Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Its been obvious for a while but this report makes it clear why there can never be peace in Gaza until Hamas is eliminated:
EXCLUSIVE: The Family of a Murdered Gaza Protester Speaks Out
After they tortured him and mutilated his body, they dropped him off a rooftop with a note pinned to his clothes: ‘This is the price for all who criticize Hamas.’

March 29, in a neighborhood called Tel al-Hawa in southern Gaza City, Hamas brutally murdered 22-year-old Uday Nasser Saadi al-Rabbay, his family said. After Uday had been tortured and mutilated, his body was thrown off a tall building.

His crime? He had spoken out—loudly and publicly—against the terrorists who rule Gaza with an iron grip."

It’s the dream of many in Gaza right now. “Every young Gazan man besieged in the Gaza Strip dreams of leaving safely with all his family members,” Uday’s cousin said. “We want to live life like other people do. We want education, a future, and jobs. We want a dignified life.”

That’s what the protests were about. They were driven by young people who grew up in the ruins of Gaza, suffocating under Hamas rule, desperate to live a normal life."

Hamas wants to keep them prisoners in Gaza as pawns in the war.

https://www.thefp.com/p/family-of-murdered-gaza-protester-speaks-out

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hamas needs to be EXTERMINATED -- they are not human beings and ought not be considered such.

[David Nieporent]

Adopting explicitly genocidal rhetoric is certainly one way to go.

[Bored Lawyer]

Hamas is not a race, but a religious/political movement. So whatever that is, it's not genocide.

[David Nieporent]

This is Dr Ed who wrote this; he thinks everyone from Gaza is Hamas.

[rloquitur]

You miss the real problem--Hamas thinks that every Gazan should be Hamas.

[JasonT20]

You miss the real problem--Hamas thinks that every Gazan should be Hamas.

So, what, go ahead and act in accordance with Hamas's preference and treat all Gazans like they are Hamas?

[shawn_dude]

And The Israeli government seems to agree with them.
Meanwhile, the US government believes anyone supporting Palestinian civilians is a supporter of terrorism.

Three peas in a black and white pod.

[JasonT20]

Hamas is not a race, but a religious/political movement. So whatever that is, it's not genocide.

Are you saying that Hamas can be "exterminated" without killing any people? That'd be a neat trick.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, he’s saying that Hamas can be exterminated without genocide.

[JasonT20]

Ah, so the point is that killing every Hamas member and however many thousands of civilians that get killed along with them isn't genocide. What is it then?

[Drewski]

War.

[Sarcastr0]

War is not a magic word meaning morality no longer applies.

You get in plenty of trouble legally and reputationally if you kill a shitload of civilians in a war. Especially if it's wantonly done.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nice flying goalposts. The original claim would was that exterminating Hamas would be genocide.

And name a war where shitloads of civilians haven't been killed, especially when the bad guys are using them as human shields.

Hamas is responsible for the civilian deaths, not Israel.

[myself]

Well if the only plausible method to exterminate Hamas is through genocide then the goalposts are right back where they started.

Just because the inferior enemy force is hiding among civilians doesn't give one the right to kill civilians indiscriminately.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? Genocide is the deliberate systematic destruction of an ethnic group. Under what circumstances would that be the only plausible way to eliminate Hamas?

[JasonT20]

Nice flying goalposts. The original claim would was that exterminating Hamas would be genocide.

No. The original claim that started this argument over genocide vs. not genocide was this:

Hamas needs to be EXTERMINATED -- they are not human beings and ought not be considered such.

[JasonT20]

Huh? Genocide is the deliberate systematic destruction of an ethnic group. Under what circumstances would that be the only plausible way to eliminate Hamas?

This is what some of us have been trying to say. If destroying Hamas without killing so many civilians, and causing suffering and death in other ways, such as by restricting the flow of essentials, that it would be a war crime is even possible (whether it gets labeled "genocide" or not), has Israel pursued a goal of destroying Hamas in that manner? And what if it isn't possible to destroy Hamas completely without the civilian casualties from reaching criminal levels, then what?

[Drewski]

If you're triggered because a word exists, perhaps spend less time online.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If destroying Hamas without killing so many civilians, and causing suffering and death in other ways, such as by restricting the flow of essentials, that it would be a war crime is even possible..."

I'm not sure what that even means.

[JasonT20]

Yeah, that was horrible sentence structure. I'll make my point more simply:

You're fixating on whether what is happening in Gaza qualifies as "genocide". That started here, in this particular thread, after David referred to Dr. Ed's language as "genocidal rhetoric" for saying that Hamas needed to be "EXTERMINATED" [his all caps] and that "they are not human beings".

Genocide or not genocide? Whatever. The real questions are still:

How many Palestinian civilian deaths and how much other suffering is acceptable in pursuing a goal of "destroying" Hamas?

What does Israel need to do as it pursues its legitimate goals of defending itself to mitigate the suffering of civilians?

Is Israel doing those things?

I ask these questions because of how people like Dr. Ed talk. He is saying it straight out that he thinks members of Hamas don't have any human rights, since they are not even human beings. Whatever anyone does to them, it cannot be a crime. It is not any kind of leap to assume that he extends some of that dehumanization to other Palestinians, because, after all, how do you tell which Palestinians are Hamas and which aren't? Which Palestinians that aren't Hamas support them and which don't? If Dr. Ed's "genocidal rhetoric" is not challenged, then it likely means that those that are silent are at least somewhat in agreement. And that those people will accept or even justify the "EXTERMINAT[ION]" of any Palestinians unfortunate enough to get in the way of eliminating Hamas.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"How many Palestinian civilian deaths and how much other suffering is acceptable in pursuing a goal of "destroying" Hamas?"

Acceptable to who? Israel has the right to defend itself as long as it follows the guidelines with respect to not targeting civilians, etc.

There's no hard limit on how much collateral damage is acceptable.

Isreal could, in theory, kill everyone in Gaza without committing any war crimes.

[Moderation4ever]

This news needs to get out to more people. Palestinians in Gaza want to get rid of Hamas and their protests should be heard.

[JasonT20]

This news needs to get out to more people. Palestinians in Gaza want to get rid of Hamas and their protests should be heard.

Damn straight. Maybe it would be easier to hear their protests if they weren't having to be afraid of both Hamas and Israeli bombs.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Maybe it would be easier to hear their protests if they weren't having to be afraid of both Hamas and Israeli bombs.

Hamas has been the de facto governing body in Gaza since 2007. The current armed conflict did not begin until October, 2023. So that's at ~16 years during which these alleged Palestinians who wanted to get rid of Hamas didn't have to worry about their protests not being heard due to bombing by Israel. But oddly, prior to Hamas' October 7 attack on Israel and the latter's response, anti-Hamas protests were, as AP put it, "extremely rare". And even since then:

Public expressions of dissent have been extremely rare since Hamas seized power in Gaza in 2007. The militant group has violently dispersed occasional protests and jailed, tortured or killed those who challenged its rule. Hamas has faced no significant internal challenge since the start of the war and still controls Gaza, despite losing most of its top leaders and thousands of fighters.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-protest-public-opinion-c81e9684f14d5d00b23b13a3d337389b

[JasonT20]

Do you contend that what I was replying to that Moderation4ever said is not true? Is it false that Palestinians want to get rid of Hamas now?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Do you contend that what I was replying to that Moderation4ever said is not true? Is it false that Palestinians want to get rid of Hamas now?

1) I replied to your comment, not M4E's, so there is no basis at all for your first question. As such, you are either incapable of following a discussion thread, or you are being dishonest...or both. Given your history, I'm leaning toward dishonesty.

2) You should work on your literacy skills. It is quite clear that I was addressing what I explicitly quoted. In case you were in too much of a rush to read my post before responding to it, I'll quote what I responded to yet again:

Maybe it would be easier to hear their protests if they weren't having to be afraid of both Hamas and Israeli bombs.

