors. Arguing about, for example, applicable 704(c) allocation methods with a rank and file agent is utterly pointless; not only do they not know the code section well, if at all, but they have no idea how it is actually applied at either the partnership or individual levels.

[Sarcastr0]

Wouldn't expect a lot of engagement on this. Caring about the debt is only for bad faiths calls to break the law because it's a crisis.

[jb]

Similarly, "we don't need new rules, we should just enforce the existing laws" for some reason seems not to apply to taxes.

Which...is weird? I'd imagine most of the people posting here who are normal humans rather than bots or outright propagandists get most of their income in pretty normal ways which are easy for the government to tax. Why all of this political cover for super rich people who get to use questionable tax avoidance strategies that normal people don't?

[Bob from Ohio]

"spoke on the condition of anonymity to share nonpublic data".

Seems ironclad! No agenda by the supposed leakers or the WaPo, nope.

[Martinned2]

Yes, because the explanation given relies entirely on the identity of the sources, rather than their own internal logic. Who knew that sending people to El Salvador based on their tax filings might make fewer people file their taxes?

[Bob from Ohio]

Its just political speculation.

[shawn_dude]

I can feel the breeze from your furious hand-waving way over here on the Left coast...

[Commenter_XY]

A legal question for the lawyers and law professors.

Mike Waltz and Pete Hegseth, of Signal fame, asserted that no classified materials or war plans were texted in the Signal thread. Reporter Jeffrey Goldberg calls that a deliberate lie.

Suppose Goldberg releases the texts and, lo and behold, there actually IS classified information and/or war plans in that Signal thread. Can Goldberg be prosecuted by the DOJ for publishing the text thread?

Does the analysis change if US servicemembers are killed by Houthis who acquired the Signal thread (meaning, hypothetically, the Houthis got the info, acted on it, and killed a US servicemember)?

[Martinned2]

Can Goldberg be prosecuted by the DOJ for publishing the text thread?

By this DOJ? Definitely. Would he end up in prison? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Would he be well-advised to seek asylum somewhere abroad? Probably.

[Zarniwoop]

First, clarify the timing of your hypothetical. The attack has already happened, so any “warning” is now too late for Houthis to ambush US planes. Are you speculating about a pre-attack release that didn’t happen, or asking about a release now?

Second, there’s precedent you might have heard about:

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. The ruling made it possible for The New York Times and The Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.

[Commenter_XY]

Let me try to clarify (but yes to preattack release). Suppose Goldberg published the entire Signal thread over the weekend, prior to the operation starting, and a US servicemember was KIA as a result of the Houthis having advance notice. Does that actually change the analysis? I am guessing that it does not, meaning, freedom of press > life of US servicemember.

I wonder about the likelihood of the scenario above. It would be good to know the limits of what is allowable under the Constitution for the press to publish. And with the explosion in independent journalism, pretty much anyone with a smartphone can be an independent journalist.

In this latest imbroglio, I think Goldberg should simply publish the entire Signal thread - all of it. Either there is classified info or not. War plans, or not. The American people can handle whatever was said in the thread.

[Estragon]

TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED W/ CENTCOM we are a GO for mission
launch.
1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike
package)
1345: "Trigger Based" F-18 1st Strike
Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME) - also, Strike Drones Launch
(MQ-9s)
1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike
package)
1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL
DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier
"Trigger Based" targets)
1536: F-18 2nd Strike Starts - also, first
sea-based Tomahawks launched.
MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)

[Estragon]

“We are currently clean on OPSEC”

If there is any justice in this world, this phrase should follow Whiskey Pete wherever he goes for eternity. What an embarrassment.

[Estragon]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

[Estragon]

Also Mr Waltz set these to auto-delete, seemingly implicating the Presidential and Federal Records Act, which is obviously why they were using signal to begin with. One must wonder what other conversations are talking place in a similar fashion.

[Estragon]

And of course finally, as icing on the cake, if there was any doubt as to whether these people are actually this stupid— they communicate via emojis like a bunch of Facebook Karens in a Moms for Liberty group. Truly stunning— not that I expect any person
— other than, perhaps, Mr Goldberg— (as we can see here on this thread the groundwork is already being laid by the huckleberries) to face any kind of legal or professional consequences for this cluster.

[Commenter_XY]

So in my hypothetical, Goldberg gets 10 years. And a fine. Ouch.

[Estragon]

Not sure I agree with you 100% on your detective work there Lou… but whatever.

[not guilty]

"So in my hypothetical, Goldberg gets 10 years. And a fine. Ouch."

Uh, no. Check out the analysis of the nonapplicability of 18 U.S.C. § 793 in Justice Douglas's concurring opinion in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 720-722 (1971).

[Magister]

Goldberg didn't cause it to be removed or delivered from where it should have been, and it's not clear who his superior officer would be that he should report it to, or even that it was illegally removed or delivered (unless by Mike Waltz). But Goldberg did report it once it became clear that it was real.

[David Nieporent]

You're assuming they wouldn't claim that he was deliberately doing it to aid Yemen and charge him under 794, which carries potential death as the sentence.

[shawn_dude]

Gives Trump an opportunity to really show that the press truly is the "enemy of the people."

[not guilty]

"Let me try to clarify (but yes to preattack release). Suppose Goldberg published the entire Signal thread over the weekend, prior to the operation starting, and a US servicemember was KIA as a result of the Houthis having advance notice. Does that actually change the analysis? I am guessing that it does not, meaning, freedom of press > life of US servicemember."

Mr. Goldberg would have been well within his rights to publish the information at any time. See New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).

[Moderation4ever]

Not a lawyer but I don't think Jeffery Goldberg would be in trouble unless he has some sort of security clearance oath that he violated. Criminal liability comes when you violate an oath to keep information secret.

[John F. Carr]

Before publishing the exchange he should state openly, "Thank you for clarifying that no classified information was posted. I will treat the messages as unclassified and publishable." Then wait a while to see if the administration backtracks.

Aside from the prohibition on espionage-like activities, two types of things are protected by the Espionage Act. The Act protects a variety of tangible objects like documents with SECRET stamps on them. The catch-all at the end of the list is "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation". Revealing an intended attack before it happens could be a violation. After the fact... I wouldn't convict.

The right thing to do is for Mike Waltz to resign – "full responsibility" means it's his fault – and for the administration to negotiate with Goldberg over what can be published.

[John F. Carr]

Looks like Goldberg already did that. He told the government he was going to publish the information based on claims it was not classified. Nobody stopped him. He agreed to keep secret the name of a CIA officer. The article went online an hour before I posted.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-group-chat-attack-plans-hegseth-goldberg/682176/

"Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal"
"The administration has downplayed the importance of the text messages inadvertently sent to The Atlantic’s editor in chief."

[Bob from Ohio]

"downplayed the importance"

Because even if the Houtis were reading in real time, there was nothing they could have done about it.

[Absaroka]

Oh, I dunno. The 'terrorist leader' might have changed his schedule, for example, if he knew a strike was inbound. You could make sure the folks at the SAM sites are awake.

Even after the fact, lots of people might be interested in the details of how and when we identified that leader was hit. Knowing what your opponent knows, how accurately they know it, and when is always useful.

Thirdly, knowing that those discussions are happening on vanilla phones over vanilla networks is a yuuuuuge incentive for nation states across the globe to go hack those phones. A vanilla phone with Signal is pretty secure for normal people chatting, but it is in no way proof against nation state hacking. 'Ft Knox' is a pretty decent brand of gun safes, but ... they aren't like the real Ft Knox.

[Dr. Ed 2]

HOWEVER having Iran thinking that we would do this the next time could be priceless.

How many carriers do we have in the Gulf right now?

[Frank Drackman]

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you,
but hey, I could never keep a secret...
2 I think, Vinson and the Truman,
Pete, I mean Secretary Hedgesex told me.
Now don't you tell anyone, or I'll have you flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit!

Frank "Stinky"

[Life of Brian]

Thirdly, knowing that those discussions are happening on vanilla phones over vanilla networks is a yuuuuuge incentive for nation states across the globe to go hack those phones.

Apparently I missed the "vanilla phones" part. Where did you see that?

[Sarcastr0]

So you think Signal is available on classified systems?

[Life of Brian]

Let's put your false binary on hold for now until Absaroka fills us in -- particularly since you're so averse to mindreading.

[Absaroka]

I dunno - I kinda think you wouldn't be using anything open source on high security systems for the obvious reason. In any event the previously posted NSA doc includes "Please note: third party messaging apps (e.g. Signal) are permitted by policy for unclassified accountability/recall exercises but are NOT approved to process or store nonpublic unclassified information (e.g. Protected, FOUO, CUI, etc.)".

[Life of Brian]

[back from the latest outage -- must be running open source 😜]

I kinda think you wouldn’t be using anything open source on high security systems for the obvious reason.

Is it quite so obvious, though? If you design your own proprietary secure communications app and someone silently exploits it, you could be vulnerable for years on end and have no clue. Using an open-source application that a large segment of the world relies on for secure communications and for which anyone concerned about potential vulnerabilities (including you) can freely inspect/trace/otherwise audit the code reduces the risk that any given security hole will persist.

[Absaroka]

I think you have the argument a little garbled.

You are looking for a messaging app and can choose between Signal (open source) and WhatsApp (proprietary). I will pick Signal - it has been looked at by some pretty trusted eyeballs, who have the incentive to disclose holes. WhatsApp has been looked at by ... WhatsApp employees. Who may not be incentivized to disclose weaknesses. Indeed, they might be fired if they do. The history of computer security is littered with companies saying 'trust us, our proprietary security is just super-duper', only to find they were swiss cheese.

So that's where 'open source is more secure' comes from: it is (likely) more secure than random proprietary stuff.

Now lets talk about doing really secure stuff. Nuclear launch codes. Missile launch commands to boomers. Houthi attack plans :-). Should you just take the current build of Signal and use it for that? No.

There have been - a few, not many - targeted attacks via open source, where a nation state sponsors someone to become one of the contributors, contributing actual useful code for years, then slip in a very subtle back door. So I don't think - repeat think - the NSA is just adopting open source stuff off the shelf. It's possible - I'm not getting any classified briefings - that they got the source for iOS, Android, Signal, etc, and have spent a lot of man years vetting those specific versions, and install only those versions on carefully selected hardware and so on. That would be a lot of work, but maybe.

Even if they did, you don't want to mix secure and non-secure stuff. I haven't asked my relative what OS her secure computer uses. It might be a vetted version of Windows or Linux, I dunno. But the reason for the air gapping is that even if someone slips a backdoor into your OS, they won't be able to get across the air gap to access their back door.

[Life of Brian]

I think you have the argument a little garbled.

Then I haven't made it clearly, because I don't think we're really saying anything different at bottom.

So that’s where ‘open source is more secure’ comes from: it is (likely) more secure than random proprietary stuff.

I think where we're looking at things differently is your apparent trust that NSAApp is inherently more secure than WhatsApp. Could be, but I don't know why this would necessarily be one of the unicorns of governmental competence.

But either way, my point was that you get a huge amount of "many eyes" leverage in the open source community that (statistically speaking) should significantly reduce the potential for tunnel vision that can cause a smaller development team to keep glazing over the same bug/design vulnerability for years. With pretty rare exception, that's how it seems to have played out in the real world.

There have been – a few, not many – targeted attacks via open source, where a nation state sponsors someone to become one of the contributors, contributing actual useful code for years, then slip in a very subtle back door.

XZ Utils is actually a splendid example: the rogue contributor spent years social engineering his way into the development community and carefully massaging code, only to have it detected and remediated in a matter of weeks. Anyone who wasn't constantly installing bleeding-edge updates (certainly in the top 3 if not #1 in the list of things not to do on secure systems, as you allude to below) was fine.

It’s possible – I’m not getting any classified briefings – that they got the source for iOS, Android, Signal, etc, and have spent a lot of man years vetting those specific versions, and install only those versions on carefully selected hardware and so on. That would be a lot of work, but maybe.

Indeed there are multiple commercially available hardened turnkey packages like this -- CryptoPhone and NitroPhone for two -- and if they have their own custom silicon it probably wouldn't take long to tweak GrapheneOS or CopperheadOS to run on that. Sure, it's some work, but certainly less than writing and maintaining an entire OS and app stack from scratch.

[Absaroka]

"I think where we’re looking at things differently is your apparent trust that NSAApp is inherently more secure than WhatsApp. Could be, but I don’t know why this would necessarily be one of the unicorns of governmental competence. "

Governments have certainly put too much trust in what they think are secure systems (coff...Enigma...coff). In fairness it started out as a commercial system, but by WWII I think it's fair to call Enigma a government system.

I still don't have the impression that when the NSA is looking for new encryption that it just looks at what the new open source hotness is. They can, with sufficient vetting - SSL comes to mind. I hope if they hire in house or contract for crypto work they make it plain that the objective is quality, not economy. They at least potentially have the budget for that, that a private developer might not. 'The NSA hires incompetent crypto people' is not something I hear.

And either way, don't be using the same device/net to talk in house shop and to rando journalists.

[Absaroka]

"Apparently I missed the “vanilla phones” part. Where did you see that?"

Jeffrey Goldberg's phone is some super secret device on a special high security net?

[Life of Brian]

I've reread the thread a few times, and confess I'm scratching my head a bit over what Goldberg's phone has to do with your original comment I responded to. I took your point re nation state incentives to refer to the phones of governmental officials, not rando journalists. Are you seeing some particular reason I'm not that Goldberg would have been picked as a target ex ante? And even if so, why would the nation states have previously been under the misimpression that Goldberg's phone actually was "some super secret device on a special high security net"?

[Absaroka]

IIUC, standard practice is that you have classified networks/devices/etc, and unclassified ones. And you don't mix the two; the phrase 'air gap' comes to mind.

Having long been a signal user here, here's a theory about what happened. You have a phone where you are mixing unclassified and classified stuff. You go to start up a chat group and are adding all your fellow people who are cleared up the wazoo, by swiping the little circle next to their name in your contacts list. Ooopsie, you just swiped someone who isn't cleared for this to your chat group. Or you typo an email address, or whatever.

Or one of your friends sends you a link to a funny cat video which hosts a malicious zero day, and your phone is pwned.

Just having your contacts list on the device be a mix of people with and without clearances is a yuuuuge security risk, as was aptly demonstrated here.

So *my understanding* (with the disclaimer I'm not getting classified briefings) of the way things are done is that you just don't mix secure and insecure systems. At a fairly low level of security, I have a relative who has two computers on her desk. One can access the public internet we all know and love (but she better not be surfing or shopping or whatever, official use only!) and the other is for her classified work. Never the twain shall meet - they access different email accounts and so on. It's not uncommon to have USB slots epoxied so you can't put in thumb drives, etc. She checks her phone with the guards when she arrives and picks it up at the end of the workday. If there is a family emergency, we can call the base office and they will pass a message for her to call us, and she can leave the building, get her phone, and call us.

That's the low security part of her work. For the high security stuff she goes to a SCIF. There are conversations - face to face verbal ones - she can't have at her desk, only in a SCIF.

There is a saying that aviation safety rules are written in blood. At the national security level, the rules are written in compromised operations and agents. Loose lips sink ships, etc, etc.

To my knowledge there aren't specially vetted versions of iOS or Android (but see disclaimer). Even if there are, you don't mix classified and unclassified stuff. If you do, you end up unwittingly including random people in your you-thought-secure chat.

[David Nieporent]

That’s the low security part of her work. For the high security stuff she goes to a SCIF. There are conversations – face to face verbal ones – she can’t have at her desk, only in a SCIF.

Yes, or a grocery store parking lot, if you're Jeffrey Goldberg.

[Life of Brian]

IIUC, standard practice is that you have classified networks/devices/etc, and unclassified ones. And you don’t mix the two; the phrase ‘air gap’ comes to mind.

No argument there at all, though the discussion seems to have shifted topics again.

But the underlying assumption is that we’re reading a classified discussion — or a discussion that SHOULD have been classified, anyway — and I don’t think there’s any basis for that other than armchair quarterbacking. There’s a huge excluded middle between stuff so sensitive you can only discuss it in a SCIF and stuff you care so little about you talk about it loudly in the street. And the discussion itself references actual classified information and its dissemination on the actual classified network.

[Sarcastr0]

If it does reference classified stuff, or CUI stuff, it should be kept to systems made for that.

That's on the DoD.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump will decide the punishment, and I think there should be some kind of punishment. Even if only a formal reprimand. Can't just let it slide.

[Estragon]

“and I think there should be some kind of punishment”

Five internet ducats says by a week from Friday you’ll have changed your mind.

[Commenter_XY]

No chance on changing my mind. Waltz f'ed up. Could have been pretty bad, too. The POTUS is sympathetic, trusts him, feels it is a one-off. That might all be true. Still...

Waltz should get a formal reprimand, at the least.

[bernard11]

You mean like "Bad boy, Waltz. Bad boy?"

[shawn_dude]

So much for "Lock Her Up!"

[jb]

Every indication is that the White House is doing all it can to downplay the whole thing rather than looking for any actual accountability.

But yes, Trump is not loyal to anyone so if it looks like this is actually going to be a political headache I'm sure he'll cut some folks loose.

[Estragon]

I take the opposite view. Not bowing to criticism, however legitimate, is one of the touchstones of this administration.

[Frank Drackman]

Reading the history of Georgia's first use of the Electric Chair in 1924 (from newspaper accounts, "Newspapers.com" is a great site)
First Execution was a Howard Hinton (yes, he was Black) 22, convicted of "Robbery and Assault" (the "Assault" was on a White Woman, the stories don't really go into the details)
Crime committed August 16, arrested the next day, convicted and sentenced to death August 22, executed September 24.
From what I can tell, the miscreant never offended again

Frank

[Michael Ejercito]

I wonder how the appeals process was so fast back in this case.

Sacco and Vanzetti had already been sentenced to death, and yet they would not be executed for years.

[Frank Drackman]

1: Georgia, 1924, Black
2: I think the Judge had one of those signs like Sheriff Andy Taylor had, one side said "Sheriff" the other "Justice of the Peace" probably same Judge hearing the Appeal that gave the Death Sentence.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

That was pretty fast, but such things happened.

For example, Giuseppe Zangara (Italian immigrant and naturalized US citizen) attempted to assassinate Franklin Roosevelt on Feb 15, 1933 while Roosevelt was giving a speech in Miami. Apparently, Zangara had been trained at the Frank Drackman School of Marksmanship and missed Roosevelt with all five shots. Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak happened to be in Miami at the time and was not so lucky as Roosevelt as he suffered a gunshot wound, as did four others. Cermak died on March 6, 1933, probably from pre-existing ulcerative colitis. Zangara was executed on March 20, 1933. So, time from crime to execution for Zangara was a bit shorter than in the Howard Hinton case noted above.

[Armchair]

A new tax we can all get behind. The University Endowment Tax.

The bill proposes raising the tax rate on university endowments from 1.4% to 21%, which is more in keeping with what normal people (corporations) pay on their investment income. It only affects universities with at least 500 students, and endowments of more than $500,000 per student. At the 1.4% tax rate, the tax raised $380 million a year. At the new tax rate (and a 7.5% rate of return), it's estimated to bring in over $68 billion over ten years.

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/taxing-endowments-revenue-analysis/

[Martinned2]

I'm sure the US federal and state governments will more than make up for the lost donations, right?

[Armchair]

Why would people donate less?

[Martinned2]

Because they don't want their donations to end up in Trump's pockets?

[Armchair]

Really....So...they're just going to invest it on their own?

[Martinned2]

Or donate it to the ACLU, or Planned Parenthood. Who knows?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because people really want abortion clinics named after them.

Grow up and look at what donors get in return.

[Armchair]

So.... Let's do the math here.

You donate $1 Million to Harvard. Harvard invests it, earns $75,000 on it. The feds take ~20% of that as taxes (or $15,000) under this proposal

But to spite the feds, instead you donate that $1 Million to the ALCU. They use it to pay their lawyers, who have (let's call it an average Federal income tax rate of 30%)... So, the Feds end up getting $300,000 of your $1 Million. Because you're "getting back at them" them, because of the investment tax on Harvard

[Armchair]

I really do want to hear Martinned's answer here. Perhaps he can answer personally.