Your assertion here is that the efforts of however many residents of Gaza who would like to depose Hamas might be at least somewhat effective were it not for their fear of Hamas AND the current Israeli military campaign, even though the facts make it clear that there is not now, nor has there ever been any meaningful Gazan opposition to Hamas' rule there, including for the 16 years prior to the current war. And the fact that the smattering of anti-Hamas protests there are known and covered in the news make it equally clear that the few protests in question are "heard".

[Sarcastr0]

No basis!
You are being dishonest
Quite clear!
The facts make it clear!
Make it equally clear!

Mmmmm that's good table pounding.

[Don Nico]

Kaz,
Maybe that is a start. But the principal question is whether the Palestinians in Gaza are willing to live in the region in proximity with a Jewish state. Why else do Palestinians in Judea and Samaria prefer Hamas over the corrupt PA?
Even if Hamas is eliminated, the likelihood of peace is low.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Why else do Palestinians in Judea and Samaria prefer Hamas over the corrupt PA?"

Because the corrupt PA is less likely to kill them than the corrupt AND genocidal Hamas, if they say they prefer the other?

[Don Nico]

You got the answer correct. The Palestinians in Judea and Samaria think that Hamas is more likely to rid them of "those troublesome Jews."

[Brett Bellmore]

No, you misinterpreted me.

The Palestinians in Judea and Samaria will SAY they prefer Hamas to the PA, because the PA isn't going to kill them for saying that, while Hamas will kill them for saying they prefer the PA. And Hamas doesn't have to be running the government to kill them.

Always remember that in totalitarian states, (And both the West bank and Gaza qualify.) what people say, they say not because it is true, but as a matter of self-preservation.

[Don Nico]

Then you are wrong.
The Palestinians in Judea do prefer Hamas and that is why Abbas has never held elections even long after his term expired. He and his cronies would be voted out.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I say that in totalitarian states you can't really know what people, uncoerced, would want, because they are not uncoerced.

Given a free choice, would the Palestinians pick Hamas? We can't know, because they're not free to chose.

[Don Nico]

That is a bit of sophistry Brett. You may not know, but the PA security apparatus that often moonlight as Hamas terrorist have a damned good idea.

[myself]

Look at what the Jewish state has been doing to the Palestinians. Are you particularly surprised that they're genocidal?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, if they weren't genocidal going back decades, you might have something like a point.

[myself]

Since the Palestinians have been losing land to the state of Israel for decades I think I do have a point.

[Don Nico]

They lose land because they consistently decline a better deal and go to war against the Jews.
Right now the best course is for them to lose 100% of the land to the single Jewish state.

[Don Nico]

Look at the decades of Palestinians spewing hate against Jews, failing their 20 year trial-run of administering Gaza as a real home for Palestinians, and you might have a clue as to why Israel is in an existential battle in Gaza.
The Arabs have been genocidal against the Jews since at least the 1920's.

[Kazinski]

And the other question is will Palestinians who migrate to other countries want to start over, or do they want another platform to continue jihad?

It seems most of the countries in the middle east are afraid that the answer is more jihad, thus their reluctance to take in Gazans.

[Don Nico]

Certainly some will. They have lived under a government that has transformed their lives into those of perpetual refugees.

[Joe_dallas]

The gaza / plo has made the palestinians in the region perpetual refugees. Though in large part the became perpetural refugees due to how their arab neighbors treated them in 1948 and the following years.

[JasonT20]

It seems most of the countries in the middle east are afraid that the answer is more jihad, thus their reluctance to take in Gazans.

Or, their reluctance is because taking in millions of people with no wealth and no homes, into countries that already have high unemployment and many other economic challenges is likely to make those problems worse.

And, they may be reluctant to take in millions of refugees from land that they shouldn't have to flee...

[Riva]

Far better to relocate the “Gazans” than to continue the generational refugee welfare that serves to enable a terrorist gang.

[Brett Bellmore]

Their reluctance is because they've TRIED taking in Palestinians, and it turned out badly.

[Don Nico]

They have had that aversion to taking Palestinians for decades. What is the excuse, except that they prefer that these "refugees for life"remain a thorn in Israel's side.

[myself]

The big thing stopping Israel from simply annexing the whole area is what to do with all the Palestinians.

Neighbouring Arab countries are understandably reluctant to help Israel in a project of ethnic cleansing.

[Don Nico]

You really have swallowed the Hamas propaganda line.
Hamas has prevented Palestinians who wanted to leave for many years. They have keep the population of Gaza in misery preferring to fatten themselves. They have spent money to pro. tect themselves in tunnels rather than to enrich the lives of Gazans. They have taught hate in the schools.
They have been the prisoners of Gazan civilians.

[shawn_dude]

I think they found peace... buried in a mass grave with its hands tied behind its back an Israeli bullet in its head.

The potential for peace wasn't (isn't?) only in the Palestinian's hands.

[ReaderY]

Did they make a video of it as one of the horrible Israeli atrocities like they’ve done with others of their victims? He’s certainly been included, possibly multiple times, in the official Gaza Health Ministry accounts of Israeli war crimes that the US media have been taking as fact.

[ReaderY]

Look, Hamas needs a lot more pictures of mutilated Gazan bodies, and needs them badly, if it wants to keep up its highly successful campaigning of protraying Israel as genocidal war criminals. How do you think it’s going to get them? How do you think it got them in the past?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Supposedly, today will be a big day for tariff news. I offer a prediction. Tariff income will get treated by DOGE/Trump as a slush fund of money unappropriatred by Congress, but available to Trump to do anything at all. Wherever the power of the purse might threaten constraint, Trump will dip into tariff revenue to avoid that constraint. Likely that will mean tariff revenue will fund armed domestic repression, using private mercenary companies like Blackwater (lately, Constellis Holdings).

[Dr. Ed 2]

These are bad things?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Isn’t it enough to worry about the actual bad stuff Trump is doing without descending into… whatever this is?

[Brett Bellmore]

When has that ever been enough?

[Dr. Ed 2]

What actually scares me is that with all the people "crying 'wolf'", if Trump were to actually go over the edge and do something that truly needed to be stopped, no one would notice.

I'm not expecting this, nor am I expecting a fire in my kitchen, but I have a fire extinguisher...

[John F. Carr]

Some think we're already there. I'm going to inaccurately quote Ken White here: With all the crazy stuff Trump is doing, people don't recognize just how crazy the law firm memos are.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, we should wait until Trump does something really crazy, like try to overthrow the government.

[Dr. Ed 2]

235 Federal judges beat him to it.

[Don Nico]

Not happening David.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Well, DOGE/Trump just fired the guy who developed the monoclonal antibody therapy which saved Trump's life when he got Covid. That guy was at least a part of the government, and a pretty good part of it. Not to disparage all that guy's other part-of-government associates who got fired along with him—medical scientists who had been developing a broad array of therapies to remedy public health problems of many sorts.

Nico — Please stop pretending this is not government overthrow. It makes you look like part of the plot. You do what the plotters are doing, pretending they are not overthrowing government, while while government gets overthrown a piece at a time. This time, they think a gradual coup which occurs at no particular time may be a coup they can get away with. You are helping them.

We are allowed to notice the pattern, and fools if we do not act to stop it.

[Don Nico]

It is not an overthrown of the government. That claim is just hysteria. You destroy any credibility that you might have with such comments.
The DOGE's are not plotters except in the minds of Democrats and kindred conspiracy theorists.
There is no coup and you have presented not a shred of evidence that their is. These charges are on par with the QAnon gang.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, when I said "try to overthrow the government," it was a reference to J6, not DOGE. (But DOGE is certainly an example of Trump saying, " L'état, c'est moi.")

[Don Nico]

David,
My reply was to Stephen, not to you.
Call J6 anything you want. It is in the past and cannot be changed. Lathrop is complaining about what is happening at present.

[shawn_dude]

Nice Jedi mind trick: This is not the coup you are looking for...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — I complain about what is happening now, as part and parcel of the J6 coup attempt.

On the narrower question only of how to characterize what is happening now, consider the following:

1. Unprecedented proliferation of lawless executive orders;

2. Seizure for deportation of foreign students, on the basis of expressive content they publish;

3. Extortion of Columbia University; targeting of all universities;

4. Lawless demands, and actual extortion against law firms;

5. Defiance of court procedures to administer due process;

6. Mass firings of government staff, fraudulently justified;

7. Targeted firings of government inspectors general;

8. Lawless kidnappings, and deportations abroad, to a prison beyond reach of due process;

9. Targeting by public announcement of political opponents, with threats to persecute them using the Justice Department;

10. Politically motivated purges at the Justice Department itself.

About half those actions are overtly totalitarian by themselves. Others reinforce proof of totalitarian intent.

Nothing like this series of events has ever occurred in the history of this nation. Anyone is a fool to insist it be accepted as normal. And by the way, the notion,
". . . not plotters except in the minds of Democrats and kindred conspiracy theorists," is unhinged, even before the lunatic comparison with QAnon.

[Joe_dallas]

in never happened nor will it happen

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas, all you mean is it is happening, but not yet completed. You want it completed.

Probably not because you want government overthrown, but because you want Trump to rule without constraint. Like Trump/MAGAs everywhere, you have never realized that American constitutionalism is about means of constraint, and you do not understand what is implied by government without constraint.

You ought to accept that characterization. It is the most charitable characterization you deserve.

[Commenter_XY]

LMAO, evidently not.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Oh,Stephen, you scream irrelevant

27 States File Brief with Supreme Court Backing Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act

[windycityattorney]

27 state's suck up to Dear Leader and promise undying devotion and fealty.

Are these the same state's that tried to join Texas' lawsuit against Pennsylvania et al in an effort to overturn the 2020 election results?

I seem to recall more than a dozen attorney generals signing their name to that stinking pile of frivolous non-sense. I would bet anything that all of them are included in the list of 27 above.

Surprised Trump hasn't issued an executive order against the ACLU yet. Is there anything more anti-MAGA than civil liberties? Doubtful.

[Riva]

Slush funds, yeah uh huh. More Democrat projection. It’s all they do really. Just calm done. Eventually you’ll slime yourselves back in power, and you can reestablish USAID and give out billions more in EPA grants and fund democrat NGOs to your corrupt hearts’ content. All with the blessing of judicial insurrectionists. Hell, they’ll probably order it.

[Russ Harris]

Just like when Ronnie got money from the Iranians to support Nicaraguan terrorists. Makes sense

[Frank Drackman]

But they were our Nicaraguan terrorists, big difference

[Joe_dallas]

SL did you forget that tariff revenue rose under biden over the first trump administration

[Martinned2]

Yes. The Biden administration's tactic for dealing with the Trumpist threat to US democracy was to introduces various policies that they thought Trumpist voters might like, no matter how terrible they were for the US. As a result, inflation was up, voters were angry, and Trump won the election. So Much Winning!

[Jmaie]

So the inflation in 2021/2022 was due to tariffs, imposed by Biden (presumably in 2020) to sway voters in the 2024 election. Not Covid.

I have learned something today.

[Martinned2]

Not tariffs, lots of spending.

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

[Kazinski]

Actually tariffs can be deinflationary because long run they take money out of the system, that is if they are used to reduce deficit spending, and not just pumped back into the economy as more spending.

[windycityattorney]

The tariff revenue generated will be used to subsidize the major industries that get fucked from the retaliatory tariffs that are incoming. So likely big Ag, automakers, etc... will end up needing bailouts and they will likely get them.

Nobody in the GOP congress will blame the tariffs as the reason for the bailouts (maybe Rand Paul will?). They will blame woke Europeans, Canadians, Mexicans and the fucking tooth fairy before they ever raise a doubt as to Trump's economic genius.

[bernard11]

Actually tariffs can be deinflationary because long run they take money out of the system, that is if they are used to reduce deficit spending, and not just pumped back into the economy as more spending.

If you mean deflation, that is not a good thing. But it won't happen anyway.

Your "can be" is true of all taxes, of which tariffs are certainly a form - a particularly destructive one.

[Kazinski]

No I didn't mean deflationary, I guess I meant disinflationary.

[Sarcastr0]

Not quite sure how one distinguishes one from 'tother.

Regardless, this is still true of all taxes, but rarely observed.

We'll see how this badly thought out sweeping government plan plays out, eh?

[Josh R]

It's been decades and decades since spending was linked to revenue (as Dick Cheney said, deficits don't matter to your electoral chances). I suspect in this case, Republicans will use the new income to offset the extension of the tax cuts.

But even if government spending was reduced as a result of the tariffs, unlike other taxes, they will have a nearly-direct impact on prices because the increase marginal cost of goods will be passed on to consumers. Yes, that will reduce demand. But, we will just be higher up on the price versus demand curve.

[Jmaie]

"Tariff income will get treated by DOGE/Trump as a slush fund of money unappropriatred by Congress, but available to Trump to do anything at all. "

What do you see as the mechanism by which this is achieved?

[Kazinski]

I'm hoping that it will be distributed by giving anyone who texts MAGA to Trump's Truth Social account will get a 10,000 tariff dividend.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I described it a few comments below.

[shawn_dude]

This is silly.

The MAGA party holds both houses of Congress and the Judiciary along with the White House. If Trump wants slush money and cares to do it the legal way, he just has his cronies in Congress get it for him. If not, he does it the illegal way, just like he did during his first term and he's doing now when it comes to ignoring Congress' legal disbursements.

[Stephen Lathrop]

shaw_dude — I see the situation as notably changed since only two days ago. The DOGE/MAGA loss in the Wisconsin judicial election exposed a developing fault running through Republican solidarity. Narrowed margins in house election districts added stress along that fault. In the Senate, four Senators broke ranks, to join with Ds to block Trump's tariffs against Canada. Another Republican Senator has now called for return to Congress of the entire tariff approval process.

I take all those together as indicators of political unease lately more widely distributed among town-hall dodging R politicians. Given the narrow margin of control the Rs maintain in the House, I count the Rs lucky the mid-term election is not scheduled for next Tuesday. If it were, I estimate a D majority in the House as the more likely outcome.

If that happened, a weighty question would gain renewed salience: Does Trump still enjoy support in the Senate sufficient to thwart conviction on impeachment charges?

Trump may right now be teetering at the edge of a political parapet, closer than his most loyal supporters imagine to toppling out of office. He cannot count on reading the Senate accurately. His bulwark of assured political safety amounts to little more than happenstance continuation of R control of a few seats in the House.

Many among that House majority can see they did not win office by enough votes to offset contrary political pressures now in evidence. Those are right now in genuine political peril, at risk of being judged unfavorably one issue at a time. Any of them might consider altering political loyalties at any time politics made it look expedient to do it.

Of course Trump knows all that. It is why he forced Elise Stefanik to step back from her coveted United Nations appointment. This looks like a political moment offering less security to MAGA expectations than they have recently enjoyed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A second prediction about Trump's tariff intentions. He will tailor them in response to political pressure from his base, handing out liberal exemptions for products used mostly in red states, and spurning appeals from blue states.

[Kazinski]

What kind of imports do people in red states use significantly more than people.in blue states?

Thank God Bourbon is a domestic product, made with good American corn.

Although if he follows through on the wine and brandy tarrifs that probably would hit blue states harder.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sucks to be them.

[Kazinski]

No, because switching to good honest American Bourbon from decadent effeminate brandy and Cognac will clear their minds and improve their wellbeing.

[Frank Drackman]

I’m a Makers Mark man myself (don’t know anything about Bourbon, the red top makes it easy to find) but like a Cuban Cigar, Irish Whisky is hard to beat

[Stephen Lathrop]

What kind of imports do people in red states use significantly more than people in blue states?

Farm machinery. Agricultural inputs like peat moss, potash, or phosphate fertilizers. Untaxed gasoline and diesel oil.