If a University had a 21% tax rate on its investment income (rather than a 1.4%) rate, would that affect whether you would donate to that University? Would you shift your donation elsewhere (for example to a university which didn't have such a massive endowment and wouldn't be subject to the tax, or an organization like the Red Cross)? Or would you just hold onto the money for some reason?

[Don Nico]

I will still contribute to my university. Satisfied?

[Armchair]

Generally you're reasonable and I didn't have any issues. But sure. I'm satisfied.

[Martinned2]

I'm the wrong person to ask. Where I come from universities don't rely on private donations, and generally don't solicit them. I've never even thought about donating money to a university, and would consider it the government's job to pay for them with my tax money, just like the rest of the education system.

[Don Nico]

You should contribute to your university. There are many worthwhile activities carried on that governments are not going to pay full freight for.

[Martinned2]

Like what? Keep in mind that Dutch universities are legally required to accept all Dutch students who have the necessary high school diploma, and that those students get a government scholarship that is sufficient to cover their tuition and basic necessities. Are you suggesting that I should donate money for whatever research activities the university wants to do that it can't get funded somehow?

[ThePublius]

How come they have these acceptance rates?

University of Amsterdam: Acceptance rate around 51%.
Utrecht University: Acceptance rate around 22%.
University of Groningen: Acceptance rate around 50%.
Leiden University: Acceptance rate around 30%.
Free University Amsterdam: Acceptance rate around 45%.
Erasmus University Rotterdam: Acceptance rate around 53%.

[Martinned2]

I don't know what those acceptance rates are. I've never seen them before in my life. Are those the numbers of foreigners they accept? (Since non-EU applicants would struggle to exactly meet the diploma requirements.)

[Commenter_XY]

DN, now you know why Denmark contributes nothing to breakthrough research. No creativity or ingenuity.

You knew that already.

[Ridgeway]

Leaving aside the fact that Denmark and the Netherlands are two different countries....

Novo Nordisk is Danish and one of the main pharma companies in the world. Oh-Oh-Oh-Ozempic and whatnot.

They also lead the world in Lego technology.

[David Nieporent]

Leaving aside the fact that Denmark and the Netherlands are two different countries....

Easy way to tell them apart: the first is the one we have to attack to take Greenland. The second is the one we have to attack to protect war criminals.

[Armchair]

What makes you think Universities here "rely" on private donations?

What makes you think the University of Amsterdam or Oxford doesn't solicit them?

[Don Nico]

Of course Oxford solicits donations, large ones. That is how the business has to be run.

[Frank Drackman]

Make up for lost donations?, I hope not...
My Name, Jose Jimenez! (HT B. Dana/J. Jimenez)

[tylertusta]

For that very reason I also favor a complete end to Federal financial aid to universities (with few exceptions).

States will do what they do with their own state universities, but that's a them problem, not a nationwide problem.

[Martinned2]

Sure. Why would the US want world-leading universities anyway? What kind of national interest could there possibly be in having such things?

[Don Nico]

Harvard will neither improve or decline if its endowment is prevented to grow to $50B by the proposed tax bill.Same is true about my university.
The matter of allowed indirect costs will make a substantial difference to all R1 universities. But the accounting departments are scrubbing the indirects to identify every item than can be made a direct cost

[Commenter_XY]

DN, see this is where I disagree with you. You're talking about the 15% OH allowance. That is a huge money suck. No, if you get fed taxpayer dollars, we can demand a minimum level of efficiency. In private industry, we don't tolerate 15%+ fat (inefficiency), and we certainly won't pay vendors to stay inefficient. I grant this is shock therapy (15%), given current rates might be more like 50%-60%.

Tax law states what can be direct cost. No problem with reclassifying expenses, provided it conforms to tax law and can pass an IRS audit.

Somebody needs to make a good case why that 15% OH allowance is so terrible. Can you?

[Don Nico]

I have been through such analysis in managing a large organization. 15% does not even cover institutional security, fire services, top administrative officials.
If you examine the accounting structure of GOC0s, you will find that indirects which are scrutinized in ever M&O contract are at at least 40% to 50%.
The biggest fix, for universities that have not already done so, it to move space charges, heating and lighting, etc. to direct charges.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, ok, ok....total OH. I have to tell you, 40%+ is rich, 50%+ is just obnoxious. I could tolerate one-third for the short-term (a year), knowing a reduction to 25% was coming, with 15% the outcome by 2028.

To me, the university endowment can pay the university institutional OH cost. It is a private institution. The Fed gov't (taxpayers) is being generous in subsidizing the operations of a private university.

I haven't heard a good argument yet why we should be subsidizing the OH of a private university. Where else will they really go for the kind of money they receive?

[bernard11]

Somebody needs to make a good case why that 15% OH allowance is so terrible. Can you?

I'd say he did. But you ignore it.

Why do you hate institutions of learning? Why do you hate research?

[David Nieporent]

He thinks they're anti-Jewish, so he just wants to target them out of spite.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
There is no reasonable way indirects could fall to 15% without completely arbitrary assignments of reasonable costs of administration, grounds keeping independent of space assignment, all information access, audits, records.
Despite what S_0 implied there is flexibility in cost-accounting standards as long as institutions apply then uniformly. No matter what standards an organization chooses, different departments see different overhead hits. Humanities and chemistry have different calls on institutional services.

[Sarcastr0]

The accounting department already does that. As do agency grants officers.

The idea that costing Harvard a buncha money in taxes doesn't matter is actually not cynical enough about funding at schools like that.
Not that there's not a ton of waste, but top-down pressure isn't going to get them to cut that, just other stuff.

Like grad students. I'm already hearing about staffing pressure for our grants due to lack of incoming grad students. And given our technical workforce pipeline starts there, this isn't a one-year-and-done situation.

[Don Nico]

It does that consist with the choices of top management. There are always large gray areas. I have been through that managing a multi-B$ contract acquisition.
As I wrote above, direct charges for space are important to keep indirects down. There is discretion and there is what the customer will allow. This customer is being tight-fisted.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As the customer should be -- and make enough of the costs direct and the indirect should go to 0%.

[Don Nico]

Ed,
Such accounting would be dishonest. Period.
Paying for the President and Provost and VP Research the office of sponsored project are all legitimate costs. Paying for the on-campus fire department and security are all legitimate and hard to attribute to specific activities in a defensible way in court.

[Don Nico]

"The idea that costing Harvard a buncha money in taxes doesn't matter is actually not cynical enough about funding at schools like that."
That is exactly the kind of comment that I find completely and purposefully dishonest. I said just the opposite.
Why do you feel compelled to be so dishonest in your comments?
I know that you are just having fun, but lying is childish.

[Sarcastr0]

You said: "Harvard will neither improve or decline if its endowment is prevented to grow to $50B by the proposed tax bill"

How is that NOT saying that "costing Harvard a buncha money in taxes doesn't matter"

[Don Nico]

What I said (learn to read) is that growing the size of the Harvard endowment will not change the quality of Harvard teaching or research.
Gosh, Harvard is making $5B annually on its endowment. Why is it not pay at a rate similar to it students or other multi-billion dollar corporations.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not what you said. I quoted what you said.

So your new thesis is that the endowment isn't spent on stuff, it's just a horde that grows?

Why is it not pay at a rate similar to it students or other multi-billion dollar corporations.
So now you wonder why do nonprofits exist?

[Don Nico]

"our new thesis is that the endowment isn't spent on stuff"
You see how you distort to the point of dishonesty? No, you are blind to that. The endowment seldom is spent on stuff. That is why Harvard has a $50 B endowment. The income from the endowment is spent on stuff.
You have no credible argument why that income should not be taxed at the same level of any other business.
Stop the dishonesty an answer substantively.

[Sarcastr0]

growing the size of the Harvard endowment will not change the quality of Harvard teaching or research.
This is you, saying that the endowment it's being spent on stuff.

The endowment seldom is spent on stuff
This is you saying it again. Kinda rich calling me dishonest and then pulling this.

And no, the endowment is being spent. Baseline it to the market and you can easily see that.

You have no credible argument why that income should not be taxed at the same level of any other business
I will again turn you to the general question of why we have nonprofits:

We have nonprofits because we like what they do, and find it in the public interest to subsidize their actions via tax policy.

That also holds true for universities.

This is elementary stuff.

[David Nieporent]

You have no credible argument why that income should not be taxed at the same level of any other business.

Because they're not businesses; they're not-for-profits. "Income" isn't the defining factor in making something nonprofit; it's whether that income accrues to the benefit of owners/shareholders.

[Don Nico]

"So your new thesis is"
This is more gaslighting. You make up things that others say and then you criticize it. How predictable. How boring and yes how dishonest.

Then you decide to move the goals posts. "We have nonprofits because we like what they do, and find it in the public interest to subsidize their actions via tax policy."
There is a limit to the public's largess especially when those non-profits are major feeders at the public trough.
Balance, it is a matter of balance.

[tylertusta]

I've concluded that they're more trouble than they're worth.

Ya'll can have the Hamas sympathizers and the batshit moonbat lefties. They can debate gender studies and the oppression matrix to their heart's content while starting another anti-Jewish pogrom that you're itching to have anyways.

[Martinned2]

Yes, that's Trumpism in a nutshell. Stupid people feeling looked down on by smart people, and bringing out their pitchforks.

[tylertusta]

Looked down upon? Nah.

I don't see a need for my tax dollars to be paying for the three-ring circus that are the "progressives" running academia.

[Frank Drackman]

World leading in what? Terrorism?

[Bob from Ohio]

"I'm sure the US federal and state governments will more than make up for the lost donations, right?"

Why would they?

[Martinned2]

Because education and research are important, you ignorant muppet?

[Sarcastr0]

"normal people (corporations)"

[Commenter_XY]

Armchair, I oppose the UET, and further, would immediately repeal the 1.4% tax. That UET is a step too far. Philosophically, I have a problem with it. Why?

The power to tax is the power to destroy. I feel the same way about taxing churches, synagogues, etc. That is another area where the power to tax is the power to destroy.

I simply do not trust politicians, any politicians (or judges for that matter), to administer that tax fairly. The lesser evil is to keep their money-grubbing hands off endowment funds.

[ducksalad]

Thank you.

[Commenter_XY]

You are welcome.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The power to tax is the power to destroy. "

Yes, that's why I support it!

[Commenter_XY]

LOL, you and I have had this exchange before, BfO. Deja Vu, all over again, heh. Yogi would be proud. I met him once.

[Armchair]

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."
While technically true, a few points need to be made.

1. The government has the power to tax Universities whether or not it uses it. Just like it has the power to tax you, me, Google, General Motors, etc.
2. As long as it uses that power to tax judiciously, it does not destroy. Again, it could destroy you, or me, or Google or General Motors. How that is different from Harvard?
3. Unfortunately, the Government needs tax revenue. Yes, ideally, it would cut spending. But it cannot cut spending to zero. It needs "some" tax revenue. That needs to come from somewhere.
4. Ideally, that tax burden is spread fairly and evenly. In theory, the government could exempt everyone whose last name started with "A" from paying income taxes. But that would not necessarily be "fair" as then more of the tax burden would fall on everyone else. And deciding not to exempt the "A"s from paying taxes does not "destroy" them. It simply treats them like everyone else.
5. Lastly, we come to the question of "why" Universities should be exempted from taxation law when you or I or Google or General Motors are not. What makes them "special"? The argument goes that they use their funds for the "public good"...so deserve an exemption.
6. But...if they aren't actually using their funds for the "public good"...but only to concentrate more and more wealth...why should they be treated any differently from you and me? How is that "fair"?

[jb]

I'm not necessarily opposed. But presumably the primary effect of this would be that endowments would move more of their investments into vehicles that focus on capital gains as opposed to income.

I also think the Tax Foundation's analysis about whether this is a good policy lever and whether it's the right approach even if it is the right policy is pretty spot on.

[Armchair]

1. Well, the primary effect would be raising $60 Billion plus in tax revenue. That's my opinion.
2. Think of this less as "policy choice" and more of a "raising tax revenue from a source which has lots of money".

[shawn_dude]

If we need tax revenue, why is the administration prepping for yet another massive tax cut for the highest earners?

[David Nieporent]

At the new tax rate (and a 7.5% rate of return), it’s estimated to bring in over $68 billion over ten years.

So, in other words, it's targeted at those MAGA hates, and is designed to punish them rather than to actually bring in revenue.

[Armchair]

$68 billion is a decent chunk of revenue.

[David Nieporent]

That's $68 billion over ten years — not $68 billion per year — which is literally less than a rounding error in the federal budget.

[Armchair]

The "It's only a little bit" fallacy raises its head again.

[Martinned2]

Now tell me about the impact of all this DOGE chaos on tax revenues.

[shawn_dude]

So they're advocating taxing nonprofits? Because if we're going to go there, we should broaden this to include churches. (And revert Trump's tax cuts for the rich back to their prior levels.)

[Armchair]

"So they're advocating taxing nonprofits? "

No. Or at least not all non-profits. Just those educational institutions with more than $500,000 per student in endowment funds and more than 500 students. And just the investment income from those schools. Not the land, or anything else. And the initial tax was passed by the Biden administration and the Democrats.

Generally speaking, the concept is these institutions are simply collecting money and not using it on the students. The endowment continues to grow. Other non-profits (like the American Red Cross, for example) have backup funds...but typically no more than a year's worth. They spend the rest on the mission. You could tax the minor investment income, but all that is really just cycled back into the mission.

The large endowment funds like these have multiple years worth expeditures saved up. They could operate for up to a decade, in theory, without needing a dime of revenue. And the investment income is just plowed back into the investment account. Taxing that a little won't hurt the institutions. It serves as a source of revenue that has relatively minimal consequences of damage.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't pretend this is about raising revenue.

That's factually wrong, and people around here remember what you say and are like re: schools.

Come on, man.

[Armchair]

"That's factually wrong, "

Those words don't mean what you appear to think they mean.

[Sarcastr0]

DMN noted it. You brushed it off with a lame 'everything helps.'

And then right under you said: "the concept is these institutions are simply collecting money and not using it on the students."

You don't care about revenue, you want to punish schools. Because you've been told they are bad.

Don't piss on our leg and tell us you're not a tool.

[Armchair]

"DMN noted it."

DMN made a fallacious argument. $60 billion dollars is $60 Billion dollars. (Or $6 Billion a year if you prefer). It's not $1.50. It's 0.3% of the discretionary budget. Add a few of those items together, and you're looking at 5-10% of the discretionary budget.

But the argument "It's just a little bit"...can be used to overlook anything. Why not get rid of the Federal Excise Tax on diesel gas? It's just a little bit. Federal excise tax on liquor? That's in that range. Just a little bit. Get rid of it. Excise tax on tobacco? Just a little bit. Doesn't need to happen. Excise tax on tanning salons? Just a little bit. Don't need that...

Add it all up, and...it starts to add up. But let's really look at these taxes, and who pays for them. All those excise taxes....strongly regressive. The poor are paying for them.

But having the richest universities pay the same investment tax that every other organization* pays? Including non-profits (except those specifically exempted)... That's "unfair"?

What I'm about is raising revenue in a fair way, in a way that will minimally distort the market. You're against it because you're a crony for the rich professional class.

[Sarcastr0]

The 2024 discretionary budget was $1.8T So $6B that year is 0.3%.

It's not about revenue.

Quit with the bad faith.

[Martinned2]

The EU General Court (i.e. the first instance court) has upheld the sanctions against Russia Today and Sputnik. My American friends will probably be most interested in the analysis of the free speech aspects, which are in par. 87-142 of the judgment.

At first glance, the core bits are:

125 The Court has held, in the judgment in RT France, that the Council did not err by considering it necessary to prevent, in compliance with Article 11 of the Charter, forms of expression designed to justify and support an act of military aggression perpetrated in violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, and that, taking account, inter alia, of the extraordinary context of that case, it was appropriate to find that the limitations which were liable to result from the restrictive measures at issue on the freedom of expression of RT France and, by definition, of the other media outlets subject to the prohibition at issue, were proportionate, inasmuch as they were appropriate and necessary for the aims pursued (see the judgment in RT France, paragraphs 192 to 213 and the case-law cited). It must be noted, however, that in the foregoing analysis the proportionality of the contested regulations was examined in relation to RT France, which is one of the entities expressly subject to the restrictive measures at issue.
(...)
133 The prohibitions at issue, in order to be sufficiently effective and to have the effects pursued by the restrictive measures at issue, which are targeted at media outlets under the permanent direct or indirect control of the leadership of the Russian Federation that has put in place a systematic propaganda campaign in support of the military aggression in Ukraine (the judgment in RT France, paragraphs 161 and 162), necessarily had to relate to all forms of broadcasting, including by ‘internet service providers’, and could not be limited, as the applicants claim they could (see paragraph 98 above), to the fields of broadcasting and video-on-demand services. It should also be noted that the applicants have not invoked any less onerous alternative measure that would have been as effective in achieving the objectives pursued by the measures at issue.

134 Last, on a weighing up of the interests at play, the disadvantages involved in the prohibitions at issue are not disproportionate in the light of the objectives pursued. In that regard, the importance of the objectives pursued by the contested regulations, which form part of the wider objective of maintaining peace and international security, in accordance with the objectives of the Union’s external action set out in Article 21 TEU, is such as to outweigh any negative consequences, even considerable ones, for certain operators which bear no responsibility for the situation that led to the adoption of the restrictive measures (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 28 March 2017, Rosneft, C‑72/15, EU:C:2017:236, paragraph 149 and the case-law cited). In addition, it should be borne in mind that the applicants are required merely not to contribute to the broadcasting of content from those media outlets, which are moreover very limited in number. Accordingly, the restrictive measures at issue do not prevent the applicants from exercising their fundamental rights and, in particular, their purported freedom to impart information, since the applicants are permitted to provide access to all other content to the internet users under contract with them. The applicants have therefore not established that the contested regulations interfered disproportionately with their freedom to impart information.

(The claimants were Dutch ISPs, not Russia Today and Sputnik.)

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Toad, is that you with that beautiful computer? Man, what a waste of Machinery! (and Keystrokes, my Carpal Tunnel flares up just looking at your post)

[Bob from Ohio]

"most interested "

I doubt we will be interested at all.

[Martinned2]

OK, that's fair. Free speech as a talking point has been shelved until after Trump leaves office. I forgot to take that into account, I apologise.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nobody here is interested in European courts.

[Martinned2]

It looks like DOGE ran off with about $20m of Swedish government money that it had donated to USAID. The Swedish government would like to know what happened to that money, but all their emails keep bouncing.

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/1MG5mQ/sverige-kraver-pengar-fran-usa-mejlen-studsar

[Frank Drackman]

I heard it bought 25 million condoms for Gaza (I know, the Gaza in Mozambique, so why are we buying condoms for anyone? Box of 36 Trojans "ENZ" (get it? it has the Spermicide in the "Enz") $20.77 on Amazon)

Frank

[hobie]

It turns out that USAID was the organization primarily responsible for rebuilding Ukraine's infrastructure after Russian attack. No wonder it was the first thing to go.

[Frank Drackman]

First thing to go? USAID? Ukraine's Infrastructure? you're going to kill somebody with your indefinite pronouns someday, I'm supposed to be the one molesting the language here.

[Commenter_XY]

Memo to Sweden FM: Call SecState Marco Rubio.

[Martinned2]

"Oopsie..."

[shawn_dude]

DOGE operatives gave it to this very sweet Nigerian prince.

[Moderation4ever]

The US Election laws have generally been administered at a state or local level, but now the President want to get the Federal Government involved using an EO to require proof of citizenship and no counting of ballets received after election day. Some may like this but I suggest they consider the precedent. The day may come when a President AOC strikes all requirement for voter ID and when she allows widespread use of mail in voting. Or she allows citizens in Puerto Rico, Washington DC and other US territories to vote for the Presidency.

[Frank Drackman]

I know dancers tend to be on the skinny side, but I want to see you put an entire Ballet in a Ballot box.

[Brett Bellmore]

While I approve of the goals here, I think this really ought to be accomplished by legislation under Congress' "time, place, and manner" authority, not an EO.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree. This is the job of Congress.