To the extent any particular import impacts red states and blue states similarly, Trump is at liberty to declare the burden particularly onerous wherever he wants, and deliver relief unequally on that basis.

The relief, of course, will come from tariff revenues, for which Trump would bypass the power of the purse by collecting the revenues with the customs service, and practicing an expedient never to put those revenues in the Treasury. Presto! An entire off-the-books source of government funding which only Trump controls.

By the way, Trump has already mentioned creation of a sovereign wealth fund, to be backed by tariff revenues.

What chance do you think there is that Congress will get busy and plug up those loopholes?

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"What kind of imports do people in red states use significantly more than people in blue states?
Farm machinery. Agricultural inputs like peat moss, potash, or phosphate fertilizers. "

SL - Where do you think most of blue states food is from?

[Frank Drackman]

why isn't there any Blue Food? (HT G. Carlin)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas — From the international market for food. Cut the blue states off from red state agriculture, and blue state residents would notice a transient blip, so short that any with generous well-stocked pantries would never notice. Then the market would smoothly adjust, and spread any shortages uniformly around the world, probably most burdening poor people, but only to a tiny extent.

The red states, on the other hand, would suffer tanked economies.

[Joe_dallas]

SL wheat, corn, soybeans, cattle, etc,
outside those three blue states mentioned elsewhere, there is no way to provide sufficient food without a serious increase in costs for the blue states.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Pretty sure you are slightly correct. But mostly not. International commodity markets already have all those red state commodities baked into their prices. Maybe if the red states couldn't get their produce into the international market, there would be a bigger effect, but that situation would turn out self-limiting politically.

[Kazinski]

Actually California is the top farm state by a large margin, and Illinois and Minnesota are in the top 10, so its hardly clear whether that scenario would provide any outsized benefit to red states

[Stephen Lathrop]

Once again:

"To the extent any particular import impacts red states and blue states similarly, Trump is at liberty to declare the burden particularly onerous wherever he wants, and deliver relief unequally on that basis."

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What kind of imports do people in red states use significantly more than people in blue states?

Farm machinery. Agricultural inputs like peat moss, potash, or phosphate fertilizers. Untaxed gasoline and diesel oil.

Let me introduce you to the largest agricultural state (in terms of output), a deep-blue place we like to call, "California".

[Martinned2]

Thank God Bourbon is a domestic product

So are Budweiser and Coors Light. Long may you enjoy it!

[Ska]

I was in Edinburgh a few years ago and one of the things that really surprised me were how many American style craft beers were being brewed by microbreweries in Scotland.

American beer has come a long way, even if our most popular beers are pure shit. There's no shortage of good beers no matter what your preference.

[Bob from Ohio]

"So are Budweiser and Coors Light."

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of craft brewers in the US. Many better than any Dutch one. We are fine.

[Kazinski]

However Heineken bought Lagunitus, one of the larger and better craft breweries about 10 years ago, AB Inbev has bought up quite a few also.

[Don Nico]

You're better off buying Belgian beers.

[Kazinski]

I nearly wept when I went in a pub in London and asked for a porter and the barmaid said "What's a porter?"

They were pushing 1664 A French lager not much different than Budweiser.

But I've been a homebrewer for more than 30 years so I can have a porter whenever I like, so don't worry about me.

My wife however prefers Stella Artois, which is an AB InBev brand just like Budweiser.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I nearly wept when I went in a pub in London and asked for a porter and the barmaid said "What's a porter?"

When my wife and I toured the UK and Ireland I too was sorely disappointed by the selection and overall quality of the brews offered in the pubs, both in the largest cities and the most quaint hamlets. But I'm old enough that my youth occurred at a time when American beer was generally (and rightly) regarded as a joke when compared with what European had at their disposal. So in spite of the fact that I've since then lived to see the U.S. craft brew industry explode and far surpass the Old Country in terms of both quality and variety, I still had these left-over subconscious expectations that were doomed to be disappointed.

That said, at least when I made the pilgrimage to the Pat Cohen Bar in Cong (the pub set in the fictional village of "Inisfree" from John Wayne's The Quiet Man) and ordered "one of those black beers" they were able to accommodate my request (which I'm sure was followed by much eye-rolling the moment my back was turned). It's silly, but enjoying a pint there AND in the back room of the Eagle and Child (the 17th century Oxford pub where Tolkein and the other "Inklings" gathered after a day of teaching) were my 2 favorite parts of that trip.

[Kazinski]

Best pub I went to was Fountains Abby right across the street from St Mary's Hospital, where Sir Ian Fleming discovered penicillin.

Legend is Mould spores from the pub blew in the window of Flemings lab infecting his bacteria cultures.

[Kazinski]

Alexander Fleming, not Ian.

[Magister]

Sir Alexander Fleming. Ian Fleming may have encountered mold there or elsewhere.
Edited: Darn, a little too slow again.

[Jmaie]

"They were pushing 1664 A French lager not much different than Budweiser."

Au contraire, American version of 1664 is pretty bland but the French version is nothing like Budweiser. If we were in the same room I'd be inclined to challenge you to a duel over the insult. Or to enjoy a meal together. Whichever was less work...

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that 3 versions of Kronenbourg 1664 (which is what I'm assuming you're both referring to) are made, one brewed by Carlsberg Group (the owner of the brand in continental Europe) and 2 variants by Heineken (under a license they acquired in 2008) for the UK market. I'm assuming that one/both of the UK versions is/are what gets exported to the U.S. market.

[Martinned2]

Yes, of course. I've lived in Florence, Dublin, and London, and in none of those places do tourists get the good stuff. There's no sound business reason for selling tourists anything other than garbage, because they won't come back regardless.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You know, that has illuminating implications. Slightly modified, it was the principle upon which Trump ran his real estate business—basically, screw the counter-parties, they are never coming back anyway. And it is the principle Trump is now trying to apply to government, with the entire voting population ripe to be screwed, because they will not be voting again, either for Trump, or against Trump. So they are worthless to Trump. Screw 'em all.

[Magister]

No reason to provide tourists the best stuff, maybe, but treat this year's tourists badly enough and fewer come next year. And local establishments competing for the tourists who do come have an incentive to provide something slightly better than their local competitors. Also, some locals may just take pride in their reputation abroad, but that might not be a sound business reason.

(I expect that "garbage" really just meant "not the best stuff", and it assumes tourists are not able to distinguish between the best stuff and various grades down from that. Which is a fair evaluation of tourists, based on my experiences both selling to tourists and being a tourist.)

[Martinned2]

No reason to provide tourists the best stuff, maybe, but treat this year's tourists badly enough and fewer come next year.

True, but that sets up a collective action problem/tragedy of the commons. The reputation of the city depends on the choices of all "local establishments" combined, but every individual establishment gets to keep 100% of the benefits of charging too much and serving poor quality products.

[Magister]

Many tourism dependent areas have organizations to promote the area, gaining coordination of efforts and an economy of scale in advertising but also pressuring their own members not to tragically ruin the commons. Tourists can turn to a variety of review sources, at least some of whom are motivated to give useful reviews to guard their own reputation.

The free market has good qualities, but if it's operating properly then everything should end up at the lowest quality that still commands the price paid.

[Noscitur a sociis]

He won’t, because that would require acknowledging that tariffs are bad.

[shawn_dude]

MAGA has a pretty long history of handling this kind of cognitive dissonance. They can believe two impossible things at the same time and walk, chew gum, and burn books.

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports that Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., is pursuing an inquiry into whether former President Biden was competent to pardon his family members and others during his final days in office. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/01/us/politics/trump-prosecutor-biden-pardons.html The article states:

Mr. Trump and his supporters have increasingly seized on the unsubstantiated theory that the pardons Mr. Biden issued during his final months in office may be invalid because he lacked the mental capacity to consent to them.