[Sarcastr0]

Congress' "time, place, and manner" authority

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

[ReaderY]

Electing Presidents is the responsibility of a college of electors appointed as directed by state legislators. It is entirely a state responsibility. The President has no role in it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not entirely: Article II, Section I, paragraph 4:

"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

The argument here is that Congress having chosen the first Tuesday in November, which day must be uniform throughout the US, states are constitutionally precluded from choosing electors on the basis of any vote received AFTER that day.

But that's not the President, it's Congress.

[Martinned2]

Well, they are definitely precluded from choosing electors on the basis of votes *given* after election day. But that's not the same thing, is it?

[Brett Bellmore]

But if they chose the electors on Tuesday, how can votes that arrived on Wednesday play a part in the choice?

I admit it's the sort of argument that could go either way. But I think that they're actually on pretty strong grounds saying that prohibiting counting votes that arrive after election day is necessary and proper to making sure votes cast after election day don't get counted.

Could be Congress would have to assert that themselves in legislation, though. My chief point here was just that, no, the states do not have total freedom in the matter of electing Presidents, the federal government calls at least some of the shots.

[Martinned2]

They could count the votes given on Tuesday a month later and it wouldn't make any difference. As long as they're done counting by the time the Electoral College has to meet.

[Armchair]

A retrospective on the Ukraine war, and what Ukraine did wrong.

While hindsight is 20/20, and Ukraine had several successes, several items pop out as mistakes Ukraine made in its war with Russia. Let's examine.

1. Failure to properly defend the Crimean Isthmus.
-In the opening days of the 2022 war, Russia flooded out of Crimea. The Crimean isthmus represented a fairly small strip of land which could have been more easily defended in depth. Failure to defend this led to the loss of a large chunk of Ukrainian land.

2. Failure to cut off the flow of gas from Russia to Eastern Europe.
-What is surprising is that through much of this war Ukraine continued to allow Russian gas to go through Ukranian pipelines to be sold to Europe....why?

3. Failure to strike harder and earlier into Russia. As Russia was striking throughout Ukraine, for the first couple years Ukraine conspiciously failed to hit Russian targets in Russia...despite them being used to directly support the Ukraine assault.

4. The attempted Robotyne attack. While the first two Ukrainian counterattacks went quite well, the assault in the Robotyne direction was easily anticipated...and the Russians defended this in depth. It resulted in a severe loss for Ukraine. This attack would have been better spent attacking into Russia itself.

[Martinned2]

Haven't you heard? The people in Crimea and elsewhere in occupied Ukraine really like Russia, and want to be a part of it!

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-envoy-witkoff-sparks-outcry-after-backing-kremlin/story?id=120113827

[Frank Drackman]

Doesn't matter what they want, see War, Civil, US

[hobie]

3. Failure to strike harder and earlier into Russia. As Russia was striking throughout Ukraine, for the first couple years Ukraine conspiciously failed to hit Russian targets in Russia...despite them being used to directly support the Ukraine assault.

Uh, we and Europe told them not to.

2. Failure to cut off the flow of gas from Russia to Eastern Europe.-What is surprising is that through much of this war Ukraine continued to allow Russian gas to go through Ukranian pipelines to be sold to Europe....why?

100% agree here. And I have faulted them over this since the beginning. Somehow Ukraine felt it was better to receive a royalty check from Moscow than to blow those supply lines to smithereens. Granted, that would have crippled and also completely pissed off their Eastern Bloc weapon suppliers. I guess damned if you do damned if you don't scenario

[grb]

hobie : “Somehow Ukraine felt it was better to receive a royalty check from Moscow than to blow those supply lines to smithereens.”

But was that the reason? Ukraine depends on European support. A complete & total cut-off of gas would have crippled that support. That seems a more likely reason for their restraint than the money involved.

[Armchair]

"Uh, we and Europe told them not to."

Doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake. Although you could say it was Biden's mistake as well.

[Dan Schiavetta]

To blame Ukraine for any of what happened, is bizarre.

[Don Nico]

Blame and identifying mistakes made are not the same. Think about it.

[Commenter_XY]

That is a distinction (blame v mistake) often lost in the discussion.

To me, how far back do we want to go, vis a vis retrospective look. Does that go back to WW2? 2014? 1993? 1210? 2022? Because for the natgas, I can go back to the 80's when Reagan warned Europe not to become dependent on RUS natgas.

If it is only 2022, war should have been averted then.

[Dan Schiavetta]

hobie (above) has effectively exposed this as a bad faith argument, designed to actually redirect blame.

[Don Nico]

Your "bad faith" is merely your inability to think instead of reacting. Nonsense, Ukraine did everything that it could, but that does not mean that it made no errors. Every country does in the heat of war.

Now explain about the wisdom of not suppressing fascists in in the Maiden revolution.

[Armchair]

Indeed.

[Zarniwoop]

0. Agreeing in 1994 to give up their nuclear weapons in return for security assurances from the United States.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Agreed...

[Armchair]

Going all the way back to 1994 brings up too many potential alternatives.

[shawn_dude]

The Ukraine's first error was giving up its Soviet Nukes.
Second error was trusting Russia to honor its treaty.
Third error was trusting the US to do the same.

[TaioF920]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/26/politics/gun-silencers-doj/index.html

Who cares? Even without a DOJ defending it, some Obama or Biden judge will rule that there are historical analogues to reducing crime, and that this is a way of doing it. They are basically employing the discredited "two step" test from the Heller dissent but couching it in Bruen language.

[Michael Ejercito]

Why is there such judicial hostility against the Second Amendment?

It can not be mere animus against violent criminals.

[Martinned2]

It's an offensively dumb part of the Constitution, particularly the version the NRA is pushing for.

[Michael Ejercito]

So judges are refusing to uphold the supreme law of the land because it is offensively dumb?

If you can excuse refusing to follow the supreme law because you feel that it is offensively dumb, then why do not gangbangers get to ignore inferior laws against murder?

Why do not ephebophiles get to ignore inferior laws against rape?

Do we really want to go there, where the government that is supposed to enforce and uphold laws can ignore laws that they deem arew offensively dumb?

[Martinned2]

They are upholding it. But they don't have to interpret it more broadly than is strictly necessary. That's what "judicial power" means: the power to develop the common law. And a variety of judicial canons for how you do that instruct judges to avoid interpretations that are dumb or dangerous.

[Brett Bellmore]

Martinned2, 'interpreting' the law wrongly is just HOW judges refuse to uphold the law. It's not an alternative to that refusal.

[Martinned2]

The law is whatever the judiciary, collectively, says it is. That's what it means when the Constitution assigns the judicial power to the supreme Court, and to such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Just like Sir Edward Coke and Lord Mansfield in pre-revolutionary England, that includes the power to develop the common law.

When Edward Coke pulled the Magna Carta out of his backside to conclude that The King Hath No Power But What the Common Law allows, that's what he was doing. When Lord Mansfield banned slavery in England, that's what he was doing. When Harry Blackmun legalised abortion in the US, that's what he was doing. And when Alito repealed the federal right to abortion again, that's what he was doing.

The practical power of the judiciary often relies on persuasion, and parties to litigation try to influence the judiciary through persuasion of their own (as to various people on the internet). And at different times all of that persuasion has relied on different types of arguments. But it is inherent in the judicial power that the law is whatever the court says it is. (See also: speech acts.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"The law is whatever the judiciary, collectively, says it is."

Bullshit. Aggressively offensive bullshit at that. The idea that the judiciary can't get anything at all wrong, maybe even sometimes deliberately, is crazy. It's the sort of idea that judges have to be very careful about embracing, if they don't want to find out the hard way that 99.999% of the population aren't judges.

[TaioF920]

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." - Lewis Carroll

[Sarcastr0]

As asked above:
"Under any system of government, somebody gets the final word when there’s a dispute as to what the law is. Baseball needs umps, basketball needs refs, and the US needs a judiciary.

If you don’t want the judiciary having the final word, what would you substitute? Disputes as to what the law means will come up, and they will need resolution, and the loser won’t like it. So if not judges, then who?"

Threats don't change the need for someone to be the final arbiter, Brett.

[Martinned2]

The idea that the judiciary can't get anything at all wrong, maybe even sometimes deliberately, is crazy.

The judiciary cannot be wrong by definition. It's their job "to say what the law is". There is no higher authority that you can compare the judiciary's view to.

[Frank Drackman]

You're the whole reason the Founding Fathers put it in there.

[Michael Ejercito]

No doubt about it!

[Brett Bellmore]

The 2nd amendment embodies a view of the proper relationship between citizenry and government which is highly unpleasant to people in government: That the people have only contingently delegated power to the government, and have reserved the right to rescind that delegation at any time, violently if necessary. And that, in general, the government does not, and should not, have a monopoly on violence.

It was an understandable view for revolutionaries to take. But the judiciary is not run by revolutionaries.

[Martinned2]

NRA Accidentally Forgets To Rise Up Against Tyrannical Government

[TaioF920]

You're an idiot.

[ducksalad]

Why is there such judicial hostility against the Second Amendment?

I don't think there is, for the last decade or so. You can always nutpick a few lower level judges, but the bigger picture is:

- Federal judges have overruled multiple elected state legislatures to protect gun rights.
- Federal judges even overruled a Republican president on the bump stock ban.
- Democratic appointees on the SC seem to accept pro-gun-rights decisions as binding precedent (at least tactically, for now).

Gun rights are much stronger than in the last century, and much of the movement came from federal judges. I'd say in blue states essentially all the improvement came from federal judges.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, certainly the improvement in states with governments hostile to the Second amendment has come from federal judges, when it has happened at all. Which is not a lot of the time as yet.

But it's pretty clear that at least a couple of the circuits are resisting upholding the 2nd amendment, and the Court seems not to have a lot of interest in bringing them in line.

I'm not so sure that I'd say gun rights are stronger today than in the last century. We now have judicial recognition of the right, but we also have a LOT more laws violating it than we had in the early to mid 20th century.

The bump stock ban wasn't overturned as a matter of 2nd amendment enforcement, unfortunately. Just as egregiously illegitimate statutory interpretation.

[TaioF920]

Not to mention that three years after Bruen, New York's offensive carry law is still in place. Sure, you can get a permit now, but the list of "off limits" areas is so expansive as to cover anything except the sidewalk.

I haven't seen any evidence SCOTUS actually cares about this.

[Brett Bellmore]

They don't care.

I mean, Thomas actually cares, of course, but three of the justices are actively hostile to the 2nd amendment, and 5 of them don't really like it much, but their principles won't allow them to go along with the three on totally abolishing it.

But infringing it in various ways? That doesn't bother them at all, as long as something they think of as its 'core' remains intact.

It's not at all like the way they treat parts of the Constitution they actually approve of.

[ducksalad]

OK, my POV is the time I've been alive and old enough to think about the issue, roughly mid 1970s until now.

In Texas it's always been fairly permissive but there's been a steady expansion of where one can carry, accelerating since 2000 or so. (With the exception of K-12 schools. Used to be students kept shotguns in their pickups out in the parking lot, openly displayed in gun rack. Don't see that now....)

My impression back then was that in several states it was effectively illegal for an ordinary person to carry a handgun at all, and that's no longer the case.

[hobie]

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is an interesting discussion on COVID-19 lockdoqwns in which I took part.

"1957 pandemic killed 70,000 Americans, without lockdowns.

1968 pandemic killed 100,000 Americans, without lockdowns.

2009 pandemic killed over 12,000 Americans, without lockdowns.

Covid pandemic killed 1.1 million Americans WITH lockdowns. Can you imagine the death toll without any lockdowns?

The US didn’t get it wrong. By the end of March 2020, well over 100 countries worldwide had instituted either a full or partial lockdown. No one liked the lockdowns; but to stop the virus from spreading like wildfire all across the country and to ensure adequate hospital care for those who needed it most, lockdowns were the most sensible and impactful action available. On a personal level, the lockdowns were incredibly difficult and have had lasting negative impacts on my family. But the lockdowns also probably prevented the early strains from reaching my parents’ small midwest town where they likely would’ve died from i"- other person

"So in those other pandemics, the US let people die instead of shutting down the economy.

What do we say to the families of those who died in those earlier pandemics, when the government refused to do lockdowns?"- Me

"Every preventable death is a tragedy. But widespread lockdowns are extremely disruptive to society and the economy — not a decision taken lightly. If you read up on the 2009 virus, there were many actions taken to surveil and rapidly respond to the spread, but the risks didn’t outweigh the costs of lockdowns in that case."- other person

[Brett Bellmore]

People have gone back and done statistical studies of Covid death rates vs various measures, controlling for confounding variables like obesity.

Why do COVID Deaths Vary by State?

And once you control for those variables, the only measure that had any statistically significant effect was vaccinating people over 65.

The lockdowns? Crashed the economy for no measurable health benefit.

Don't give in to the moral panic, try actually reasoning in response to data!

[Brett Bellmore]

You might try, by the way, to remember that the original justification for the lockdowns was not to prevent Covid infections, but just to spread any surges out enough that emergency rooms would not be overwhelmed, Public health authorities weren't silly enough to pretend that such measures could actually prevent the spread of a disease. They weren't trying to change the area under the curve, just its shape.

[Bwaaah]

(Brett clarified his point before I posted, and seems consistent with this...)

In New York City, hospitals were quickly overwhelmed by critical cases. (Remember the shortage of ventilators, and the shortage of capable ventilator operators?) When I say “overwhelmed,” I mean that demand greatly exceeded supply in critical care, and that providers had to ration critical resources. Eighty-year-old grandma waited in the hallway and faded away there while 60-year-old mom got the bed and the vent. (In the early days, the ventilator outcomes were pretty abysmal too.) Even the morgues ran out of space. (They used refrigerated trailers outside the hospitals to queue up the backlog of bodies.)

The lockdown promptly and predictably slowed the spread of the virus. (I watched and tracked NYC ER stats daily. Admissions peaked around 8-10 days after lockdown, and declined steadily thereafter.)

Per Michael Ejercito’s point, the lockdown in NYC very significantly slowed the rate of admissions, and greatly reduced the critical care resource gap between supply and demand. I can’t speak to the overall effect of that on outcomes, but it substantially reduced the number of people who went without recommended treatments of the time.

For what it’s worth, NYC by July 2020 had a much higher death rate per capita compared to other U.S. cities (see this table, validity not verifiable). I suspect that per capita deaths in cities would have been substantially higher had the spread not been slowed by lockdowns.

[Brett Bellmore]

By that reasoning, the only places that should have had lockdowns were a handful of high density urban centers. That sort of very local overload only happened in a few places.

Oh, and 80 year old grandma actually died of Covid because NY ordered her senior center to admit Covid carriers.

[Commenter_XY]

This happened in the People's Republic of NJ, too = put covid ptns into nursing homes. And thousands died. Including a family member of mine. For this, Phil Murphy and his staff should suffer torment psychologically and spiritually, and wear hair shirts until the end of their miserable lives.

We will not forget or forgive.

[Bwaaah]

That was a devastatingly bad call. I have a friend whose aunt and uncle both died shorty after the nursing home directive. I know two other people who lost family to COVID that way. As Mr. Big Man Andrew Cuomo now comes gallivanting in to try to be the next mayor of NYC, I am reminded of how brutal and even fatal was his overreaching exercise of poor discretion and naked power.

You can't prove to me he wasn't just a reckless, power-hungry politician intoxicated by the national spotlight.

[Bwaaah]

Yes, in my belief, lockdowns should have been limited to high density urban centers. The fact that governors applied them to whole states was absurd to me.

And the nursing home rules seem to have been devastating. Strict N95 masking of nursing home workers may have helped protect that vulnerable population, although I don't know that such a necessary level of compliance was practical.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bwaaah — Not absurd. Briefly, near the outset of the pandemic, some of the highest case rates in the nation occurred at remotely located ski resorts. At one point Blaine County Idaho (Sun Valley) reportedly showed the fastest Covid increase in the nation.

The ski area problem was not that they were dense urban areas, it was that they were connected to folks all over the nation by lively transportation links in and out. I do not recall seeing any measurements to quantify the role the ski areas played to proliferate the pandemic nationwide. It would be foolish to suppose that did not happen.

I expect the ski area experience examples commonplace epidemiological principles that apply more generally.

One thing to keep in mind when comparing Covid death rates over the entire span of the pandemic is that many of the red states with death rates merely similar to those reported in the Northeast, experienced considerable initial delay compared to the Northeast. That means, of course, that red state fatality rates which came out similar measured against the entire span of the pandemic, would have had to be notably higher during the shorter pandemic intervals which applied in those red states. That, in turn, implies that lesser efforts to use lock downs, masking, and other non-pharmaceutical defenses, did have deadly consequences in those red states.

[Absaroka]

I'm open to the point that lockdowns were appropriate in some places and times. Locally, they shut down the hospitals to have them ready for a covid surge months before any covid surge happened. Nurses (who mostly don't get paid when they don't work) were in financial trouble. You could still get admitted if you had a stroke or whatever, but anything remotely optional got canceled ... like biopsies to see how fatal that lump is likely to be, which in turn stops the follow on surgery for positive biopsies.

Sorry, no link, but a few weeks ago where someone contrasted that with a 'snow day' approach. Hospitals filling up, tomorrow is a snow day, stay home, on a local basis. All the preemptive shutdowns did here was delay a lot of pretty important care, to no benefit, because we never had an NYC style surge.

[Bwaaah]

I admit that. Even in so-called “large” cities, few have the kind of ubiquitous, [almost literally] in-your-face population density that NYC has. The fact that states implemented state-wide lockdowns is an example of what I have come to call “big stupid,” which is often characteristic of the nonsensical one-size-fits-all rules of government.

The emergency rules were simplistic to the point of being damaging.

[Magister]

Nurses (who mostly don’t get paid when they don’t work) were in financial trouble.

You must have been somewhere weird. Hospitals were hardly going to be designated as nonessential businesses to be shut down, and nurses were and still are in heavy demand.

It may be that the lockdowns were, in some cases and with the benefit of hindsight, too soon, too wide or too long. The aggressive vaccination for the swine flu in the early 70s probably killed more people than the disease, which never spread much beyond its initial outbreak despite its resemblance to the 1918 strain.

[Bwaaah]

“It _may_ be that the lockdowns were, in some cases and with the benefit of hindsight, too soon, too wide or too long.”

Still substantial doubts? Even with hindsight?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bwaaah — If hindsight discloses Red State Covid death rates comparable to those in the Northeast and West Coast, that provides basis for inference that Red State public health management was less effective. Some combination of happenstance and Blue State public health management resulted in later Covid onset in Red States, and typically shorter pandemic exposure before the pandemic receded. If blue states started less prepared, and endured longer total exposure, while achieving cumulative death rates not much worse than in places elsewhere, then those latter places probably practiced less-effective public health countermeasures.

[Absaroka]

"typically shorter pandemic exposure"

Do you want to flesh out your epidemiological theory there?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sure. The theory is that if my state endures two years of Covid exposure, and your state endures one year of Covid exposure, and both our states emerge afterward with the same death rate per capita, then public health measures used in my state were likely more effective than those used in your state.

[Stephen Lathrop]

And that goes double if my state is densely urbanized, and thus highly susceptible to contagion, and your state is not.

[Brett Bellmore]

The contrary theory is that, unless you can get way out ahead of a pandemic with an effective vaccine, a disease spreads through the population until enough people have already contracted it that the disease can no longer propagate because too many people are immune.

Which ends up being the same fraction of the population whether or not you engage in non-immunological measures to slow the spread.

So the actual death toll was not altered by lockdowns, only by vaccination, (Which allowed reaching that 'magic' fraction of the population with fewer actual infections.) and various demographic factors that influenced death rates, such as obesity, age, and so forth.

And that's why, once you adjusted for age, obesity, and the rate of vaccination for people over 65, lockdowns had no statistically significant effect on the final death rate. Only on how fast you converged on that final death rate.

They only looked like they were working if you didn't bother adjusting for confounding variables.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — I agree you seem confounded.

[Absaroka]

Epidemics aren't radiation exposure; as Brett says they run their course until you reach an equilibrium with contagion and immunity.

Brett is spot on; you haven't thought it through.

[David Nieporent]

Epidemics aren't radiation exposure; as Brett says they run their course until you reach an equilibrium with contagion and immunity.

And one way to do that is to get lots of people sick and let them thin the herd of vulnerable people; another is to keep them from getting sick until you can vaccinate them.

[Bwaaah]

Bellmore's got the dynamics right.

And I'll add an ugly point to the whole thing...

COVID-19 was a big danger to a relatively small at-risk population, especially including near-end-of-life persons. It was a minor [flu-like] risk to everybody else. (Public health officials had plenty of data to determine the relevant demographics of mortality within 30 days of the onset of the pandemic, and understood those demographics before the end of April 2020.)

The problem of lockdowns is that they severely degraded life and advancement for the whole population in order to produce marginal benefits for a small part of the population.

The government should have advised all high-risk people to self-isolate, and everybody else to carry on as usual. But Big Stupid says, in a spirit of "fairness," that everybody must [somehow] suffer the problem "equally" through broad lockdowns.

As if a virus wasn't destructive enough to life, public health policy was very destructive to livelihood. And though I hate to invoke the welfare of children, my gosh, what horrible degradation we imposed on that large, thoroughly-not-at-risk population for the benefit of a few others.

Big Stupid. Big Stupid. Big Stupid.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Like Bellmore, you are mixing and matching whataboutteries to serve a preferred political conclusion—and that political preference seems the premise that drew you both into the argument. Your radiation exposure analogy, like so many of your analogies, is well chosen to seem persuasive, but off the mark.

I do think you have a special talent for that kind of figurative confusion. Nobody I have seen on this blog does it as well or as often as you do.

Here is the problem in this instance. Different diseases feature different equilibriums. As the nation is just rediscovering, for instance, measles requires notably high percentages of population immunity to keep outbreaks from emerging. Few if any other diseases are comparable. Even smallpox is less contagious, and thus able to be suppressed with lower population percents immunized.

Likewise, experience shows that any given pandemic event is not likely to feature the same pathogenicity from start to finish (although measles may be an exception). Pandemic-generating pathogens evolve as they spread, and usually do not persist in their unevolved states, with the identical pathogenicity and virulence they began with. Eventually pandemics dissipate, and not only because acquired immunity has thwarted them.

Few if any people alive today have acquired immunity to the Spanish Flu pathogen. Outbreaks seem not to occur anyway. Immunity to related pathogens, possibly descendants of the Spanish Flu, are thought by some to confer continuing immunity which suppresses reemergence of the original.

On the other hand, few people now have acquired immunity to measles, except by vaccination, and re-outbreaks do occur. So different instances are different, both with regard to pathogens, and with regard to times and population exposures.

There is no reason to suppose Covid was any less complex than the Spanish Flu in the evolution of their relative pathogenicities. The experience of populations introduced to Covid earlier seemed deadlier than outcomes for those exposed later, to perhaps-less pathenogenic and less virulent strains. Your arguments seem to assume the opposite—a steady persistence of pathogenicity and virulence, or maybe increases. But here we are now, with almost nobody in my community locking down, or using masks, or getting sick with Covid. I am betting it is the same where you are.

If what I have said here is accurate, note that it tends more to support my initial point than otherwise. But it tends to critque the points you and Bellmore offered. If what you both insist is in fact true, then why not expect red state recurrences of Covid from time to time, in the areas most thinly vaccinated. Does that seem to be happening?

I think the most reasonable interpretation of the nation's Covid experience is that the disease in its most virulent and pathenogenic form struck first in the Northeast, with a less virulent strain emerging almost simultaneously on the West Coast. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts all seemed to suffer swifter onset and deadlier effects than other states. They were also the states which imposed the most comprehensive and strictly enforced non-pharmaceutical public health measures. There was slight political opposition to any of that at the time. People were terrified, not defiant.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Few if any people alive today have acquired immunity to the Spanish Flu pathogen. Outbreaks seem not to occur anyway."

Something that's not widely appreciated: Killing people is generally not adaptive behavior for a pathogen. Dead people don't walk around spreading you, after all! (Ebola was an exception because it was spread by funeral practices!)

That's why there are hundreds of "common cold" viruses: Because it's an evolutionary sweet spot, just bad enough to spread, while being mild enough to not incapacitate the host. Several of the "common cold" viruses are corona viruses, and Covid is in the process of evolving towards being another common cold, as respiratory viruses that have that option will generally do. (Not all viruses have that option, some are stuck up evolutionary dead ends.)

And that's why zooitic pathogens, ones that have just crossed over from another species, tend to be so bad: They haven't yet evolved reduced virulence. They're poorly adapted to their new hosts, and accidentally kill them.

[Absaroka]

"Different diseases feature different equilibriums."

Yes, that's epidemiology 101.

"experience shows that any given pandemic event is not likely to feature the same pathogenicity from start to finish"

That's possible!

"If what I have said here is accurate, note that it tends more to support my initial point than otherwise"

It might!

" think the most reasonable interpretation of the nation's Covid experience is ..."

Aaaand here's where you need to show your work to support your conclusion. You tend to glide seamlessly from 'X is possible' to 'X happened'.

[Sarcastr0]

Covid is in the process of evolving towards being another common cold

Evolution is not an optimizing process; it's a 'good enough' process. There is no guarantee of this trajectory.

[Magister]

Some shutdowns were too late, like shutting down travel from Europe but announcing it in advance so that crowds of people jammed up airports and probably spread the virus more than that prevented. Most shutdowns seemed plausible given incomplete information; earlier SARS and MERS had much higher mortality rates but were less contagious, and it would be irresponsible to guess that COVID would have a lower mortality rate. You may remember that it killed thousands of Americans a day for quite a long time. Later variants were more severe than the original virus; giving it more hosts to evolve in does still seem a bad idea.

[Brett Bellmore]

In theory, lockdowns could stop a pandemic in its tracks. But in order for that to work, they have to be effectively complete lockdowns; Everybody locked at home for longer than the contagious period for the disease. EVERYBODY.

No modern society is set up to flip a switch, and everybody holes up for a month or two. No modern society is capable of executing a lockdown that's comprehensive enough and long enough to be effective. You need to keep too much of society running, and thus transmitting the disease, to extinguish the pandemic.

Even China, welding people's doors shut, couldn't do it.

What modern societies ARE capable of, is lockdowns that are sufficient to tank their economies, without being sufficient to stop a pandemic.

I really think what happened with Covid is that Western authorities started out thinking it was an escaped Chinese biowarfare agent, and so dramatically over-reacted. And by the time they knew better, a moral panic had set in, and it became politically impossible to act reasonably; Anybody who argued for sane policies was accused of wanting to kill grandma.

Except for the people who actually did kill grandma, of course. They got a pass. The only part of society that COULD have been effectively locked down was subjected to an anti-lockdown.

[Sarcastr0]

You sure have a ton of theories about Covid.

Which you mix up with facts. As you do.

[Brett Bellmore]

I linked elsewhere in the thread to a statistical study that looked at this, Sarcastr0. Once you accounted for confounding variables, R2 for lockdowns was 0.03.

They simply did not work. That's what the data says.

What did work was vaccinating people who were at elevated risk. The elderly, the morbidly obese, diabetics. Anybody who already had one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.

This wasn't the Spanish flu, that took healthy people in their prime. This was a disease that almost exclusively killed people who were already in bad shape.

Those are the people we should have locked down, not the general population. That's what the data says.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, the 2022 study that you're so fond of, but ignore it's written analysis in favor of your own interpretation. That, of course, aligns with your priors.

But you won't stop there! You start with making the analysis retroactive.
But that's just a jumping off point for the fan fiction you love. "I really think what happened" is more liberal plotting political thriller twaddle.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have a more recent study that controls for confounding variables, and arrives at different conclusions? Or do you just not like this study because it doesn't say what you wanted to hear?

I presented data, you presented, what? Fingers in your ears?

[Bwaaah]

Watch out. BDS entered the room. The conversation turns stupid now.

[Magister]

You demand perfect lockdowns or nothing, but imperfect methods can and did have significant benefits. Note that before antivaxxer nuttiness, measles (which is more contagious) was dramatically reduced with a vaccine that's "only" 97% effective, with only 95% vaccination rates. (Lockdowns are harder, because people have to take action, or refrain from action, constantly rather than act one to two times for vaccination. But you might have noticed that there was no vaccine until the end of 2020.)

Your own link on killing grandma reports Whitmer's response that only facilities that could isolate positive patients were required to take patients. Where would you have put the people? Ice floes? The lieutenant governor of Texas did want old people to die for the benefit of the economy. But not alone in making things worse in service to his preferences; Donald Trump prevented an infected cruise ship from bringing its passengers into the US just to keep his "numbers" lower, and he wanted less testing for the same reason. Rather than taking drastic but effective steps like quarantining people who enter the country, he chose instead to allow the pandemic to get worse when it appeared to mostly impact states run by his political opponents.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You demand perfect lockdowns or nothing, but imperfect methods can and did have significant benefits. "

And major costs, too. You've got to do cost/benefit analysis! If you only look at benefits, and not costs, you make all sorts of stupid decisions.

[Magister]

Do you have any evidence that costs were not considered?

[Bwaaah]

"Do you have any evidence that costs were not considered?"

Do you have any reason to believe that costs, real costs, like dollar costs, were seriously considered? I must have missed that. I never heard a public health official or a politician articulate cost in the context of the pandemic.

How much did the pandemic cost?

I understand your skepticism of a nobody like Brett. Do you have similar skepticism of the people whom you entrust to make your public health decisions?

Show me. Show me your skepticism.

[Magister]

Bwaaah, you endorse the most ridiculous bullshit imaginable and have the gall to demand skepticism from me. How much did the pandemic cost the US? Estimates seem to be in the 14 to 18 trillion dollar range. How many lives and infections did shutdowns save? There are much wider estimates, from nothing to hundreds of thousands of lives, but the consensus seems to be a lot more than Brett Bellmore wants to admit. Add in that shutdowns were going to happen anyway, because people were sick or scared enough to shut down themselves. And all of this had to be decided without the benefit of perfect foresight; yes, people were thinking about social distancing and shutdowns, pro and con, in the George W. Bush administration, and I remember it coming up in the 2009 flu epidemic when I worked in state government with people working on worst cases for that disease.

[Bwaaah]

"Bwaaah, you endorse the most ridiculous bullshit imaginable"

I'm interested. Example(s)?

[Magister]

You question whether there is any evidence that anyone thought about the costs of policies that were hotly disputed at the time. Nobody but Bwaaah is smart enough to think about costs! Plenty of right wing excuse making from Bwaaah, regularly. You can find your comment history in Account Settings if you want to try to overcome your Dunning-Kruger effect.

(Yes, it was hyperbole, unless you actually ghostwrote Dr. Ed 2's dissertation.)

[shawn_dude]

This is silly.

"Reasoning in response to data" requires... drumroll please... DATA.

With a novel virus wreaking havoc and threatening to overwhelm hospitals (which would have significant health impacts on people with other illnesses), the CDC made the best informed choices it could make. And, it shouldn't need to be said, COVID vaccinations only had a statistically significant effect after they existed.

Also "moral panic?!"

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the CDC made a panicked decision, and then arranged for contrary voices, the voices that proved in the end to be right, to be silenced.

[Sarcastr0]

The CDC arraigned for silencing contrary voices! The drama!!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, Sarcastr0, the CDC arranged to silence contrary voices. It actually happened, like a lot of ugly things actually happened over the last few years, that you want to dismiss as 'drama'.

[Sarcastr0]

The whole government social media thing has been long exploded, but you never let your favorite narratives be struck down by facts.

Beyond that, of course, Facebook is not academic journals. Which is where the actual substantive debate on the issue should and was occurring.

Your easy change of scope from the scientific community and government policy to Facebook is ridiculous.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, Sarcastr0, the CDC arranged to silence contrary voices.

In fact, the documents in that story show exactly the opposite: that Facebook was asking for the CDC's input, not that the CDC was arranging anything.

[Don Nico]

Aren't you the clever one with such a vacuous and counterfactual response.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you read Brett's rejoinder?

Calling him out for melodramatic bullshit was right on target.

If you won't take my word for it, take DMN's.

[SRG2]

Virulence, fuckwit.

[Magister]

My recollection is that the 1957 flu epidemic was blunted by the rapid development of a vaccine; more rapid than the COVID vaccines, although it was before the FDA existed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Vaccines are critical, and rapid vaccine development is key to their being available in time. Trump's "Project Warp Speed" was his key contribution to fighting Covid, and it was incredibly valuable.

Unfortunately, it was followed by two mistakes once he left office:

1) Rather than continuing to update the vaccine to account for changing strains, (Which is something mRNA vaccines are especially good for!) they stuck with the original vaccine, and just demanded increasingly futile repeat doses as new strains showed up.

2) Rather than just pushing the vaccine out to people who were particularly at risk, they demanded that everybody get it. Even people who had already had Covid, and were at very little risk. This was apparently for bureaucratic convenience, not medical reasons: They had a system in place for tracking vaccination status, but not for tracking who'd actually HAD Covid, so they just decided to ignore the actual immunological status of people, and treat vaccination status as the only thing that mattered.

Essentially, once Trump was out of office, the empire struck back, and reinstituted all the rules that Project Warp Speed had put on hold, so that they couldn't update the vaccine fast enough, for bureaucratic reasons, not technical.

So for all his mistakes in trusting Fauci, Trump did the one thing that did matter: Expediting the vaccine.

[Sarcastr0]

Rather than continuing to update the vaccine to account for changing strains, (Which is something mRNA vaccines are especially good for!) they stuck with the original vaccine
What is your source for this? This seemed wrong, and a quick Google shows lots of discussions of the vaccines being updated.

Rather than just pushing the vaccine out to people who were particularly at risk, they demanded that everybody get it.
Yes, because this is how pandemics work.

Even people who had already had Covid
This has been something you were unhappy about since 2020. And it's been pointed out to you tons of times that trusting people or setting up a parallel 'covid survivor' tracking regime would both be quite intractable.

all the rules that Project Warp Speed had put on hold
I know people at BARDA. They all supported PWS. But they all said putting the rules back was vital to keep costs down.

Not that you care about the debt or anything.

they couldn't update the vaccine fast enough
Again, where do you get this?

Basically, Brett's storytime about Covid is full of stuff he wants to be true, not stuff that is true.

[Stephen Lathrop]

For a detailed account which includes a lot of corroborative detail to the contrary of what Bellmore says, and comes from an informed source, try reading Fauci's book. He is especially good on the subject of timelines and the Trump dynamics, and surprisingly generous toward Trump, except where Fauci calls Trump out for errors. Even there, the tone stays appropriately measured. Alas, because Trump made so many errors, Trump's contribution to a solution diminishes throughout the narrative.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, let's read the book of the guy who needed a preemptive pardon to stay out of prison, I'm sure he's an objective source.

The original Moderna vaccine took TWO days to design, once they had Covid 19 sequenced. Actual production of the vaccine can be accomplished in a matter of months, with most of that time dedicated to quality control testing, not production.

So, when you have a new strain, you actually can update the vaccine to match that strain in a couple months.

How long did it take before we got approval for a vaccine targeting the new strains? It finally happened last year!

Yeah, they spent several years just insisting people take more and more doses of a vaccine that was designed for the old strain.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And it's been pointed out to you tons of times that trusting people or setting up a parallel 'covid survivor' tracking regime would both be quite intractable. "

IOW, bureaucratic convenience triumphed over medical science.

[Sarcastr0]

Living in the world of the possible sure is rough!

[Don Nico]

"hows lots of discussions"
Sure, but discussions are not new vaccines. The original vaccines were used long after the original strain and delta stain had run their course.

[Sarcastr0]

For fuck's sake Google it yourself rather than misparsing what I said

Discussion as in 'come get the new updated vaccine.'

original vaccines were used long after the original strain and delta stain had run their course
This descope of Brett's original thesis still lacks the clarity to be meaningful, much less supportable.

[Magister]

Trump's "Project Warp Speed" was his key contribution to fighting Covid, and it was incredibly valuable.

Pfizer-BioNTech developed its vaccine without Operation Warp Speed funding, except for advance orders from the US; BioNTech already had Project Lightspeed going months earlier.

Experts disagreed whether the U.S. government's conditional advance order "played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process".

(from Wikipedia) Pfizer-BioNTech had German funding plus the likelihood that a successful vaccine would sell regardless of advance orders.

Trump's ultimate failure was in distributing the approved vaccine, as after the election he was more interested in insurrection than inoculation.

The additional doses I've had were updated for new variants, so I don't know where that came from.

The big business in fraudulent vaccination cards shows how futile it would have been to allow exemption for anyone who claimed to have had COVID; my employer required vaccination documentation or weekly testing after the vaccine received regular approval.

[Frank Drackman]

When the University of Alabama (Boo! Hiss!) threatened violence against minorities in June 1963 JFK federalized the Alabama National Guard, Troops marched in, Governor Wallace (D) ran like a little Bee-otch, (and since then Alabama wins 12 Foo-Bawl National Championships, Boo! Hiss!)
"47" should do the same with Columbia, I guarantee you the NY National Guard boys would love to crack some pointy Ham-Ass supporting heads.

[ReaderY]

Columbia University is not alleged to have threatened violence. It is alleged t lo have not done enough to stop it.

[Frank Drackman]

Their students and faculty sure as fuck are (Sorry, EV, "fuck" sounds appropriate here) and you show up on my property wearing a mask and waving a Palestinian Flag you'll be getting a .357 Magnum Lobotomy

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, Columbia is private, Alabama wasn't.

[ReaderY]

One of the paradoxes in data science is the infinitely comprehensive library. If you have a library with more books thsn it is possible to search in a lifetime using the most efficient available method, you effectively have no library at all, because you will never be able to find anything you need. It might as wellnot be there.

The American justice system might similarly be characterized as suffering from an infinite justice paradox. It has so much justice that it takes almost forever to actually get any. And thiis means that the net effect is similar to having no justice at all.

Trump’s actions with Columbia and major law firms are a case in point. They could in theory sue to vindicate their legal rights. But if they did, it might well take them years to obtain a legal victory. And in the meanwhile, Trump’s actions might effectively destroy them. Thus justice is infinite in the sense that it takes longer than an effective lifetime to obtain it, as in the paradox. And as in the paradox, justice effectively doesn’t exist.

The complete impotence of the courts in dealing with Trump’s actions against organizations and businesses is doubtless a major reason why one after the other they are choosing to accede to his demands rather than fight.

In these circumstances, we may as well not bother having a court system for all the good it does us.

[Commenter_XY]

ReaderY, the story is not yet written. Meaning, law firms are suing and universities with deep pockets will join them. There is no shortage of people suing in the federal courts these days to vindicate their rights. 😉

[hobie]

They shouldn't have to be seeking vindication in the first place because of one man using the power of the government as a tool of vengeance. As usual, your partisan brain has been blaming the victims of Trump for years instead of seeing the one common denominator that all these victims share

[shawn_dude]

Imagine what all of that money could have done for students and communities if we had elected someone who respected the law?

[ducksalad]

The complete impotence of the courts in dealing with Trump’s actions against organizations and businesses is doubtless a major reason why one after the other they are choosing to accede to his demands rather than fight.

It's frustrating but I think "complete impotence" is overstating it. Trump has had something like 50 adverse court rulings, and quite a few of those were filed by organizations and businesses. And there have been a lot of restraining orders issued specifically to prevent Trump from destroying an organization by running out the clock.

[Magister]

One of the paradoxes in data science is the infinitely comprehensive library.

Borges' The Library of Babel is finite but even more useless. (Dr. Ed 2's dissertation is even more useless, despite its more modest size.)

[Zarniwoop]

nice to see there's another Borges fan around here!

[David Nieporent]

Trump’s actions with Columbia and major law firms are a case in point. They could in theory sue to vindicate their legal rights. But if they did, it might well take them years to obtain a legal victory. And in the meanwhile, Trump’s actions might effectively destroy them.

That's the whole point of the TROs and preliminary injunctions that the MAGA loons are having a tantrum about.