In an apparent effort to build the case, Mr. Martin began sending letters two months ago to Mr. Biden’s White House aides, including Jeffrey D. Zients, the former chief of staff, as well as recipients of Mr. Biden’s pardons, such as his brother James Biden and sister-in-law Sara Biden, according to three people familiar with the effort who were not authorized to discuss it publicly, and a copy of a letter obtained by The New York Times.

This led me to wonder how a challenge to the validity of such a pardon, if it happens, would proceed. We are in uncharted territory here, and I may be wrong, but here are some of my thoughts.

The first hurdle would be persuading a federal grand jury that probable cause to believe that a pardon recipient had in fact committed a federal crime. In the District of Columbia, I am not sure that that would be an easy task.

If the recipient of a pardon were indicted, he could plead the pardon as a bar to prosecution. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 150 162-163 (1833), suggests that the failure of the accused to bring the pardon to the attention of the district court would amount to a waiver of the issue. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(1) would permit this issue to be raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment.

Fed.R.Evid. 901(1) and (4) indicate that the pardon or a certified copy thereof would be self-authenticating. Rule 901(11) and Rule 803(6)(E) would appear to place the burden on the prosecution to show that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Rule 901(11) would require the defense to give the prosecution reasonable written notice before the trial or hearing of the intent to offer the record — and to make the record and certification available for inspection — so that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge them. In resolving any objection to the validity of the purported pardon, the trial court would not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege, per Rule 104(a).

An order dismissal of the indictment by the district court would be appealable as of right pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731. An order denying a motion to dismiss would likely be appealable under the collateral order doctrine delineated in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 545-547 (1949) and Abney v. United States, 431 U. S. 651 (1977). Like in Abney, the accused would be "contesting the very authority of the Government to hale him into court to face trial on the charge against him", id., at 659, a question which "is collateral to, and separable from, the principal issue at the accused's impending criminal trial, i.e., whether or not the accused is guilty of the offense charged." Ibid.

[Commenter_XY]

Addlepated or not, the Cauliflower's pardons are valid. Pardon power is absolute. It is a fools errand to try and disturb them.

It is also a very bad idea = efforts to diminish POTUS' pardon powers.

[Life of Brian]

It actually wouldn't surprise me if this exercise is just another one of Bob's laser pointers, with the goal of the left locking arms and loudly proclaiming the inviolate nature of the pardon power and thus reducing the possibility of later mischief vis-a-vis Trump's pardons. But I have to say it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if this also led to a belt-and-suspenders policy change where future presidents were to wet-sign all pardons. The volume certainly is low enough for that not to be an undue burden.

[Krayt]

As far as the two sides are soulless bastards lousy with situational ethics, you are correct.

The president has the power to pardon anyone for any reason, and equally importantly, it cannot be second guessed by another branch. If Biden (or Reagan for that matter) was mentally suboptimal at the end, no matter. The pardon sticks as nobody else has the power to question it.

The Constitution has a method to deal with a mentally deficient president already. What? Nobody did that?

Oh well.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The last thing Trump wanted was for Joe Biden to be removed from office prior to November 2024.

Do you remember how he almost cried when Biden withdrew and was replaced by Harris?

[Life of Brian]

I remember that was the clearly prescripted narrative that was going around at the time, but as is typical reality was quite different.

[David Nieporent]

Or your reading and memory are quite selective.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-again-not-fair-043956040.html

[Life of Brian]

Not to pull a Nieporent or anything, but I supplied two articles describing his reaction "when Biden withdrew and was replaced by Harris." You scraped up something about some rando plot twist several weeks later.

[Voize of Reazon]

It is about Trump still complaining several weeks later that Harris replaced Biden.

[not guilty]

Correction: I mistakenly referred to Fed.R.Evid. 901 above; self-authentication of a document is governed by Rule 902.

[myself]

It is also a very bad idea because while Trump is more physically capable than Biden, there's more reason to think he's actually mentally incompetent.

[Kazinski]

Its a terrible idea to try to go after any of the Biden's criminally.

But no one pardoned the money. I think they can legitimately investigate the cash flows.and any cash that can be tied to failure to register as a foreign agent, and influence pedalling is fair game.

And their is no 5th amendment protection for anyone who was pardoned, nor will the pardons cover any false statements made during the investigation.

[Zarniwoop]

And their is no 5th amendment protection for anyone who was pardoned….

Since a Presidential pardon does not extend to criminal liability for state crimes directed to the same conduct, it is trivial to find scenarios where this is demonstrably false.

[Zarniwoop]

But no one pardoned the money. I think they can legitimately investigate the cash flows.and any cash that can be tied to failure to register as a foreign agent, and influence pedalling is fair game.

Maybe ask Comer, there’s already been a whole lot of investigating and a whole lot of nothingburgers.

[Kazinski]

It certainly convinced most Americans that Biden was selling influence, that was its purpose, and it fulfilled its function.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As the left has demonstrated to us over the past 9 years, the process is the punishment.

[Thought about __ all my life]

It's much easier than that....The pardons are only valid if ---so to speak --- Biden was valid. Saw a book today making the case that he was with the fairies long before the so-called pardons. And legallly the claim that he was going in and out of lucidity will only hurt his case.

[Brett Bellmore]

I honestly don't think establishing that he was incompetent is enough, if the 25th amendment had never been invoked. (And it wasn't.)

You'd have to establish that Biden himself didn't originate the pardon, not that he was incompetent to have exercised judgement in doing so.

That might be possible in the case of the pardons that took place while he was away from the White house, because any communications between him and the White house would have been preserved. But short of somebody high placed in his administration being willing to testify in court that they were using the autopen without his knowledge, I don't see it happening otherwise.

[apedad]

" . . . because any communications between him and the White House would have been preserved."

Like the Gmail your leadership is currently using?

[Brett Bellmore]

Being preserved in theory, anyway. I did put that "might" in italics for a reason, you know.

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

" unsubstantiated theory"

lmao, they're still trying to gaslight us.

[Riva]

The NY Times. Why that’s believable. I’m sure that’s true. Not like the Times would ever misrepresent anything, like Covid origins, or promote Russian collusion fraud and publish lies about a certain crackhead bagman’s laptop. We can trust the NY Times for the full story. Maybe at least a few years later.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"The New York Times reports that Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., is pursuing an inquiry into whether former President Biden was competent to pardon his family members and others during his final days in office. "

Contracts are void under most every state law if the person lacks capacity to execute the contract. Granted it is very difficule to prove ( or get a court to rule ) that a person lacked capacity after the fact.

The issue with the autopen is there are reports/indications that the pardons and other docs were signed via autopen by senior white house aide without biden's knowledge, 6 of which were signed while biden was in VI during the end of December.

[Michael P]

I think Brett has the better position on both of those objections.

On competency for official acts, the 25th Amendment sets out the process to disqualify the president due to inability to execute the office. That wasn't applied here.

And it's going to be very hard to prove the autopen was used without Biden's approval absent first-hand witness testimony to that effect.

[Joe_dallas]

Mp-
A - the 25th lays out the process for removing a president once incapacity sets in. It doesnt address the issue of acts when the president lacks capacity prior to initiation of the 25th. That being said proving lack of capacity after the fact is near impossible. At least that has been my experience. Absent severe stroke heart attack, Invoking the 25th becomes extremely political such as evident in Bidens case.

B I agree that proving the autopen was used without bidens knowledge is near impossible absent someone coming forward> Even if that happens, there is still someone else such as an Aide that will come to the rescue and claim that biden told him he approved the autopen.

[David Nieporent]

Contracts are void under most every state law if the person lacks capacity to execute the contract.

Are we discussing contracts? No, we are not.

The issue with the autopen is there are reports/indications that the pardons and other docs were signed via autopen by senior white house aide without biden's knowledge,

Again: it doesn't matter how they were signed. A signature isn't required in the first place, and thus isn't what makes the pardon valid. The decision by the president to issue the pardon is what makes it valid. As Brett said, you'd have to show that Biden didn't authorize the pardons.