[ReaderY]

So why did Columbia etc. capitulate and settle so quickly?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because Columbia was actually in the wrong, actually HAD been tolerating anti-semitic abuses on campus, and they knew that, even if they prevailed in court, they were looking at a PR nightmare.

[tylertusta]

Appears that the UK at least is taking a more conciliatory tone after the Signal kerfluffle.

POLITICO: Freeloaders? Hegseth has ‘a case’ in slamming Europe, UK defense chief says :

British Defence Secretary John Healey said his U.S. counterpart has "absolutely got a case" in branding European nations "pathetic" and accusing them of "freeloading" over defense spending in a leaked Signal conversation.

Speaking to Times Radio Wednesday, Healey was pressed on the leak of private messages between top figures in Donald Trump’s U.S. government about plans for air strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen. </blockquote

...

Speaking to Times Radio, Healey called the comments a "challenge" rather than an insult.

"The Americans have got a case," Healey said. "On defense spending, on European security, on our support for Ukraine, European nations can and will do more and the U.K. is leading the way."

We'll see if the UK actually carries through and sustains their defense increases.

[Martinned2]

This is currently the biggest obstacle to European defence collaboration. The UK would normally be an important partner in any such collaboration, but we can't incorporate them into any serious collaboration framework as long as they're still kissing Trump's ass. They need to get off the fence, but Sir Keir Starmer and most of the cabinet are constitutionally incapable of doing that (in any policy area).

[tylertusta]

The biggest obstacle to European defense collaboration is the massive sticks up all of your collective asses.

You don't need the UK to say the magic hateful words about Trump in order to defend yourselves.

Orange man doesn't control your budgets. You do.

[Martinned2]

But he controls our (or at least the UK's) intelligence. And if we spend some of that defence budget with US-based companies, Lord only knows how much spy software and kill switches the Americans are going to build into our kit. So we need the Brits to stop sharing their intelligence with the US, and to commit to buying European.

[tylertusta]

If that's a problem, then spend the money to build the capability instead of whining like petulant children.

[Martinned2]

Yes, that's what I was suggesting. And I was suggesting that the UK should join in that, rather than staying on the fence. #ReadingIsHard

[tylertusta]

Did you read what I said?

If the UK's relationship with the US and the UK's lack of a relationship with Europe a problem, Europe should build the capability itself.

#ReadingIsHard

[Martinned2]

I'm sorry if you're confused by the notion that working together with other countries is a good thing.

[tylertusta]

I'm sorry if you're confused by the notion that Europe is full of people who want others to do the hard work for them.

It's time that EU needs to put on the big boy and big girl pants. The UK is only a blocker because the EU chooses to let it be one. In this case it's just an excuse to sit around with your thumb up your ass while you complain about it.

[Martinned2]

We did that because the Americans forced us to.

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

For decades the Americans liked having the biggest army in the world. They liked that the Europeans needed them for protection. That gave the US lots of diplomatic, military, and economic advantages. So the US used its position to force Europe into a weaker position, and to keep it there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_National_Revolution#:~:text=Once%20again%2C%20international%20opinion%20of%20the%20Dutch%20military%20campaigns%20was%20one%20of%20outrage%2C%20significantly%20in%20both%20the%20United%20Nations%20and%20the%20United%20States.

If you would like to change that arrangement, that's fine. But you should at least do it based on a modicum of knowledge about recent history.

[tylertusta]

Yes, the US using diplomatic pressure to keep Europe from invading countries (in opposition to the post-WW2 order) and to ask them to please stop genociding other peoples' is the equivalent of forcing Europe into a weaker position. Or not.

Nevermind that the other thing you're neglecting to mention was the whole Cold War that was going on at the time, and how the communists were coming for everybody, and how half of Europe was under their authoritarian boot.

Which makes your "ignorant of recent history" quip especially ironic.

[Commenter_XY]

The EU won't do anything more than bleat like lame sheep, waiting for the Bear to eat them.

[tylertusta]

I swear, sometimes it looks like they* want Putin to roll in and take over.

* Except Poland and the Baltics. Those folks are awesome, and they know the EU is filled with pacifists who will hang them out to dry if given the opportunity.

[Martinned2]

At this rate, it may well be the Americans who eat us first. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

[Commenter_XY]

You guys learn Russian.

[Martinned2]

You first. Otherwise, how will you know what the latest Russian propaganda lines are that you're supposed to parrot?

[Dr. Ed 2]

An oldie but goodie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4i3LmR0K74

[Bored Lawyer]

I have never done this, but I am going to make an entertainment recommendation. Netflix is streaming a show named The Residence. You can read about it here: https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/residence-cast-guide

If you like dry humor, it's great. Ostensibly a murder mystery, it's really a comedy. Acting is great. Lead actress Uzo Aduba is brilliant. As is Giancarlo Esposito. The show also pokes fun at Washington mores and inter-party relations.

One side-benefit. There are lots of black actors and other actors of color. But that is never made an issue. It's a "color blind" story, in the sense that the actors' race is irrelevant to the story. They're just good actors doing a good job.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Wow, Giancarlo Esposito…he’s literally in every thing I watch. Breaking Bad was the first show I binged and I remember thinking what a great actor he is and now he’s not only in every show but every movie that I watch.

[shawn_dude]

We're in stitches. Love love love this show.

Birdwatching!

[Bored Lawyer]

In a couple of places, the show talks about Teddy Roosevelt being an avid birdwatcher. That is apparently true.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Thanks y'all for this recommendation.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Perhaps, VC will comment on yesterday's Senate hearing entitled "Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Censorship Industrial Complex." Dr. Mary Anne Franks written testimony is here:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2025-03-25_testimony_franks.pdf

She ends:

You are members of the United States Senate, government officials tasked with the sacred duty of serving the American public—not a self-professed king and not his wealthy jester—and honoring
their constitutional rights. This is a president who has declared himself above the law, including the First Amendment. Those who truly wish to fight censorship should start with him.

Some of her positions, including her recent book, received pushback on this blog. But her official remarks are overall sound.

The video of the hearing:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/03/25/watch_live_senate_judiciary_committee_hearing_on_the_censorship_industrial_complex.html

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Trump's offensive actions against non-citizens, including violating their due process, have raised some questions about the rights of non-citizens. It reminded me that multiple free speech disputes in the past involved non-citizens.

For instance, Abrams v. United States involved non-citizens. We now celebrate the dissent for promoting free speech values.

Non-citizens are persons. They have rights. The 1A speaks of the "rights of the people" but only regarding assembly and petition. Due process applies to "persons." States cannot deprive persons of equal protection. Non-citizens have fewer rights than citizens, but they have rights. And, their speech and so on benefit citizens.

[tylertusta]

Fani Willis and Nathan Wade are apparently back together- if they were ever broken up to begin with!

I wish the lovebirds the best.

They'd best wash themselves thoroughly in order to get the odor of mendacity off of themselves.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14535913/Trump-prosecutors-Fani-Willis-Nathan-Wade-LAX-airport.html

[hobie]

So you don't like mendacious political figures?

[tylertusta]

When they are prosecutors and are under oath? No.

[Martinned2]

You mean under oath like this?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cia-director-john-ratcliffe-defends-180306328.html

[Both Sides]

Turns out Goldberg had the receipts re the Signal chat to show that Hegseth was not . . . entirely truthful . . . yesterday.

[Estragon]

Making a falsifiable statement when the evidence is out of his control seems… well, let’s call it ill-considered.

[Both Sides]

See also Gabbard, Tulsi.

[ThePublius]

What did Hegseth lie about?

[David Nieporent]

He claimed that Goldberg had made up the whole thing. (Of course, he did it after the administration had already admitted it was true. But when Fox News sends its drunken failed veterans organization executives, it's not sending its best.)

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And Hegseth was a huge advocate for the Iraq War…and now Republicans are attacking Goldberg as a neocon! This is all so hilarious.

[Michael P]

What, do you mean when Goldberg lied and claimed that the Signal chat contained details like a list of human targets?

[Brett Bellmore]

Supreme Court upholds Biden-era requirements on ghost guns

The Court's retreat on the 2nd amendment continues apace.

In the end there's no substitute for electing politicians who will restrain the regulators, the courts will NOT do it for us.

[Moderation4ever]

This was strong ruling 7 to 2. Trump can of course revise the rule, but I think the strength of the rule shows that while the Constitution guarantees the right to firearms, that right is not without limits. I also don't think that ghost guns are a winning issue with the general public.

[Brett Bellmore]

Possibly not, and I'm scarcely effected at THIS point, since I'm a reasonably skilled machinist, and could manufacture a receiver from just a billet and plans.

The problem is that this is a product of a sort of recursive expansion of the definition of "firearm", that started with actual functioning firearms, and is now one step short of "ownership of a piece of steel, a milling machine, and plans for a gun".

[TaioF920]

"The right is not without limits" is pure bad faith. No one ever argued that, and there are more limitations on the right than not, especially in New Yuck and Kalifornia.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, but there's a bit of bad faith among at least SOME of the "80%" marketers, too: A lower receiver with an interfering lug you can just file off or drill out isn't any 80%, it's more like 98%.

So there's still some possibility that the BATF will lose some of the justices if they get too aggressive with this rule, and go after partial receivers that actually require some precision modification.

I don't actually see that getting resolved soon, though, because the BATF is under new management now, which won't be inclined to be that aggressive.

Maybe we could see the Colorado law that goes considerably further come to the Court in the next few years, but the Court has not been eager to take gun cases, I think they only took this one, like Heller, because the government had lost at the circuit level.

[Moderation4ever]

I suggest you spend a little time reading the comments on Reason because it certainly seems like the many commentors want and argue for no-limits on firearms.

[TaioF920]

Ehh, this is one that doesn't bother me so much. I don't see a philosophical difference between requiring that guns be sold with serial numbers and through FFLs and saying that a piece of metal that only requires two holes be drilled must conform to the other rules.

The real issue is that the federal government doesn't have any authority to require serial numbers or even regulate the sale of guns at all and even if you assume arguendo that they do, much of the current regulatory regime violates the 2nd Amendment.

I do agree with you though, that while this isn't wasn't a 2nd Amendment case, it will embolden Obama/Biden judges to come up with any bullshit reasoning they want to uphold laws under Bruen.

The Court said that it doesn't need to be an exact parallel, so now they just say it's similar enough, in that "The founding era had laws to reduce gun crime. This law is intended to reduce gun crime. QED."

I'm being facetious, but there have been Democrat Party judge rules just like that.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

What about a Democratic Party judge?

[TaioF920]

They're all communist sexual deviants anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I don't see a philosophical difference between requiring that guns be sold with serial numbers and through FFLs and saying that a piece of metal that only requires two holes be drilled must conform to the other rules."

If that were the actual substance of the BATF regulation in question, I might agree. It certainly could have been phrased to actually be limited to such cases, by, say, requiring that only low precision operations be required to finish the receiver.

But it wasn't. They went with a vague "readily converted" language which could be stretched to turn ownership of a milling machine and a billet of steel into constructive ownership of a gun.

[ThePublius]

Colorado has already done this:

"The state has laws that make it unlawful to sell, advertise, or market a 3D printer or CNC milling machine in a manner that knowingly or recklessly causes another person to violate the criminal laws surrounding these machines, or in a manner that otherwise knowingly or recklessly aids or abets such violations. "

[Brett Bellmore]

Sadly, I can recall when Colorado was still a free state. So can a lot of Coloradans, too. Californication has converted much of the West from the freest of the states to the least free.

[grb]

Kinda sad when being a "free state" depends on whether you support illegal guns.

[Brett Bellmore]

Being a free state always depends on stuff the government doesn't like being legal. It would be a pretty sad definition of freedom that simply excluded a priori everything the government felt like making "illegal".

[Magister]

Colorado legalized recreational marijuana even though the federal government still feels it's a controlled substance. Being a Brett Bellmore approved free state depends only on guns.

[ThePublius]

There's no such thing as an illegal gun. And this country has a long tradition of people - citizens - making guns without having to ask permission from the government.

[not guilty]

You think there's no such thing as an illegal gun?

I would love to see you test that theory by brandishing a sawed off shotgun just outside the local police station.

[ThePublius]

You can possess a short-barreled shotgun (SBS), but it's regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and requires registration with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and a $200 tax payment.

Brandishing is a separate matter. You're moving the goalposts.

But my point was that, in context, making a gun has never been illegal.

[TaioF920]

Agreed, but the courts never seem to entertain the parade of horribles. Until it's actually used that way, I don't see the courts ever doing anything about it.

[Brett Bellmore]

This particular horrible isn't all that hypothetical. The Obama administration moved to ban online sharing of firearms CAD files, and they were successful in court; The regulation got reversed by the first Trump administration, but the current legal precedent out of the 5th circuit is still in its favor.

And while the latest Supreme court ruling doesn't go that far, I could see a future Democratic administration trying to ban Defense Distributed's "Ghost Mill", which is just a small CNC mill preloaded with software for making lower receivers, but which starts from nothing more than a rectangular block of metal.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "I could see a future Democratic administration trying..."

I don't doubt you can. However, it makes me wonder why you're cheering Trump's lawlessness right now. Can't you see what a future Democratic administration could do with the same strategy of relentless criminality?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, I just don't think their doing it is contingent on Trump doing it; Obama DID ban sharing gun plans online. Biden DID revise the very long standing rule for what constituted a firearm, in order to reach '80%' receivers. And that's just limiting it to this particular topic.

Even where I approve of Trump's ends, (Which isn't always, but is frequently.) I usually don't think much of his means.

But for Democrats I usually hate both means AND ends...

[David Nieporent]

The Court’s retreat on the 2nd amendment continues apace.

The case had nothing whatsoever to do with the 2nd amendment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Another one gone! 🙂

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/03/26/ice-arrests-tufts-grad-student-lawyer-says-her-location-is-unknown/?p1=hp_primary

[Commenter_XY]

DE2, I hope they publish her arrest and detention on the national news, and I want every foreign student here in the US to get a good, long look at what can happen.

Memo to foreign students: You ain't US citizens, and you don't have the same level of protection as citizens do. Remember that.

Too bad, so sad... she won't complete her PhD.

[bernard11]

WTF are you cheering about?

What did Ozturk do to merit deportation? Yeah she said some stuff that offended Trump. That’s not enough.

Memo to foreign students: You ain’t US citizens, and you don’t have the same level of protection as citizens do. Remember that.

When it comes to free speech they do have the same level of protection. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, yet you continue to act as if it’s not true.

[Bob from Ohio]

"she said some stuff that offended Trump."

Pro Hamas, anti Israel stuff. A supporter of economic terorism aginst Jews {"BDS" movement]

It should offend you as well.

She can finish her dumb PhD elsewhere

[Sarcastr0]

"economic terrorism"

What a clownshow.

[Martinned2]

Did you see that video? In any other country you'd describe that as the secret police kidnapping someone off the street in broad daylight for wrongthink.

[John F. Carr]

Judge Casper (D. Mass.) wants to know why Ozturk was removed from Massachusetts when the court ordered her kept here. The deadline for a response has just passed.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69790775/ozturk-v-hyde/

Most of the case documents are not public.

[hobie]

"In a statement, [Lindsey] Graham said all involved in the Signal chat — which he conceded did “detail very sensitive information about a planned and ongoing military operation” — had admitted it was a mistake and had learned their lesson"

Ah, tried and true school yard discipline.

[Principal speaking] "Mrs. Hegsmeth, Mrs. Waltz, we realize that little Petey and little Mikey were just being boys and I'm sure they've learned their lesson. Isn't that right, boys?"
[both boys in unison] "Yes, principal."

[SRG2]

“Mrs. Hegsmeth

As we're in the schoolyard, that's a typo. It should be "Mrs Smegbreath"

[Magister]

The principal at your school must have been pretty mean saying stuff like that to parents.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One thing this group has been shown to do is learn their lesson, especially if no consequences other than "this is so concerning" occur.

[M L]

A trio of federal judges in California declared on Tuesday that President Donald Trump must welcome roughly 40,000 refugees approved by President Joe Biden’s deputies.

“We welcome this continued relief for tens of thousands of refugees who will now have the opportunity to restart their lives in the United States,” said Melissa Keaney, the progressive lawyer for the elite-funded, anti-borders International Refugee Assistance Project.

In a second courtroom in Seattle, another federal judge ordered the Trump administration to keep paying the quasi-government agencies that settle the refugees in Americans’ crowded housing, schools, and workplaces, such as in Springfield, Ohio.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/03/26/massive-resistance-judges-try-to-revive-bidens-refugee-program/

[TaioF920]

These judges deserve a sarin shower.

[Krayt]

“The target is on site. Missiles are launched here’s the time stamp!”

Wow, the shameful defense of this, if you want to see situational ethics unfold in real time. Reduced to, “Hey, no actual names or places so it’s no big deal!”

You’d have all your top people get the hell out of their buildings.

Situational ethics. Had this happened under Democrats, you’d never hear the end of it. You spent 4 damned years putting Benghazi on Fox every evening to keep up a continuous attack stream against the presumptive Dem nominee Hillary Clinton.

[ThePublius]

“Had this happened under Democrats, you’d never hear the end of it.”

Talk about projection. We’re never going to hear the end of this!

It was a mistake! We don’t yet know who made the ‘mistake,’ or even if it was intentional on someone’s part. In the end there was no harm from this, save the embarrassment of those involved and the administration.

Oh, and in case you forgot, Americans were killed in the Benghazi screw-up. And then administration officials went on the talking heads programs and lied, and lied, and lied about it, and even put the scapegoat in jail. Not even close to equivalent.

[Sarcastr0]

It was a mistake! We don’t yet know who made the ‘mistake,’ or even if it was intentional on someone’s part.

LOL.

[ThePublius]

What's so funny about that? Don't you think it was a mistake, an error of some kind, to include Goldberg, or that maybe someone included him for nefarious purposes? The principals on the call certainly didn't include him on purpose.

And now all of these knuckleheads in the Democrat party are calling for Hegseth to resign, and so on. What a bunch of partisan dopes. Next thing you know they'll be saying this is worse than 9/11 or the civil war. It's really a big nothingburger.

[Sarcastr0]

'It was a mistake. Or maybe intentional. And who knows who did it!'

There's a saying about where the buck stops. I guess you never heard it.

[Voize of Reazon]

It was only two weeks ago that Tulsi Gabbard wrote "Any unauthorized release of classified information is a violation of the law and will be treated as such." She should be calling for Hegseth to resign.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Benghazi!! Abbey Gate!!

Manda Bay…never heard of it. Manbij bombing…I’m unfamiliar with that one. 😉

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Why don’t you care about Shannon Kent and the other Americans that died in the Manbij bombing?? Is it because Joe Kent has already replaced Shannon? If that’s the case you shouldn’t care about Ashtray Babbitt because her badass Marine husband had a spare wife, a little hottie!

[Krayt]

Here they come, it’s not a war plan!

What part of the above as warning does your smoke and mirrors distraction not understand?

[Bob from Ohio]

"you’d never hear the end of it"

Austin disappeared for days without telling anyone, while his deputy was on vacation. So save the indignation

[Dan Schiavetta]

Matthew 7:3

[SRG2]

I don't know why Krasnov had such a fixation on Greenland. The first time around I think it was just greed and stupidity - and it was amusing to see how it exposed the cultists' adherence.

But now, the threat cannot be dismissed. The mere fact of threatening Greenland and Denmark weakens NATO. If Krasnov went ahead and invaded Greenland (impeachable, as if..., and a crime), that would obviously be the end of NATO.

Cui bono? It's not hard to work out in whose interests a weakening or termination of NATO would be I regard it as quite possible that Putin is "encouraging" Krasnov here.

[ThePublius]

Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention, but when did Trump threaten Greenland and Denmark? I recall he offered to purchase Greenland, not attack, invade, and seize it.

[Absaroka]

My first search hit.

You can quibble about whether 'I refuse to rule out invading you' is actually a threat, I suppose.

'I refuse to rule out shooting you and taking your car if you don't hand over the keys' ... seems kinda threatish to me.

[ThePublius]

I'm not going to quibble, I just wasn't paying attention to that.