[Life of Brian]

The decision by the president to issue the pardon is what makes it valid.

Folks here had a quite raucous discussion a couple of years back about whether the president could declassify documents sheerly by mental determination, or whether there had to be some additional, verifiable overt act to confirm that mental determination. Weren't you quite staunchly in the latter camp?

[David Nieporent]

Weren't you quite staunchly in the latter camp?

And I still am. The decision by the president to issue the pardon is what makes it [that is, the issuance of the pardon] valid. The pardon still needs to be issued, though.

[Life of Brian]

The pardon still needs to be issued, though.

OK, so you've loaded the non-mental confirmatory step into the word "issued." But regardless of what you call it, there still needs to be something other than a piece of paper suddenly appearing on a website with a reproduction of the president's signature, right?

[David Nieporent]

On a random website? Sure, there would need to be something more. On the DOJ's website? No.

[Life of Brian]

Why does a PDF image of a document appearing on a website operated by the administration give rise to a presumption that Biden actually authored that document rather than someone else in the administration?

[not guilty]

"OK, so you've loaded the non-mental confirmatory step into the word 'issued.' But regardless of what you call it, there still needs to be something other than a piece of paper suddenly appearing on a website with a reproduction of the president's signature, right?"

As I suggested upthread, in the case of a pardon recipient being indicted, the initial burden of calling the matter to the court's attention would be on the accused. I surmise that he would do so by making a pretrial motion to dismiss which includes a certified copy of the pardon document. If the accused claims that the pardon was issued by other means, he would have the burden of showing that the pardon was in fact issued. Per Fed.R.Evid. 901(a), to satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

Fed.R.Evid. 902(1) and (4) indicate that the pardon or a certified copy thereof would be self-authenticating. (I mistakenly referred to Rule 901 above; self-authentication of a document is governed by Rule 902.) Rule 902(11) and Rule 803(6)(E) would appear to place the burden on the prosecution to show that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Rule 902(11) would require the defense to give the prosecution reasonable written notice before the trial or hearing of the intent to offer the record — and to make the record and certification available for inspection — so that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge them.

[Life of Brian]

Well, even if a pardon warrant does qualify as a business record, the requisite showing under 803(6)(A) would necessarily surface the circumstances of preparation of the document, as well as the identity of one or more individuals who presumably would testify of Biden's involvement in the process if that's actually what happened.

So it seems to me that teeing the warrant up for admission is going to a) require factual information outside the four corners of the document (a "yes" to my prior question), and b) surface most if not all of the information (or lack thereof) an opponent might use to throw doubt on its trustworthiness.

[not guilty]

"So it seems to me that teeing the warrant up for admission is going to a) require factual information outside the four corners of the document (a "yes" to my prior question), and b) surface most if not all of the information (or lack thereof) an opponent might use to throw doubt on its trustworthiness."

What part of "self-authenticating" do you not understand?

The burden of challenging the authenticity of such a document, when proffered by the accused, would be on the prosecution. So would the burden to show that the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

[Life of Brian]

You want this to come in as a business record. I'm skeptical you can just pluck the words "self-authenticating" out of 902 and skip the requirements in 803(6) (conveniently referenced by 902(11)) to establish that it's a business record. That will require disclosing the sort of information I mentioned.

[not guilty]

So you don't understand self-authenticating at all. Why am I not surprised?

[Life of Brian]

Particularly given how routinely you thump your chest on citing to authority, it seems pretty clear that here you're just winging it.

No judgment if you've never actually dealt with or even seen a business records declaration before -- particularly for a high-stakes document like this one -- but examples are not hard to find and it might be worth minimally educating yourself before you get too enamored with your latest oh-so-clever theory ala Fischer and Section 5.

Oh, and as I noted at the outset, this entire exchange presumes that a pardon warrant actually qualifies as a business record. The reason you're pushing for that has zero to do with self-authentication, as you well know. In any event, it's far from clear that it qualifies and you haven't even tried to make that showing.

[Zarniwoop]

A trivial example of a non-signed pardon would be the president making a pardon announcement at a speech in the Rose Garden, in front of the press pool.

“Unsigned” =/= a purely “mental determination”; conflating the two is deeply unserious.

Biden isn’t currently claiming that he pardoned someone on his last day in office, didn’t tell anyone and didn’t write it down, but it’s valid because he did it by “mental determination”.

[Life of Brian]

A trivial example of a non-signed pardon would be the president making a pardon announcement at a speech in the Rose Garden, in front of the press pool.

Sure. And a pardon announcement at a speech in the Rose Garden, in front of the press pool, certainly would be an example of "some additional, verifiable overt act to confirm that mental determination."

Are you saying that happened with all the robo-signed/laser-printed/whatever warrants at issue here? If so, I can't imagine there would be a dispute.

“Unsigned” =/= a purely “mental determination”; conflating the two is deeply unserious.

Good thing I'm not conflating the two, then -- whew.

Biden isn’t currently claiming that he pardoned someone on his last day in office, didn’t tell anyone and didn’t write it down, but it’s valid because he did it by “mental determination”.

Unless I'm missing something, Biden isn't currently claiming anything -- including that he authorized the robo-signing/use of his electronic signature/whatever of the pile of warrants.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

A trivial example of a non-signed pardon would be the president making a pardon announcement at a speech in the Rose Garden, in front of the press pool.

Much to the relief of select turkeys on Thanksgiving.

[Joe_dallas]

DN - the issue is not how the docs were signed - it was whether biden had knowledge they were signed or if he approved the signing.

That point was clear in my post

[SRG2]

This led me to wonder how a challenge to the validity of such a pardon, if it happens, would proceed.

Simple. Martin indicts one of the pardoned individuals and they have to challenge the indictment in court.

[Stephen Lathrop]

SRG2 — Is Martin a federal grand jury?

[SRG2]

You know what I mean

[not guilty]

"Simple. Martin indicts one of the pardoned individuals and they have to challenge the indictment in court."

I explained this upthread. Martin would first have to persuade a federal grand jury that probable cause to believe that the pardon recipient committed a crime exists. As I said, in the District of Columbia that may not be an easy task.

If the accused raises the pardon as a bar to prosecution, the validity of the pardon would be an issue for pretrial determination by the district court. Failure to raise the issue would likely amount to waiver under United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 150 162-163 (1833):

This Court is of opinion that the pardon in the proceedings mentioned, not having been brought judicially before the court by plea, motion, or otherwise, cannot be noticed by the judges.

Id., at 163. Wilson, quoting Blackstone, says "it may also be pleaded in arrest of judgment." Id., at 162. That, however, would be a posttrial matter governed by Fed.R.Crim.P. 34. A defendant wishing to avail himself of the benefit of the pardon would have no reason to delay the matter until then.

The pardon or a certified copy thereof would be self-authenticating under Fed.R.Evid. 902(1) and (4). (I mistakenly cited Rule 901 above.) Once the pardon has been authenticated, Rules 902(11) and 803(6)(E) would appear to place the burden on the prosecution to show that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Fed.R.Evid. 901(1) and (4) indicate that the pardon or a certified copy thereof would be self-authenticating. Rule 901(11) and Rule 803(6)(E) would appear to place the burden on the prosecution to show that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness...'

Sounds like that can be satisfied if it can be shown that the pardons were signed with an auto-pen. Especially if the president was on vacation or something when they were purportedly signed.

[John F. Carr]

The defendant could ask Joe Biden to confirm that he authorized the pardons.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Certainly true. That would not be self-authenticating though. If there is evidence that the pardons are legit, this is the non-issue that many people are already convinced that it is.

[not guilty]

"Sounds like that can be satisfied if it can be shown that the pardons were signed with an auto-pen. Especially if the president was on vacation or something when they were purportedly signed."

Uh, no. Not at all. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-trumps-claim-that-biden-pardons-are-void-because-he-used-an-autopen In 2005, during George W. Bush’s presidency, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote a memo to the president’s counsel about the legality of using an autopen to sign bills presented to him by Congress. The department concluded:

“The President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather, the President may sign a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 by directing a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to such a bill, for example by autopen.”

https://www.justice.gov/file/494411/dl?inline=

The so-called autopen issue is a bunch of malarkey.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Please try to keep up.

I was not claiming that pardons signed with an auto pen are not valid.

But a document purporting to have been signed by the president that was not signed by the president is not self authenticating.

[John F. Carr]

This is the rule:

The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted:
(1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A document that bears:
(A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; the former Panama Canal Zone; the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; a political subdivision of any of these entities; or a department, agency, or officer of any entity named above; and
(B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation.

There is no requirement that the signature be genuine. That's why the word "purporting" is used. A document with a forged seal and forged signature is admissible.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Fair enough. Then showing the seal was forged, like showing the pardon was signed with an auto pen, overcomes the presumption.

[not guilty]

TIP, pretend you are Ed Martin and that you have procured an indictment of a person who has proffered a certified copy of a pardon purportedly bearing the seal of the United States and the signature of the President in support of a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment.

If you dispute the authenticity of the proffered document, that could call for a determination by the District Court pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 104(a) of the document's provenance. Except as to privileges, the Rules of Evidence would not apply.

What witness testimony and/or document(s) would you proffer to the court?

[TwelveInchPianist]

How should I know? It's your hypo. In your hypo, is there evidence available that the signature isn't genuine? If so, I'd proffer it.

[not guilty]

TIP, you are the one that has asserted "showing the seal was forged, like showing the pardon was signed with an auto pen, overcomes the presumption."

You reply, "is there evidence available that the signature isn't genuine? If so, I'd proffer it." Way to beg the question!! As Cassandra said to Wayne Campbell, if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV9U23YXgiY&t=18s

How would you, as opponent of the proffered document, attempt to show that the seal was forged or show that the pardon was signed with an auto pen? (FWIW, the autopen claptrap doesn't feed the bulldog. https://www.justice.gov/file/494411/dl?inline= But if it did, what witness testimony or document(s) would you proffer to support your objection?)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"(FWIW, the autopen claptrap doesn't feed the bulldog."

You link to an OLC opinion that a President can sign a bill by directing someone to affix his signature with an autopen. I don't doubt that the same is true with a pardon. Heck, if the President intends to pardon someone, I suppose he can do so by directing the recipient to sign the President's name on the pardon.

But if the person opposing the pardon can show that the pardon was signed by an autopen, or that the recipient signed the President's name on the pardon, the burden would be on the recipient to show that President directed such an action.

"How would you, as opponent of the proffered document, attempt to show that the seal was forged or show that the pardon was signed with an auto pen?"

Again, it's your hypo. What evidence is available to me in your hypo?

[not guilty]

"But if the person opposing the pardon can show that the pardon was signed by an autopen, or that the recipient signed the President's name on the pardon, the burden would be on the recipient to show that President directed such an action."

It would not be a person opposing the pardon; it would be the government (which has no cardiovascular system). But again here, you are requiring the word "if" to do some seriously heavy lifting.

For purposes of my hypothetical, I am positing that the indicted person named in the purported pardon presents a certified copy of the pardon, bearing the seal of the United States and the signature of the President, attached to a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment. Such document is self-authenticating under Rule 902, subsections (1) and (4) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and is sufficient to shift the burden of persuasion to the prosecution.

If you were the U. S. Attorney disputing the genuineness of the seal or the signature, what witness testimony and/or document(s) would you proffer to persuade the District Court not to dismiss the indictment with prejudice? (Don't merely assume that any such evidence exists -- use your subpoena power to actually produce the witness(es) and/or document(s).) What person(s) would you subpoena, and what document(s) would you direct each such witness to bring?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But again here, you are requiring the word "if" to do some seriously heavy lifting."

Of course. I'm not claiming that the pardons were signed with an autopen. I've heard speculation that the pardons were signed with an autopen. Big if true.

"If you were the U. S. Attorney disputing the genuineness of the seal or the signature, what witness testimony and/or document(s) would you proffer..."

Again, what kind of question is that? I would proffer whatever evidence caused me to believe the seal or signature was not genuine. If there were no such evidence, I wouldn't be disputing its genuineness.

[not guilty]

Doesn't going in circles like that make you dizzy, TIP?

But I suppose that in MAGA world, "People are saying" is a license to engage in all manner of unsupported conjecture and speculation.

That is disgusting.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If there's evidence that the signature was genuine, but Biden lacked the capacity to understand what the was signing? I don't know, that's a much trickier issue.

Anyone who's had to help an incapacitated relative or something deal with their affairs understands that sometimes a signature doesn't mean much.

[not guilty]

Thank you for acknowledging that you don't know. That kind of candor is rare among the MAGA cult.

[Kazinski]

Norway's government fell because of Germany's Net Zero goals.

Norway’s government collapses over EU spat
An EU energy law dispute fractured the coalition beyond repair.

https://www.politico.eu/article/norway-government-collapse-eu-energy-euroskeptic-centre-party-trygve-slagsvold-vedum/

The Norwegian government collapsed Thursday after the Euroskeptic Centre Party left the two-party coalition after weeks of brawling over the adoption of three EU energy directives, local media reported.

Their exit leaves Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre's center-left Labour Party to govern on its own for the first time in 25 years.

Norway, while not part of the EU, has to adopt the bloc's laws as a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), unless it invokes a right of reservation. The agrarian Centre Party is strongly against the EEA agreement, which gives Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein access to the EU's internal market."

The Politico article doesn't mention it but a big part of the problem is whenever Germany has a cold snap, or their wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine (Dunkelflaute), they have to import their electricity from Norway, Sweden, France and Poland, which drives the rates in Norway sky high.

So it looks like the Centre party is going to cut them off.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The solution for that, if you don't mind being called "socialist" (and in Europe, that isn't a problem) is an export duty that funds a domestic subsidy. Tax exported electricity either above a certain level or in general (ideally both, i.e. a progressive tax) and then fight it our how your subsidy will work -- problem solved.

If you are honest enough to only spend the duty on the subsidy, your *net* domestic electric rates won't spike up when Germany's pixie dust and unicorn flatulence fails.

Meanwhile China builds two coal-burning power plants each week.

[jb]

This is one of the least crazy things Dr. Ed has written in a while! (And has some relationship to the framework for a rebated carbon tax which is probably the best way to encourage emissions reductions.)

But I suspect the tariff/subsidy plan runs afoul of EEA rules--it's supposed to be an open market for all participants.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The first bright thing on the gender front:
https://media.defense.gov/2025/Mar/31/2003678527/-1/-1/1/COMBAT-ARMS-STANDARDS.PDF

The question I ask is why limit this just to combat arms?

If a female soldier is paid the same amount of money as a male soldier, if male soldiers have to obey the orders of female soldiers, then ought not the female soldiers have to meet the SAME physical fitness requirements as male soldiers?

Conversely, if we are to judge each sex by statistics of the sex, since women (a) get better grades than men and (b) higher education is approaching 70% female, shouldn't female soldiers have to meet higher academic requirements?

If a female police officer gets over two extra minutes to run 1.5 miles, does that not explicitly state that female officers are inherently inferior to male officers?

Years back, standards were lowered for female snow plow drivers in an attempt to have a greater percentage of the plow drivers be female. My response was to suggest that the flashing yellow lights on the plow trucks driven by female drivers be replaced with flashing pink ones to warn oncoming drivers that the 30 ton truck with a razor sharp blade coming at them was being driven by an inferior driver.

There are some really good female drivers, and if I were one of them, I'd be offended by not being held to the same standard as male drivers.

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

Some judge is going to TRO this. They're just shopping for it now.

[David Nieporent]

Years back, standards were lowered for female snow plow drivers in an attempt to have a greater percentage of the plow drivers be female.

Is that in the dissertation, too?