It's interesting, though. Why does Denmark "own" Greenland? I know, historically, the Danes have been involved for a thousand or so years; but most of the population is Inuit. Greenland is heavily subsidized by Denmark. If Greenland decided to become independent that could open the door to joining the U.S. Who knows?

[Absaroka]

"I just wasn’t paying attention to that."

Staying unbubbled is a lot of work.

"Why does Denmark “own” Greenland?"

For the same reasons we 'own' Puerto Rico, Guam, etc, including that the residents want it that way.

I think most Americans would take a little umbrage over 'President Xi today refused rule out using force to acquire Guam'.

[grb]

While addressing a joint session of Congress in Washington, Trump said this :

"And I also have a message tonight for the incredible people of Greenland. We strongly support your right to determine your own future. And if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America. We need Greenland for national security and even international security. And we're working with everybody involved to try and get it. But we need it really for international world security. And I think we're going to get it. One way or the other, we're going to get it."

How would you characterize that?

[Brett Bellmore]

An invitation.

I know you're interpreting "one way or another" as "voluntarily or by force", (It's that "presumption of guilt" Trump's foes start all their reasoning about him from.) but it can also be interpreted as "voluntarily as part of the US, or voluntarily with some other status that achieves our aims".

A free trade zone with a defense pact would achieve everything Trump wants, you know.

[grb]

1. My interpretation is more credible than yours by a sizable margin.

2. If a “free trade zone with a defense pact” achieves everything Trump wants, then maybe you can point to an instance where he championed those objectives?

3. Why is a free trade zone even part of your made-up excuse? Where did that come from?

4. And we already have a defense pact covering Greenland dating from 1951. Didn’t you bother to check? What does that do to your excuses above? Do you ever get tired of covering for Trump’s criminality, gangster behavior, gross stupidly, or incessant lying?

“The United States “accepted the legal obligation to defend against any attack” on Greenland in a 1951 treaty with Denmark. It has had bases there since the Second World War and has the largest military in the alliance. The 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement allowed the United States to keep its military bases in Greenland, and to establish new bases or “defense areas” if deemed necessary by NATO. The U.S. military could freely use and move between these defense areas, but was not to infringe upon Danish sovereignty in Greenland. The treaty gave the United States permanent jurisdiction over the defense areas of Thule, Sondrestrom and Narsarsuaq.”

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

[MusicAfter Midnight]

"A free trade zone with a defense pact would achieve everything Trump wants, you know."

There's already a defense pact, you know. And free trade zone? That's pretty funny. That's two for you today.

[bernard11]

Really? This excuse is one for the Bellmore Hall of Fame.

I envy you your ability to bend over backwards 180 degrees.

[grb]

bernard11 : "Really? This excuse is one for the Bellmore Hall of Fame."

Meanwhile, Trump just said the below. See, no matter how much Bellmore prostitutes his integrity to clean-up after Trump, the latter always embarrasses Bret further still. The second Brett manages another flailing excuse for DJT's latest bungle, lie, or crime, Trump cuts the legs out from under him, leaving the excuse exposed as a fraud.

I honestly don't see how Brett can stomach the humiliation. Trump never fails to make him look like a fool.

"We need Greenland for national security and international security," Trump said, taking reporters' questions in the Oval Office. "So we'll, I think, we'll go as far as we have to go. We need Greenland. And the world needs us to have Greenland, including Denmark. Denmark has to have us have Greenland. And, you know, we'll see what happens. But if we don't have Greenland, we can't have great international security."

https://abcnews.go.com/International/trump-us-control-greenland/story?id=120208823

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He latched on to it for whatever reason, perhaps one of those “this is so interesting, no one knows about this” things, and now can’t walk back it. So, he continues to go all-in, especially since Greenland/Denmark dares to challenge him.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Greenland looks really BIG on a map. Trump is probably not smart enough to realize it looks smaller on a globe.

[ThePublius]

Har, har har, you made a funny. Aren't you clever!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Trump: “I love maps. And I always said, ‘Look at the size of this. It’s massive.’ That should be part of the United States.”⁠

[grb]

The poor dear does have an obsession with size. Though to be fair, if Trump ever thought Greenland lacking in length and girth, he always has the option of taking a sharpie and changing it. If it works with hurricanes, why not island dimensions?

[Dan Schiavetta]

It was a sorry spectacle, watching NOAA officials fall all over themselves to try to agree with Trump, who had made a trivial error as to a hurricane reaching Alabama.

It reminds me of a (credible) story told about Stalin. People were so afraid of offending him that at a conference, if he mispronounced a name, everyone speaking after him would be careful to mispronounce it, and in the same way.

[David Nieporent]

Never be the first to stop clapping.

[Dan Schiavetta]

According to Solzhenitsyn, it went on for 11 minutes. Finally someone stopped clapping and sat down. The next day he was arrested.

[Jmaie]

There was a record (yes, vinyl) of a Stalin speech, lasting 45 minutes and taking up the A side. The B side consisted entirely of clapping. FWIW.

[grb]

Jmaie : “The B side consisted entirely of clapping”

I’m sure ThePublius, XY, Bellmore, and Kazinski were present in spirit. Those who whore-away every ounce of personal integrity they ever possessed to service Dear Leader share a special bond.

[Commenter_XY]

I don’t know why Krasnov had such a fixation on Greenland.

Proximity to arctic circle, rare earths.

[SRG2]

That doesn't explain the fixation. What has proximity to the Arctic circle got to do with what the US wants that it presently lacks? And Denmark is an ally, so what's the issue with rare earths? I suppose it's possible that someone mentioned rare earths to Krasnov, and he seized upon the idea because he'd not heard of them before and thought this was something people didn't know about.

[Commenter_XY]

Are you kidding? The arctic is like CA in 1847. A lot of exploration going on there, not to mention the obvious military benefits of having direct access to the arctic.

As for rare earths, if they don't matter, then why does every major power go out of their way to acquire it? Rare earths matter, a lot.

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

How does getting NATO countries to increase defense spending and curb their energy reliance on Russia benefit Russia?

[SRG2]

It doesn't. But if I were running an asset I would make sure he did things to allay suspicion.

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

That sounds really smart. To throw off suspicion that Trump is really a Russian asset, he's going to get Russia's bordering enemies to triple their defense budgets!

That'll fool everyone! Except you! You intrepid detective! You and your dog Shaggy!

[David Nieporent]

How does creating a stupid pretext for the U.S. leave NATO benefit Russia?

[Michael P]

Nuking Russia would hurt them. Does that mean it's a good policy?

Most of us have more than a trivial heuristic for what makes a policy good. You apparently differ.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Putin’s asinine invasion of Ukraine made us energy dominant!! Biden played it all perfectly and now natural gas from Louisiana is powering Europe!!

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

For some strange reason, Ukraine while at war with Russia, let them pump billions of dollars of natural gas through their country.

Weird. It must be like a nice guy war where they slap each other and have tickle fights.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Don’t care, Biden played it perfectly and made us energy dominant.

[Brett Bellmore]

They probably figured that they didn't dare piss off Europe. Because, yeah, it would have pissed off Europe's governments no end; It's not like the EU is willing to lift a finger to be energy independent, after all.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Why is there such judicial hostility against [my particular interpretation of] the Second Amendment?

This can be applied to multiple things.

[Commenter_XY]

Shades of Queen...Tom Homan singing his song.

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust (yeah)
Hey, I'm gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/us-authorities-detain-turkish-phd-student-at-tufts-who-called-for-university-to-divest-from-israel/

Bye, bye Rumeysa Ozturk. You can go be a hamas harpy from your home country, Turkey. C-Ya!

[grb]

1. Absolutely nothing in the Times of Israel article suggests Ozturk supports Hamas. Do you have any information otherwise?

2. Do you, Commenter_XY, think anyone should be deported from the U.S. for any criticism of Israel?

During the back&forth on Khalil, you seemed to suggest additional factors justified the legal action against him. Is that no longer true? To be fair, I understand each day's Cult duties require new ethics, standards, and rules to justify that day's illegal action by the Trump Administration.

[Dan Schiavetta]

What happened to you, XY? You used to be thoughtful. Now you're a gleeful asshole.

[David Nieporent]

Bye, bye Rumeysa Ozturk. You can go be a hamas harpy from your home country, Turkey. C-Ya!

Just say that you want to deport all the sand n-s, C_XY; it would be more honest. (And yes, I know that that's strictly speaking a reference to Arabs rather than Turks, but like those who wanted to beat up Sikhs after 9/11, you people don't really distinguish.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Bye, bye Rumeysa Ozturk. You can go be a hamas harpy from your home country, Turkey. C-Ya!

This seems like a strange thing to say after posting a link to an article about how she’s not being deported to Turkey.

[Sarcastr0]

How is what Commenter is doing different than cheering on the Stasi 60 years ago?

The legalities take a second seat to bare humanity and liberty. Trump has created a secret police going after people for speech.

The moral stain on those who support this should be indelible.

[Commenter_XY]

Support Judeocidal terrorists, and she does, then you're out. She can go cheer for hamas from home.

FAFO.

[Sarcastr0]

So yeah Stasi and proud of it.

Get therapy; something happened to you.

[ThePublius]

Why is there a lawsuit over Signalgate?

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

Trump Law.

[Sarcastr0]

Because there's no good reason reason why federal employees are discussing policy over Signal vs. standard channels.

[ThePublius]

That's just baloney, Sarcastr0.

"Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, revealed on Tuesday that Joe Biden authorized the use of Signal for government communications. The same day, CIA Director John Ratcliffe testified that the use of Signal for communications was one of the first things he was briefed about.

“So that we're clear, one of the first things that happened when I was confirmed as CIA director was Signal was loaded onto my computer at, uh, the CIA, as it is for most CIA officers,” Ratcliffe testified. “Um, one of the things that I was briefed on very early, Senator, was by the CIA records management folks about—about the use of Signal as a permissible work use. It is. That is a practice that preceded the current administration to the Biden administration.”"

The Atlantic in 2017:
“Confide isn’t the first secure-communications app to find popularity among politicians and their aides. Signal, the gold standard of encrypted messaging and calling, is used by staffers who work for President Trump, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.”

What say you now?

[Sarcastr0]

Civil servants and staffers.

If you can’t see the difference between those and SecDef and SecState etc. you need to brush up on your federal records.

Not sure it's going anywhere, but there's legit legal exposure here.

[ThePublius]

Nice weaseling. You said "federal employees." Are SecDef and SecState federal employees? Why would they load it onto CIA Director's computer if he wasn't to use it?

[Sarcastr0]

OK I wasn't precise in my description of what the call was.

That doesn't change what the call was.

[ThePublius]

"Because there’s no good reason reason why federal employees are discussing policy over Signal vs. standard channels."

So, what's a 'standard channel?'

[Sarcastr0]

E-mail.
Teams.

Stuff that's set up to capture federal records.

[ThePublius]

You know, S..0, I'm not following you. Signal was adopted as a 'standard channel' under Biden, and was installed by the CIA on the Director's computer. It doesn't get much more 'standard' or official than that. What's your beef?

[Sarcastr0]

Plenty of stuff that goes on isn’t a federal record.

This stuff very well might have been. Based on who was talking, and what they were talking about.

Hence why I talked about policy and SecDef and SecState.

So it looks a lot like using Signal was to avoid federal records laws.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you can understand that much, then I guess you can understand why Hillary had a private email server, too. Right?

Sure, it's wrong. For normal values of wrong typical of every administration in my life, but wrong. I keep trying to get people like Rand Paul nominated for President, but not enough people agree with me.

Have you ever tried to get somebody who was actually ethical nominated by the Democratic party?

[Sarcastr0]

No, this wasn’t something that happens in other administrations.

What a crazy thing to say.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No, this wasn’t something that happens in other administrations."

Yeah, that was a crazy thing for you to say, given that you damned well know that Hillary had a private server that she used for work communications, that was NOT set up to back up to the official system, and which she had wiped clean once a subpoena was issued for it.

Geeze, at least make the denial semi-plausible, OK?

Every administration in my lifetime has violated rules on retaining communications. Systematically and deliberately.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is going to buy a 'butter e-mails' about this. No matter how many details you fill in.

Maybe try Travelgate instead. Or cattle futures.

[Brett Bellmore]

All you're doing here is establishing that you just don't care. You don't care about Democratic abuses, and you don't even care to pretend that you do.

Well, I care, but since both Republicans AND Democrats commit this abuse, the weight on both sides of the scale balances out, it doesn't move my needle. I would have been delighted if the Trump administration had been better, but as they're no different, why would that turn me against them, when the alternative is the same on that metric, and worse on others?

[Sarcastr0]

Not buying your Clinton conspiracies does sort of mean I don't care about them, yeah.

Certainly your attempt to equate anything previous to the Signal imbroglio is not going to play outside your Clinton-addled head.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is not a conspiracy theory that Clinton set up a private server that did not back up to the government system, and then wiped it when it got subpoenaed. It's an historical fact.

[David Nieporent]

It is not a conspiracy theory that Clinton set up a private server that did not back up to the government system,

…which was not required at the time.

I'm sure you meant to post that and just forgot.

[Brett Bellmore]

Man, you're really casual about spoliation when committed by your allies, aren't you?

That's what this is all about, after all: Any innocent explanation for her use of that server, and failure to properly configure it, evaporated when it was wiped after the subpoena was issued. That act created a presumption of ill intent.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Republicans couldn’t reform the FOIA when texting became commonplace because it would undermine their case against Hillary. Hillary was SOS during the Blackberry era when email was used like texting before iPhone finally made texting popular with older Americans. In Trump’s first term WhatsApp was used by Kushner to cut deals with MBS and avoid FOIA while in control of the Federal Government. Btw, no foreign diplomat is going to communicate via official State email and so diplomats should have an alternative form of communication…but Defense is the last department we should want using an alternative form of digital communication instead of official system.

[Voize of Reazon]

Signal was approved for unclassified communication.

[Bob from Ohio]

Because American Oversight needs publicity and fund raising

[Michael P]

Because leftist liars libeled the legitimate members of that chat?

At least, that's why there should be a lawsuit.

[Martinned2]

If only there was a place where you could look that up. Here, let me help you along: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69788832/american-oversight-v-hegseth/?order_by=desc

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

Did yall hear they've discovered the best way to Fight Oligarchy?

Apparently it's using your campaign donations to pay your son $800,000/year to manage your Fight Oligarchy organization!

[jb]

It's his stepson, and it's $800K over 7 years. $130K in 2023.

Even if it was $800K a year, that's several 0s away from oligarch territory.

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

Wow, I take it back, his 3 multi-million dollar homes and only $130k/year to his step-son? Well he's a regular Man of the People!

Communism Rawks! Capitalism Sucks!

[David Nieporent]

Not being an audience member of the MAGA Cinematic Universe, I don't know what this is even supposed to be a reference to.

[TwelveInchPianist]

CEO of NPR tweeted on MLK day in 2020 that she was taking the day to read “The Case for Reparations”. Couldn’t recall reading it today.

They love to virtue-signal.

[ThePublius]

Yea, I listened to a bunch of that hearing, and she sounded like Sgt. Schultz. I'm surprised she could recall her own name.

[Bwaaah]

Having read your remark, I went to watch a playback of the “hearing” (see here). I don’t know why they call it a hearing. Pre-prepped, purely partisan bloviation from Congressmen under the guise of a “hearing” is not only uninformative, but cause for great skepticism about Congress and its culture. Why bother to have the panelists attend? Why not just have a table with pictures of the panelists with penises drawn over their faces? I am reminded of what moronic grandstanding looks like, and how much the lives of politicians are built on that.

I am a former [long-time] NPR listener, and quite concerned about the subject matter. Having heard Marjorie Taylor Greene chair the hearing, I feel like I want to defend NPR just to keep the biggest idiot in the room from winning. Fortunately, the Democrats were a good match for MTG’s idiocy. As one of them asked of the President of PBS, while showing a big picture of Big Bird, “Since Elon Musk has fired USDA workers, does it make sense to also fire Big Bird?”

Same old crap. Nothing learned. Nothing but stooges.

[grb]

Bwaaah : "I am a former [long-time] NPR listener...."

My two favorite NPR tales both date back about fifteen years when I was thru-hiking the AT. The first is general: While traveling thru very rural communities such as in Tennessee or North Carolina, my very first action going in any town was to scour the paper boxes for a rag to read. Being a news junkie, I was often reading local papers a few pages long, rapt over some high school funding issue but that was the best I could do. But throughout my months of hiking (and I was extremely slow), I always had my tiny little radio, earbuds, and an NPR station. One broadcast might fade after a few score miles of hiking, but another would emerge. No matter how deep in the wilderness I got, one of the country's most comprehensive, thorough, and premium news organizations was always there.

The second story is more specific: I got off-Trail near Roanoke to meet an old friend. He drove me to various places including an ayce Shoney's, where he was astounded how much food a hiker can put down. One of the destinations was a truck stop with laundry machines so I could do my small amount of clothes.

There we fell to talking with a burly trucker, who contracted runs up&down the coast. The subject turned to politics, where he was an eclectic mix of Right & Left but possessed extraordinary knowledge. He could reel off the smallest details on any issue, named bills by their precise names, and knew the Justices & rulings in all the latest SCOUS cases. I'm no slouch in that department, but finally admitted my awe & admiration. His answer was simple : He listened to NPR during his time behind the wheel, so of course he knew his stuff.

So maybe if you "want to defend NPR", you should do so, Bwaaah. Give the Right-wing virtue-signaling a rest for once. If you were a "[long-time] NPR listener", you know most of the Right's whining about NPR is total horseshit. Why not just concede the point?

[Absaroka]

I (we, wife-n-I) shared your love of NPR for many years, as in regular donations. We kinda moved on post 2020. It just got too 'Asteroid to destroy all life on earth; women and minorities hardest hit'. I'm ok with those stories, just not repeating them to the exclusion of all else. We stopped getting the driveway moments.

I expect it varied from station to station. It was a pattern on all our local ones, so we moved on.

[Sarcastr0]

I've moved on to BBC from NPR these days myself.

I was big in NPR as a kid and through grad school and then law school.
But I am a tad fickle with my content choices on the year-to-year timescale and tired of shows that were pretty steady in their content. Happens every once in a while.

Weekend Edition Saturday
On the Media
Wait Wait Don't Tell Me
Prairie Home Companion
Waddya Know
This American Life.

Nowadays my only NPR content is Radiolab (about 1 show in 3 captures my interest) and Pop Culture Happy Hour.

But The Rest is History,
The Rest is Politics,
In Our Time,
More or Less Behind The Stats.

These are weekly content for me.

[Brett Bellmore]

NPR lost me when Click and Clack, the Tappet brothers, retired.

[Sarcastr0]

That's completely fair; they were the best show they had.

Though I didn't listen to them once I graduated and left for college.

[Bwaaah]

grb:
I listened to NPR for hours a day since the late 70s. Whether commuting or not, it was Morning Edition in the morning and All Things Considered in the evening. And I loved almost all of their stuff in between. (Car Talk. A Prairie Home Companion. Great, great stuff.)

Your point is even more near and dear to me than that. Though I never hiked the AT end-to-end, I did a bunch of long section hikes over many years starting in the late 90s. In the backcountry, cellular service can be spotty to non-existent, and public radio is almost ubiquitous. It was always a fine sound of insightful people who appreciated life in its many forms, and that always gave me comfort. In fact, when I would go into the woods, I would leave my phone back in the car and take a little AAA-powered FM radio that I tucked into the little zip pocket in the front of my backpack belt. With earbuds strung up along my shoulder strap, public radio was my listen-to companion along the trail. Even when I didn't feel like listening, regional semi-daily weather forecasts from public radio were essential for my trail planning.

Fast forward to 2020. I was walking the trail and I needed to get a weather update. I thumbed through the dial and came to  public radio. (The Christian broadcasters are the next-most-ubiquitous alternative out there, but they tend not to do weather and aside from the music, I can only take a bit of the gospel at a time.)

So I tuned in public radio for a weather forecast, and waited for one to come around. I listened.

  "RACISM! [blah-blah] RACISM! [blah-blah] RACISM!"

It was jarring. It was droning. It was unabating. Did you miss it? Are you numb to it?

Getting my weather forecast became a chore of enduring 2020-era SJW pronouncements. Sure, traditional NPR quality material was there too. But if it was voices from NPR News, the mean-time-between social justice declaration was under 3 minutes. NPR, the voice of reason, had degraded itself into faddish demonstrative political blather.

I know the value of public radio. And I know the potential value of NPR to local public radio stations. But if that mission is to be accomplished, NPR's people, and its leadership have to #1) grasp their own biases, and #2) hedge against them. #2 can't happen if #1 doesn't happen.

So I turn to NPR President Katherine Maher's testimony yesterday before the House. She was asked about the remarks of Uri Berliner, one of those long-time decent voices at NPR who resigned last April after publishing a very insightful piece, "I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust.". As Ms. Maher testified yesterday, that happened before her term at NPR and as she testified:

&nbps; "I wish I had had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Berliner. I would have loved to have had him engage and come back to us with some suggestions with what we could do editorially to address what he perceived as bias."

I think Ms. Maher was begin disingenuous. I think she is disingenuous. Almost a year since she took the driver seat at NPR, Mr. Berliner still awaits her call. Ms. Maher herself characterized Uri's insightful piece as "profoundly disrespectful, hurtful and demeaning.

Though she does indeed have an interest in a diversity of "legitimate" viewpoints, she (like much of today's left) has no interest in "illegitimate" viewpoints such as, in her mind, those that dominate today's political right. For me, much though I disagree with many current right-leaning perspectives, the mere fact that they are so widely held means it is incumbent upon me to incorporate them as legitimate in my analysis, even if not agreeable to me. As an institution receiving taxpayer funding, NPR's inclination to dismiss those opinions as illegitimate is crazy head-in-the-sand stuff.

But let me finish with public radio's role as an emergency communications line to rural America, and the weather. Ms. Maher addresses that in her testimony with a slip that was so telling, so revealing of where she and NPR are coming from. In speaking of NPR's essential role in the emergency plans of 20 states, she remarked:

  "We also are part of the state-wide emergency plans. You'll see the importance and value of public radio in particular when we face climate, er, sorry, excuse me, extreme weather"

Indeed, when all I wanted was the day's weather, I had to wait for them to finish with climate, and climate racism, and climate equity, and on, and on, and on.

Let me know when you think NPR sees a problem with that. That will indicate the possibility of a solution.

[Bwaaah]

(Here in particular is Ms. Maher's testimony about NPR's role in emergency reporting of "climate, er, sorry, excuse me, extreme weather")

[jb]

Trump's DNI couldn't remember the content of some Signal messages she'd received a few days ago. Seems like the more significant thing to be worried about in today's Congressional hearings, no?

[ThePublius]

Whataboutism.

[jb]

You're right of course, but it's pretty telling which of these two bits of testimony on the same day you and TIP seem to think is a bigger deal.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Looks like you've got it covered.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Reparations would the best trillion dollars we ever spent! Dollars can only be spent and so Republicans in the southeast would end up with most of the dollars.

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, in Trump-land:

Kristi Noem Says $200 Million DHS Ad Campaign Thanking Trump Was His Idea
Trump’s Homeland Security Secretary said he instructed her to make ads that “thank me for closing the border

[hobie]

"Jair Bolsonaro Ordered to Face Trial in Brazil for Attempting a Coup

Brazil’s top court ruled that the former president will be tried over his role in a vast plot to cling to power after his 2022 election loss."

Fair warning, hayseeds. Justice eventually comes

[Frank Drackman]

Too bad your wife doesn’t

[ThePublius]

Yet another hate crime hoax:

https://nypost.com/2025/03/25/us-news/pa-city-worker-accused-of-staging-hate-crime-hoax-after-allegedly-planting-noose-at-her-desk/

Jussie Smollett could not be reached for comment.

[SRG2]

So if I post an instance of a Christian Trump supporter arrested for pedophilia, would you take him as representative of all Christian Trump supporters? Or would you claim that you're not all like that?

You have an epistemic worldview I've encountered in other conservatives - not just cultists

1. Anecdotes and personal experience are better guides to general state of affairs than statistical data

2. One negative instance is representative of the whole group

3. Intuition is a better guide to reality than information, even where the intuition has no basis in relevant knowledge

[ThePublius]

This topic is interesting because it seems the demand for so-called hate crimes exceeds the supply. Almost all of them that I encounter in the press turn out to be hoaxes. It's a "thing."

I didn't indict any particular group.

If you have something to say on the topic, say it, don't malign me!

[Sarcastr0]

You don't seem to have understood SRG2's point at all.

[Absaroka]

Are there a lot of Christian Trump supporter hoax arrests for pedophilia? If a large fraction of such arrests turn out to be hoaxes, then I would adjust my priors to say 'a lot of such arrests are hoaxes'.

I wouldn't say - and ThePublius didn't say '...and therefore all Christian Trump supporters are pedos'.

[Sarcastr0]

Step 1: establish the large fraction.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

Is it true that a large fraction of hate crime allegations are hoaxes? Very, very unlikely.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

' it seems the demand for so-called hate crimes exceeds the supply. Almost all of them that I encounter in the press turn out to be hoaxes. It’s a “thing.” '

Does "demand for so-called hate crimes exceeds the supply".
Seems very, very unlikely. According to the Justice Department, there were 14,416 "reported hate crimes" in 2023. Not reported in the press, I assume, but reported to authorities.

A couple noted in DOJ "Hate Crime News":
March 19, 2025
Mississippi Man Indicted for Federal Civil Rights and Arson Charges for Setting Fire to Mormon Church

March 19, 2025
Warren Man Sentenced to Prison for Hate Crime of Defacing Predominantly Black Church

March 11, 2025
San Diego Man Admits Guilt in Sending Hate-Filled Email with Death Threat

March 6, 2025
Virginia Man Convicted of Hate Crime for Attempted Church Shooting

March 4, 2025
Violent Recidivist Sentenced to More Than 4 Years in Federal Prison for Racially Motivated Attack on Asian American Woman

I don't doubt that "Almost all of them that [you] encounter in the press turn out to be hoaxes." There are a few possible reason for that which I won't speculate on.

' It’s a “thing.”'
What's a thing? That almost all of them that you encounter are hoaxes? Seems possible. That almost all alleged hate crimes are hoaxes? Not so much.

[Frank Drackman]

Why is it only a "Hate" crime when (rarely) a White kills a Black?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You mean Nancy Mace.

[not guilty]

In the Perkins Coie LLP lawsuit District Judge Beryl Howell has denied the Defendants' motion to disqualify her. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278290/gov.uscourts.dcd.278290.36.0_1.pdf To her credit, Judge Howell minced no words:

The opportunity presented by the defendants’ motion, which invokes 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) to disqualify this Court, is welcomed to set the record straight, because facts matter. To begin, this Court agrees wholeheartedly with defendants that “[f]air proceedings free from any suggestion of impartiality are essential to the integrity of our country’s judiciary.” Defendants’ Mot. to Disqualify Judge Beryl Howell (“Defs.’ Mot.”) at 1, ECF No. 34. No judicial ruling exists in a vacuum but rests on the facts presented in “Cases” or “Controversies” necessary for the exercise of a federal court’s jurisdiction, U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, and every litigating party deserves a fair and impartial hearing to determine both what the material facts are and how the law best applies to those facts. That fundamental promise, however, does not entitle any party—not even those with the power and prestige of the President of the United States or a federal agency—to demand adherence to their own version of the facts and preferred legal outcome. “Factfinding,” after all, “is the basic responsibility of district courts,” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291 (1982) (citation omitted, alteration accepted), and “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803).

This reminder about the role of the federal courts seems necessary given the opening line in defendants’ pending motion, expressing “the need to curtail ongoing improper encroachments of President Trump’s Executive Power playing out around the country.” Defs.’ Mot. at 1. This line, which sounds like a talking point from a member of Congress rather than a legal brief from the United States Department of Justice, has no citation to any legal authority for the simple reason that the notion expressed reflects a grave misapprehension of our constitutional order. Adjudicating whether an Executive Branch exercise of power is legal, or not, is actually the job of the federal courts, and not of the President or the Department of Justice, though vigorous and rigorous defense of executive actions is both expected and helpful to the courts in resolving legal issues. Defendants then proceed, in the second line of their pending motion, to describe as “meritless” every lawsuit challenging the President’s “agenda that the American people elected him to carry out.” Id. This blanket denigration of the merits of all the lawsuits filed across the country certainly reflects palpable frustration with court rulings issued to pause, temper, or reverse Trump Administration actions, but this is a testament to the fact that this country has an independent judiciary that adheres to an impartial adjudication process, without being swayed merely because the federal government appears on one side of a case and the President wishes a particular result.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Trump's Department of Justice should heed that maxim.

[SRG2]

A very elegant way to tell the DoJ to fuck off. I suspect that most of the cultists here, however, disagree with her when she says this:

That fundamental promise, however, does not entitle any party—not even those with the power and prestige of the President of the United States or a federal agency—to demand adherence to their own version of the facts and preferred legal outcome.

The cultists believe, almost to a man, that the president is indeed entitled to adherence to his versions and preferences. And I will bet that any cultist who denies that they believe this will end up arguing that that judiciary do it too.

[David Nieporent]

In the Perkins Coie LLP lawsuit District Judge Beryl Howell has denied the Defendants’ motion to disqualify her.

As with virtually every filing by a lawyer representing Trump (whether in his personal or official capacity), the motion was intended for an audience of one, and that one was not the judge. Nobody who graduated from law school thought it was legitimate. It was just designed to make Trump happy (and give him a talking point on social media.)

The difference between now and before is that Trump 47 has replaced actual government lawyers with his personal ones, and they're not even competent, so they file briefs that are in both style and substance nothing more than personal screeds.

[Jmaie]

Is it that they’re not competent, or is it that they don’t want to upset the gravy train?

Non-snarky question, I don't know enough to judge on my own...

[ThePublius]

This is really good news, a turning point:

"Residents of Beit Lahia in Northern Gaza Protest Against Hamas: Release Israeli Hostages, Stop the War – We Want to Live! We Reject the Rule of Hamas."

https://x.com/MEMRIReports/status/1904788396507115762

I hope it's not a ruse.

[SRG2]

Fuck me. It must be the one of the two moments in the day,

[Bwaaah]

MEMRI is a pro-Israel outlet. But its reporting tends to be factual (they tend to focus on verifiable translations from Arabic). I see no indication they’ve previously reported any such protests.
https://www.memri.org/tv/beit-lahia-north-gaza-protest-anti-hamas-release-hostages-stop-war

The New York Times is similarly reporting two days of such protests, with indications that they are growing in organization:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/26/world/middleeast/gaza-hamas-protests.html

I don’t think I’ve seen anti-Hamas protests in Gaza before (except perhaps many, many years ago). This seems notable. It’ll either fizzle or grow, pretty quickly I suspect.

Also notable is the fact that the protestors are not wearing masks to hide their identities.

I don’t think it’s a ruse.

[Jmaie]

I had a similar experience. I don't know enough to know whether these anti-Hamas protests in Gaza are new or just not reported on before...

If new, possibly a very good sign...

[Frank Drackman]

Like any of you Poindexters will know what I'm talking about, but in Hunting it's called "Baiting a Field" you put out some corn in an empty field to attract (what do people hunt? Deer? Rabbits? (hehhehheh) Pheasants? Ducks? (it's Wabbit Season!")
Like I would know, last time I went hunting was 1990, didn't want to go, stepped on a nail and had to get a Tetanus shot, chalk up a "W" for the Deer.
So you have these Anti-Ham-Ass protesters, the Ham-Ass come out of their holes, and "Whammo!!!" (HT (Dr.) Bill Cosby

Frank

[grb]

Meet David Geier, who earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Maryland in 2002. Since then, he has largely worked with his father, Mark Geier, but was also charged with practicing medicine without a license by the state physician’s board and issued a civil fine of $10,000.

The father’s medical license has been suspended or revoked in every state in which he was licensed over concerns about the misrepresentation of his credentials to the Maryland Board of Health, falsely claiming to be a board-certified geneticist and epidemiologist. He was also accused of putting the safety and welfare of autistic children at risk.

The board found that the elder Geier “misdiagnosed autistic children with precocious puberty and other genetic abnormalities and treated them with a potent hormonal therapy and in some instances chelation therapy, both of which have substantial risks of both short-term and long-term adverse side effects. Per the finding, Mark Geier’s treatment exposed the children to “needless risk of harm.” Both Geiers are anti-vaxx. At this point that’s their only source of income, hustling the gullible & stupid from the father’s private home in Maryland.

Why do I bring up these sleazy scam artists? Because RFK Jr just put David Geier (no medical degree or education) in charge of a “study” on the long-disproved relationship between vaccines and autism. Given both Geiers live off their “expert testimony” on that nonexistent relationship, any guesses on what DG’s “conclusion” will be?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/hhs-taps-anti-vaccine-activist-look-debunked-links-autism-vaccines-sou-rcna198214

Speaking of exposing children to needless risk of harm, Doctors in West Texas are seeing measles patients whose illnesses have been complicated by an alternative therapy endorsed by RFK Jr. Parents in Gaines County, Texas have increasingly turned to the supplements and unproven treatments hyped by Kennedy to protect their unvaccinated children against the virus.

One of those supplements is cod liver oil containing vitamin A, which Mr. Kennedy has promoted as a near miraculous cure for measles. Physicians at Covenant Children’s Hospital in Lubbock, Texas, say they’ve now treated a handful of unvaccinated children who were given so much vitamin A that they have signs of liver damage.

Some of them had received unsafe doses of cod liver oil and other vitamin A supplements for several weeks in an attempt to prevent a measles infection, said Dr. Summer Davies, who cares for acutely ill children at the hospital.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/25/health/measles-kennedy-vitamin-a.html

Just another reminder how day-by-day Trump is turning the U.S. into a third world country.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Speaking of exposing children to needless risk of harm, Doctors in West Texas are seeing measles patients whose illnesses have been complicated by an alternative therapy endorsed by RFK Jr. "

Wow, way to miss the lede; Why do we have measles in the US again? Because Biden threw the border wide open, and carriers came in.

This guy embarrasses me, sure. Did Sam Brinton embarrass you? He sure as hell should have.

[Martinned2]

Why do we have measles in the US again?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/measles-vaccination-rates-may-lower-thought-risking-us-elimination-sta-rcna198259

[Frank Drackman]

Again? Measles never went away, like a tree falling in the Forest, if an Illegal Alien gets Measles and doesn't go to the Doctor did he have Measles? but this is straight from the CDC (Center for Disease Continuation) so take it with a grain of Salt

On March 7, 2024, the Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH) confirmed a case of measles in a male aged 1 year residing in a temporary shelter for migrants in Chicago. Given the congregate nature of the setting, high transmissibility of measles, and low measles vaccination coverage among shelter residents, measles virus had the potential to spread rapidly among approximately 2,100 presumed exposed shelter residents.

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

Why do we have measles in the US again? Because Biden threw the border wide open

ALL BAD THINGS ARE LIBERALS FAULT.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Why do we have measles in the US again?"

Here's what your statement reminds me of: While in the Army NG, I was out in the field for my 2wks, manning the radio late one night in the S3 tent. I fell to talking with our CO, a rather petulant major. The subject turned to AIDS, where he insisted that the doctors were lying and the virus could be transmitted via mosquito.

I (a PFC at the time) noted there were African countries with large amounts of AIDS and mosquito-transmitted diseases, but all the cases of the former were still sexually-transmitted. For instance, there was no children in the former category though they were heavily represented in the latter. The Major's response to this argument was to grow more petulant & surly still.

So, Brett : There are many places along the U.S. border where illegal immigrant enter. But these measles outbreaks have only occurred where United States citizens have exceptionally low vaccination rates. Didn't you consider that ?!? If not, why not ?!?

Please don't get petulant & surly on me....

[Frank Drackman]

Remember in the 80's when we could still joke about AIDS ("Anally Injected Death Sentence, Another Infected D*** S****""What's the worst thing about getting AIDS? Telling your parents you're Haitian") someone saying you could catch the HIV-ie from Mosquitos, but only if they were Homos, IV Drug Users, or Haitian.
Never made sense, Mosquitos can transmit Plamodium Vivax, an organism a 1,000,000 times larger than an HIV Virus, but not the Virus?

Frank

[grb]

Trump: "We're gonna have tremendous goodies in the bag for women too. The women, between the fertilization and all the other things we're talking about, it's gonna be great. Fertilization. I'm still very proud of it, I don't care. I'll be known as the fertilization president and that's okay."

His mind is toast. His brain is broken. He's obviously mentally ill.

[grb]

Trump: "We got a lot of votes because of Hannibal Lecter."

Clear dementia. What more can you say?

[Frank Drackman]

Sorry to hear about it, maybe try some Prevagen, it's Jellyfish extract, and have you ever seen a Jellyfish forget where they parked their car?

[SRG2]

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/trump-el-salvador-venezulea-deportation-prison-cecot-bukele/

Mother Jones has spoken with friends, family members, and lawyers of ten men sent to El Salvador by the Trump administration based on allegations that they are members of the Venezuelan organized crime group Tren de Aragua. All of them say their relatives have tattoos and believe that is why their loved ones were targeted. But they vigorously reject the idea that their sons, brothers, and husbands have anything to do with Tren de Aragua, which the Trump administration recently labeled a foreign terrorist organization. The families have substantiated those assertions to Mother Jones, including—in many cases—by providing official documents attesting to their relatives’ lack of criminal histories in Venezuela. Such evidence might have persuaded US judges that the men were not part of any criminal organization had the Trump administration not deliberately deprived them of due process.

Cultists: 'Mother Jones, blah blah. we don't give a shit"

This is why hearings were necessary, and this is why those of you who insist that illegals have no rights, in response to posters here who have advocated for hearings, are cunts for ignoring that legals do have rights - and you don't care because Dear Leader willed it.

[grb]

SRG2 : “Cultists: ‘Mother Jones, blah blah. we don’t give a shit”

Of course they don’t give a shit. This is an administration that claimed 150yr old people were receiving Social Security but couldn’t produce a single example. This is a White House whose vice president said Haitians were eating cats & dogs and shrugged his shoulders when proved a liar. This is a president who blamed the airline-helicopter accident on black people without evidence or cause, knowing his supporters would get off on the racist lie.

The average Rightie knows Trump is lying but just doesn’t care. They know many, most, or all of the deported have nothing to do with the Tren de Aragua gang; they just don’t care. Seeing brown-skinned people being brutally mistreated and sent to an El Salvadorian hell-hole prison was entertainment porn to them, and they’re all about the entertainment. Kristi Noem visited the prison today, posing before cages filled with people denied all due process – many sent there for no reason whatsoever.

How many right-wingers swooned at the sight, overjoyed (one-handedly) at the injustice of it all?

[David Nieporent]

They know many, most, or all of the deported have nothing to do with the Tren de Aragua gang; they just don’t care.

I must partially dissent here. Do they care? No; you're right about that. Do they know whether the deported have anything to do with TdA? Of course not; they know as much about TdA as they do about the poetry of 14th century Guam. They had never heard of TdA until a few days ago. But once the Dear Leader started denouncing it, they had to robotically follow suit.

[Frank Drackman]

It's "Fearless Leader" so when did YOU first hear about Tren De Aragua?? (I thought it was a Mexican dish) and TdA isn't a good abbreviation, to similar to a Tetanus shot. And I resemble your insult that we MAGA types don't appreciate a good turn of phrase, I admit, I can't spout and Guamian verse from memory (can you?) but give me a beat and I can lay down some Fresh Aongus Ó Giolláin, here's my fave
"In a quiet water’d land, a land of roses,
Stands Saint Ciarán’s city fair;
And the warriors of Erin in their famous generations
Slumber there."

Like Nina's "99 Luft Balloons" better in the original Irish

Frank

[MusicAfter Midnight]

Well, it's after midnight somewhere so here goes. Lyle Lovett performing a cover of the Grateful Dead song "Friend of the Devil":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmRJGkJwNCQ&ab_channel=ChristopherHazard

First time I encountered Lovett covering this was in a Houston club (Anderson Fair Retail Restaurant) probably in 1992. The cello player on the video is John Hagen who several Houston area "folk" musicians lured away from the Houston Symphony. On congas is James Gilmer, also a Houston area musician. Hagen and Gilmer were associated with Lovett probably for about 40 years

[grb]

I saw Lovett much later, but he put on a rousing and tight professional show. That said, what was Julia thinking?

[MusicAfter Midnight]

We've seen Lovett a couple times. The show in Houston was quite amazing. He put on four shows over two nights to a full house each time -- about 85 people per show. Opening act was Katy Moffet. Lovett's performance was flalwess and seamless. A very meticulous performer.

Anderson Fair was one of the first venues Lovett could get booked in back in the 70s and the 1992 shows were sort of a benefit for the club which is still going and still not making any money.

[Frank Drackman]

That LL could "Bring it home", Nome Sane?

[Jmaie]

I generally like LL, but this version of FOTD seems flat. I kept waiting for him to go for that higher third and it didn't happen...

[John F. Carr]

Families of people killed by Hamas and an IDF member who fought in Gaza sued pro-Palestinian student groups at Columbia for being pro-Hamas. The main claim is a violation of 18 USC 2333(d), which imposes civil liablility on a person who "aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with" a designated terrorist. One of the individual defendants is recent cause celebre Mahmoud Khalil. It's harder to defend yourself from a civil suit when you are in detention.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69780175/haggai-v-kiswani/

This lawsuit is probably not really for compensation. Few college students and student groups have enough money to be worth suing. It may feel good to get an uncollectable judgment. I don't know if a judgment in this case would be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

[Martinned2]

Sure. Who needs free speech anyway?

[Frank Drackman]

You call yourself a Lawyer? Professor Kingsfield would Bee-otch slap you right out of his Constitutional Law Class, can you recite the facts of Schenk v United States? 303 Creative LLC v Elenis? Counterman v Colorado? Chaplinksy v New Hampshire?
That last one was from 1942, Unanimous 9-0 (FDR had his way it would have been 18-0) Opinion authored by FDR pick Frank Murphy, a DemoKKKrat (duh)
And since you're obviously addled, I'll cut to the money shot

"Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
"Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument."

Frank

[Martinned2]

Separately from that whole Signal mess:

Private contact details of the most important security advisers to U.S. President Donald Trump can be found on the internet. DER SPIEGEL reporters were able to find mobile phone numbers, email addresses and even some passwords belonging to the top officials.

To do so, the reporters used commercial people search engines along with hacked customer data that has been published on the web. Those affected by the leaks include National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

Most of these numbers and email addresses are apparently still in use, with some of them linked to profiles on social media platforms like Instagram and LinkedIn. They were used to create Dropbox accounts and profiles in apps that track running data. There are also WhatsApp profiles for the respective phone numbers and even Signal accounts in some cases.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/pete-hegseth-mike-waltz-tulsi-gabbard-private-data-and-passwords-of-senior-u-s-security-officials-found-online-a-14221f90-e5c2-48e5-bc63-10b705521fb7

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Stew-pid, yeah, I'm talkin to you Hammer-Head, don't try and pretend I didn't bend you over like Barney Fag used to do for his Boy-Toy Steve Gobie (back in 1990, before Rush Limbo became all respectable, he did a great parody of Barney getting boo-fooed by Gobie, with Barnie lisping "oh Gobie! Gobie!") Did you ever think maybe they sent that Goldberg a-hole the e-mail to see if he WOULD leak it? I know it blows your whole philosophy, but Hedge-Sex is probably smarter than you (he's Sec Def, and you're some Putz on the Internet), he certainly gets more Strange, and in the end, who gives a (redacted)

Frank

[Michael P]

Martinned is shocked, shocked, that people who use the Internet might be contactable over the Internet. Also that lists of stale passwords contain passwords that are no longer used.

[Martinned2]

So I'll put you down as another person who, upon reflection, regrets their hysterics about Hillary's emails? National security, shemgurity...

[Thought about __ all my life]

On-the-fence readers of REASON

Exclusive: HUD Cracks Down on Government-Backed Mortgages for Illegal Immigrants

IS there any way on earth to defend giving priority to ILLEGALS ???

[Martinned2]

Is there any reason to spite immigrants by making them homeless?

[Frank Drackman]

So let them stay at your place.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure: Because they're illegal immigrants. Who have no legal source of income with which to pay a mortgage, because they're not legally employable.

[Sarcastr0]

Yet more evidence these are not people to you.

[Michael P]

Yet more evidence you are dedicated to lawlessness.

[Sarcastr0]

Super dedicated.

I sure do hate laws!

[Martinned2]

Why does that make it OK to make them sleep on the street? And, for that matter, why is it OK with you that anyone is homeless?

[Frank Drackman]

So let them stay at your place, or do you already have too many? so how many "homeless" Ill-legal Aliens are staying at your place? don't worry, I'm not the romper room lady.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think they should sleep on the street. But at the very least it shouldn't be an American street.

Look, you can whine about how hard we're making it on illegal immigrants all day long, and I don't care, because they're supposed to be someplace else.

It's like whining that a shoplifter is having trouble getting prompt warrantee service on his newly stolen TV... No, that manufacturers should stand behind their products is NOT relevant!

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, many of us will continue whining about treating people like human beings, even while acknowledging that they will be deported.

You continue to pile up the evidence that you've lost the ability to see these people as humans.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I will continue to remind you that deporting people isn't treating them like animals, it's treating them like human beings who happen to be guilty of being present in the country illegally.

Most of the population of the Earth does not live in the US. This does not render them subhuman, it just renders them "not Americans".

[ThePublius]

First of all, he never indicated that it was O.K. with him that anyone is homeless, so drop that nonsense.

The current situation is unsustainable. You can't have open borders AND a welfare state, because you will have everyone in the world coming here, and guess what - you'll run out of housing. And, you will alienate all of the U.S. citizens who you expect to pay for all of this. It's already a huge strain on my state, Massachusetts' budget, even to the extent that the liberal governor is starting to back down from it.

I'm fine with immigration - all of my grandparents were immigrants - legal immigrants - but they were expected, and expected themselves, to provide for themselves, be self sufficient. Not suck on the teet of a nanny state. I'm not fine with illegal immigration. If people are here illegally they should be deported. They have started their stay in the U.S. by committing a crime. What other countries allow that? Pay their rent, and food, and transportation, and cell phones, and health care? Can I go to the Netherlands, sneak in, and expect all of those benefits? Or England, or France, or Germany, or Canada, or Mexico???

Stop being such a polarized, one note advocate for illegal immigrants, stop conflating illegal and legal immigrants, and stop spewing hatred of the U.S. Isn't there some Dutch law blog where you can hang out?

[David Nieporent]

1) The word "priority" is a fabrication.

2) The headline is a lie by omission. Illegal immigrants were not getting HUD mortgages in the first place. What the actual HUD policy that was announced was to prevent people here legally from getting HUD-backed mortgages, and then pretending that they were targeting illegals. Because, as always, the cruelty is the point.

[David Nieporent]

I should actually supplement that: there's one category here that's being deliberately targeted: DACA recipients. (Which is even more an example of "the cruelty is the point." Trump's been prevented from just summarily deporting them — unless of course he fabricates a claim that they're bad for American foreign policy — so the goal is to make them so miserable they'll leave.)

[Frank Drackman]

Again with the "Dreamers", you had 12 years of Barry Osama and Parkinsonian Joe to make them Citizens and didn't do it, so meet the new Boss, definitely not the same as the old Boss

[Martinned2]

Fortunately DOGE is saving the US government lots of money!

US risks default as soon as August without debt-ceiling action, CBO estimates
The U.S. government will probably risk defaulting on some of its $36.6 trillion in debt as soon as August - or possibly even by late May - unless Congress acts to raise the nation's debt ceiling, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office forecast on Wednesday.
The CBO's forecast of the so-called "X-date" when the Treasury Department would no longer be able to cover its obligations follows an estimate by the Bipartisan Policy Center on Monday that the U.S. could face the risk of default sometime between mid-July and early October.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-risks-default-soon-august-without-action-debt-ceiling-cbo-estimates-2025-03-26/

[Frank Drackman]

You could cut the Federal Budget to zero and it wouldn't do anything to the Debt, c'mon tell the truth, you wear slip on shoes because you can't remember how to tie a knot.

[Michael P]

The judges ordering the USG to keep spending borrowed money will just make up the shortfall from their retirement accounts, right?

[Martinned2]

Who said anything about judges? Your beef is with the CBO (not a court), and then with credit ratings agencies.

But it does raise a question: Do you, by any chance, think that the US government should be able to renege on its contractual obligations whenever it feels like it?

[Frank Drackman]

Gonna Blow everyone's mind,
but I thought Kathy Maher, NPR CEO did pretty well yesterday, or about as well as she could, given the hand she was dealt.
Or maybe I'm just a sucker for Jewish girls with DSL's
Best part was when that Huor Jizz-men Crockett said it was all "Bullshit" (sorry EV, just reporting what the Honorable Gentle-Ho from Texas said) and MTG pulled a Doc Holliday and didn't even acknowledge that she was there "I'm sorry Miss Crocket I forgot you were they-uh"
and have to admit, the Poof DemoKKKrat who asked
"Is Elmo a member of the Communist Party? (I don't know about that, but he's certainly red)" was sort of funny

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Happy Opening Day!

[Frank Drackman]

Yankees Suck!
Red Sox too, and Cubs fans are more insufferable than either, but I gotta look into getting some A's tickets, playing in a Minor League park in Sacramento, well, they're a Minor League team, probably get way more fans there, I spent a week in Sacramento one day.

[Martinned2]

I continue to be fascinated that the British Indian Ocean Territory has more judges than it has permanent residents: https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2025/03/27/ukhrb-piecethe-biot-supreme-court-rules-asylum-seekers-detained-unlawfully/

(The entire judiciary of BIOT, up to and including the Supreme Court of BIOT, sits in London. The only people who live on those islands are the American servicemen and -women on Diego Garcia, and the one Sri Lankan refugee who wasn't allowed to come to the UK because he was too crazy.)

[Martinned2]

I wonder what sets Afrikaner "refugees" apart from all other refugees who might want to come to the US...

https://apnews.com/article/trump-white-refugee-afrikaner-south-africa-0fbca411470d3b439886cabc12c7600d

[Frank Drackman]

That they actually could contribute to Amurican Society?, and they gotta be pretty smart not to end up the ingredient in some Native's soup after all these years, maybe that's why you're such a horrible Lawyer, you spend so much time finding bullshit to get outraged about you get totally faced on the 1st Amendment by me, a Simple Country Doctor (well, Simple anyway) Sort of miss the Reverend Kirtland insulting whatever Jerkwater School you got your degree from

[ThePublius]

I assume you're inferring that Musk influenced this.

First, "Elon Musk is not an Afrikaner; while he was born and raised in South Africa, his family is of British and Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry, and he emigrated to Canada in 1989."

Second, I don't care. These people are legitimately refugees, and we've accepted refugees from all over the world, so why not them.

Third, get lost! You're not a U.S. citizen! I am, and I'm also of partial Afrikaner ancestry (1/4). So, I'm fine with it.

Fourth, it's not at all likely that these people are going to set up illicit drug operations here, mug people, rape children, kill people, and so on. I will bet money - no, I'll even sponsor some - because I think they will be productive and soon after they arrive, self sufficient. Just sayin'.

Fifth, no David N., SRG2, Sarcastr0, et.al., it's not racism.

[David Nieporent]

I assume you're inferring that Musk influenced this.

No, he's implying it.

Fifth, no David N., SRG2, Sarcastr0, et.al., it's not racism.

Of course not. It's a pure coincidence that Trump wants to eliminate asylum for everyone except these whites. There is no larger significance to that arbitrary selection at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

ThePublius has certainly dropped off Weird Al's dating prospects, that's for sure.

[ducksalad]

"It's not at all likely that these people are going to set up illicit drug operations here, mug people, rape children, kill people, and so on."

I agree that is probably the case and good luck with your sponsorship.

Too bad that under the rules your president has made, they could still be arrested and deported in February 2029 for having promoted, at any time, a foreign policy opinion contrary to the new POTUS's agenda. For example, if the new POTUS decides the ANC are the good guys and anyone who opposes them are the terrorists.

But as their citizen sponsor, you'll be safe, except maybe for forfeiting any money you put up.

[David Nieporent]

Too bad that under the rules your president has made, they could still be arrested and deported in February 2029 for having promoted, at any time, a foreign policy opinion contrary to the new POTUS's agenda.

I just want to reiterate that the provision Trump is purporting to rely on is so broad that the alien need have done nothing to be deportable, as long as the Secretary of State says, "His presence is harmful to our national security interests."

So imagine a world in which Alexei Navalny had been given asylum in the U.S., and doesn't say or do anything political while here. Then Trump gets elected, and says, "Putin is mad that Navalny is here, and won't negotiate with us because of that. That's bad, so he's expelled."

[Sarcastr0]

it's not at all likely that these people are going to set up illicit drug operations here, mug people, rape children, kill people, and so on.

These people being Afrikaners?

Because that kind of generalization already has my antennae up.

Which asylum seekers do think are the ones likely to do all the drug selling and child raping?

[ThePublius]

Let's start with the ones who are already here doing the murders, drug selling, and child raping. Read the news. They rounded up like 370 of them yesterday, including a child rapist in my town.

You can ignore this, bury your head in the sand, but it really is happening - there's a lot of crime committed by illegals; there are organized, criminal gangs operating here. And lots of bad guys. And don't give me this B.S. that 'immigrants' (conflating legal with illegal) commit fewer crimes than Americans. So what? We can't kick out the American criminals, but we can kick out the illegal immigrants, and, depending on the offense, people here on visas and green cards.

[David Nieporent]

And don't give me this B.S. that 'immigrants' (conflating legal with illegal) commit fewer crimes than Americans.

Even

illegal

immigrants — no conflation required — commit fewer crimes than Americans (other than the entry itself, obviously).

So what?

So focusing on the more law-abiding segment is a waste of law enforcement resources.

[ThePublius]

And why the scare quotes around refugees? You don't think they are legitimately refugees? You don't think farmers are being murdered and raped in South Africa? What if some of those S.A. refugees are black farmers, are you O.K. with that?

[David Nieporent]

You don't think they are legitimately refugees?

Not by the Trump standard being applied to Cubans/Venezuelans/Haitians/etc.

[ThePublius]

I don't know the Trump standard. What is it?

[ThePublius]

Found it:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/realigning-the-united-states-refugee-admissions-program/

No mention of specific countries, nationalities, or races.

[M L]

"The Wall Street Journal editorial board is continuing its attempts to undermine President Donald Trump and his administration, often through thinly-veiled “advice” and “suggestions” to the president to obscure their contempt for his America First agenda.

The paper’s decade-long crusade against Trump reveals a view of geopolitics through the clouded lens of a bygone era, when the Journal possessed more influence and its globalist worldview was shared by the elites who dominated Republican Party politics.

In fighting imagined threats from foes long receded from the global stage, the paper also has advocated for the Republican Party to embrace its former smaller, more manageable coalition that disintegrated even before Trump revitalized the party.

The Journal’s longstanding editorial position in support of open borders and maximalist free trade policies has made it the vanguard of opposition to Trump’s populist economic and immigration policies that prioritize Main Street over Wall Street. And the paper’s hawkish neoconservative foreign policy stances are at odds with Trump’s noninterventionist America First beliefs.

The paper’s open hostility to Trump began less than a month after he announced his candidacy in the summer of 2015 . . . .

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2025/03/27/wsj-editorial-boards-work-to-undermine-donald-trump-has-persisted-for-a-decade/

[M L]

Really a great recounting and analysis here.

[M L]

My goodness, just finished reading . . . this is one of the finest articles I've ever read.

[Brett Bellmore]

If this proves out, it's not going to help Khalil's case.

Anti-Israel groups aided Hamas on campus, knew of attack beforehand, Oct. 7 victims say in lawsuit

"After months of dormancy, Columbia SJP allegedly reactivated its Instagram account "three minutes before Hamas began its attack on October 7."

[Frank Drackman]

Might actually be better to let the piece of shit just rot in the Louisiana Jail, his Moose-lum pals can't be around all the time, sooner or later he'll fall on a shank

[ducksalad]

So the plans went out to thousands of college students spread all over the US, but somehow neither Israeli intelligence nor their American counterparts could figure it out.

[grb]

Two Points :

1. As evidence, what Brett describes would be powerful and persuasive if true.

2. Of course Brett - and the people suing - would like to extend this foreknowledge (if true) across the entire origination.

Which is totally ludicrous of course. Even if such knowledge existed, it will inevitably be found in only a tiny handful of people, not the hundreds who demonstrated. Absent evidence, there's no reason whatsoever to assume Khalil was one of them. Right now, the ONLY evidence of misconduct on Khalil's part is that he "advised" people doing a sit-in. That's so thin and tenuous an argument it blows away at the slightest puff of wind. No wonder Trump didn't want to take it to court.

The "revelation" Khalil did work for UNRWA is even more pathetic. The rest of the world has long noticed Israel never produced any evidence against the UN aid group beyond the first dozen employees it originally accused. Truth be told, they only produced evidence for six or seven of them. After that, Israel's claims grew larger & larger while the backing evidence immediately shriveled down to nothing.

[Commenter_XY]

The SecState made his determination. The BS case is a legal speed bump. Khalil is toast, and he will be gone. Cannot happen soon enough.

[not guilty]

President Trump reportedly has asked Rep. Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, to stay in Congress rather than serve as ambassador to the United Nations, amid concern about the minuscule voting margin that Republicans hold in the House. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/27/us/politics/stefanik-trump-cabinet.html

Interesting.

[Frank Drackman]

It's because "45/47" is smart, just like how he wouldn't do a second "rigged" D-bate

[Commenter_XY]

Catch & Revoke Program 🙂

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/rubio-student-visas-trump-admin/2025/03/27/id/1204633/

Three hundred (yes 300) have had their visas or green cards revoked. C-Ya!

I call that just a good start. Plenty more out there, waiting to be identified, detained, processed and deported.

There are millions of people who will gladly take their places and not support Judeocidal terrorists. That isn't unreasonable to ask, is it?

[David Nieporent]

I think it is entirely unreasonable to ask that every non-citizen holds Trump (or C_XY) preferred views on Israel on pain of deportation. It would be one thing if people were being targeted for their actual endorsement of the attacks. But multiple of the ones you are sneering about apparently did nothing more than criticize Israel, or criticize support for Israel.

[ThePublius]

He didn't say 'criticize Israel,' he said 'support Judeocidal terrorists.'

I think supporting, aiding, abetting a designated terrorist organization is a deportable offense.

[David Nieporent]

He didn't say 'criticize Israel,' he said 'support Judeocidal terrorists.'

I know what he said. I also know what he meant. He doesn't distinguish between the two; look at whose detentions he's cheering on.

I think supporting, aiding, abetting a designated terrorist organization is a deportable offense.

Aiding and abetting a designated terrorist organization is a felony, not a mere deportable offense. But of course none of these people have been charged with anything like that.

[not guilty]

Three hundred (yes 300) have had their visas or green cards revoked. C-Ya!

I call that just a good start. Plenty more out there, waiting to be identified, detained, processed and deported.

There are millions of people who will gladly take their places and not support Judeocidal terrorists. That isn't unreasonable to ask, is it?

IOW, thoughtcrime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

The MAGA cult regards George Orwell's 1984 as an instruction manual. Let's all practice the Two Minutes Hate every day at 11:00 a.m. to denounce Emmanuel Goldstein.

[Sarcastr0]

Stasi cheerleader.

Shameful.

[Frank Drackman]

2 Moe-Saad Agents have been following a Ham-Ass terrorist for weeks, planning an ambush, every morning at 9am the terrorist has an Espresso at an outdoor Cafe, for 2 weeks, like clockwork, 9am Expresso, finally one morning the terrorist doesn't show up.

"Gee, I hope nothing happened to him!" says one Agent to the other

(Rimshot)

Frank