[Michael P]

DMN joins Gaslight0 in the extremes of denialism.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL you're defending a Dr. Ed story.

[Michael P]

No, I'm pointing out that you and he are two denialist peas in a pod.

[Sarcastr0]

Noting that Ed makes shit up is not denialist.

You really do hate being called out for lack of evidence so much you'll jump into bed with Dr. Ed and his fabulism.

[Riva]

To prove women are obviously equal to men, standards must be lowered to qualify more women. When that makes sense to you, you will understand the left. Or be intoxicated. Or just flat out stupid, like crazy Dave.

[Swede425]

I was still in when they opened up the combat arms to females.
They originally broke down the physical standards to Combat Arms, Combat Support, and Combat Service Support for the physical fitness test. Not by sex. So, depending on which of the 3 you belonged to, you had a PT test that was the same across the board.
Then females started failing in numbers that couldn't be ignored. So what did they do? Yep, went right back to having 2 different standards across the 3 categories. Just like we knew it would.
Just like EVERYBODY knew it would. Now Hegseth is saying no, there will be one standard for each of the three categories again. Can't pass the pt test? Then you don't belong in this category which has the physical standard that it has.

[jimc5499]

When I was in the Navy (early 80's) women were not allowed in combat roles. The Helicopter Training Squadron had a woman pilot, Chris. Since HAC (Helicopter Aircraft Commander) was a combat role, she wasn't allowed to advance beyond co-pilot. Those of us aircrew in the regular squadrons flew in the Training Squadron's aircraft for qualifications. In the evening over adult beverages the subject of if you had to fly into Hell who would you want at the controls. Several of the senior pilots were mentioned (Vietnam Vets) but, when it came to co-pilots it was surprising how many times Chris was mentioned. She was just plain good, better than many of the male junior pilots. It works both ways. A few years ago we had a woman Lab Assistant. Union policy was that a woman wasn't allowed to lift over 35 lbs. That pissed off the Lab Assistant. In her off time, she was the Center for a women's semi-pro football team.

[Commenter_XY]

Time is running out to make a peace deal.

https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2025/04/01/putin-orders-largest-military-conscription-since-2011-as-ukraine-peace-talks-stall/

RUS has many more young men than UKR to conscript.

Every week Zelensky dithers, thousands more young UKR mean die.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Russian men do too -- the human toll to RUS is greater and I am surprised someone hasn't assassinated Putin yet.

[Frank Drackman]

Russians like him, same reason Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Mao, Hussain, and Khomeni weren't assassinated.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Good point -- NVA/VC losses in TET were extreme.

[Krayt]

...so give up to the tyrant! Here, we'll help you lose!

[Kazinski]

Zelensky isn't dithering, the roadblocks are all or.at.least mostly Putin's.

The way I understand it the US and Ukraine have agreed on a framework, and the US is directly negotiating with the Russians, not Ukraine.

This account seems to back it up:
"Putin has effectively refused a U.S. proposal for an immediate and full 30-day halt in the fighting, despite Trump’s prodding. Also, a partial ceasefire in the Black Sea that could allow safer shipments has fallen foul of conditions imposed by Kremlin negotiators.

“We consider the models and solutions proposed by the Americans quite seriously, but we can’t just accept all of them as they are,” Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said.

Moscow is holding out on a deal to ease shipping in the Black Sea in order to “stall efforts toward a general ceasefire and extract additional concessions from the West,” according to an assessment Monday by the Institute for the Washington-based Study of War think tank."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-germany-china-trump-baerbock-a50b4d83cb2c3158aa1802985b9c70f6

It seems that Putin is looking for leverage of his own, as the pressure increases. If Trump follows through with his threat of secondary sanctions on countries buying Russian energy that will start constricting cash flow almost immediately.

A huge draft push will just give Putin more substandard raw troops to throw in the mix, and won't provide them the weapons Russia is woefully short of. And will mean a lot more coffins coming home and more unrest. It doesn't sound like a boss move.

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

When Russia did agree to a short term ceasefire against infrastructure targets, Ukraine/NATO immediately bombed their energy infrastructure. To undermine Trump and peace of course.

[Armchair]

Putin is stalling...

Perhaps it's time for Trump to realize the US currently has an "excess" of Tomahawk missiles, and transfer them to Ukraine.

A few Tomahawks fired by Ukraine into the Kremlin might convince Putin that a cease fire is a good idea.

[Frank Drackman]

And start WW3, this whole Bullshit of us giving our weapons and pretending we’re not fighting Roosh-a,

[Krayt]

As that will crush the tyrant's business model of a cushy life of graft, I am not sure he wants to start that.

Also, cowering before tyrants is unamerican. That seems a bizarre philosophical stance.

[Jmaie]

Not giving cruise missiles to Ukraine is cowering?

[Don Nico]

It does not seem that Zelensky is dithering. It is Putin who is avoiding a temporary ceasefire

[Martinned2]

That can't be right! If he did that, Trump would be very angry with him!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-angry-putin-zelenskyy-iran-sanctions-rcna198729

[Don Nico]

He says that he is!

[shawn_dude]

Did he wait until after he finished his Big Mac before saying that? You know he's only really angry if he puts the burger down half-eaten.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Dithers? Ukraine agreed to a cease-fire in 2014.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/04/01/truck-hits-pedestrians-in-chinatown-multiple-injuries-reported/?p1=hp_primary

This is the problem with our current system of weight-based licenses -- you can get a Class D (in some states Class C) license in a subcompact car and then legally drive something like this.

My license says "any vehicle" but I believe the limit on a basic car license is 26,000 lbs -- 13 tons -- and while that isn't much in terms of trucks that can legally weight 80,000 lbs and often weigh twice that, physically it can be a pretty large truck.

[Krayt]

I wondered so checked it out. This represents the max gross weight of the biggest U-Haul truck, 26 feet and 25,995 lbs.

Did they build for the law or was the law built for that?

[Dr. Ed 2]

REGISTERED gross weight -- there is absolutely nothing preventing someone from packing more than that into it. You can also register a vehicle for a lower GVW than the manufacturer designed it for -- this is common with pickup trucks where you only register them for a 6000 GVW so you can have PAN (regular) license plates instead of commercial ones.

ALL vehicles have a sticker or metal plate on the driver's doorjam that specifies maximum axle weights -- cars do too.

I'm quoting from memory here, and I know one of my many critics will correct me, but recollection is that the 26,000 lb figure comes from the 1986 Federal Motor Carrier Act, before that some states had higher figures.

This actually was a Penske truck -- they tend to do more leasing than the short term rentals UHaul is noted for -- and it doesn't look like it was a 40 year old truck, so my guess is that it was intended to come in just under the limit.

Remember that with trucks, it usually is someone who makes the frame, engine and such, and then a second outfit that buys that and puts the body onto it. For example, a Bluebird school bus can be built onto the frame made by several different manufacturers, who can then offer different engines, transmissions and such.

If you have options when you are buying one vehicle, you clearly have options if you are buying a few thousand, so yes...

An interesting aside with Japanese motorcycles -- they usually are one cc under the size they are advertised as being, e.g. 249 cc instead of the advertised 250 and the reason for this is that Japanese motorcycle licenses are based on engine size (e.g. "under 250 cc" so the bike is made to be just under that.

[Brett Bellmore]

You think U-Haul picked a capacity 5 pounds under an even 13 tons at random?

[Krayt]

They deal with politicians. No shortage of lawyers who'll say it's one pound over, gimme money.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Check out qualification weights for classes of commercial driver's licenses. You might stumble on something explanatory there. I have a vague memory that says you need to be tested driving a vehicle near that weight range, maybe just above it, to qualify for a Class B license. Maybe U-Haul doesn't want complications if it rents trucks to folks without Class B licenses. Too lazy to look it up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If we needed any more evidence public sector unions are Anti-American --- https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/04/01/students-union-leaders-officials-rally-to-support-detained-tufts-student/?p1=hp_secondary

I say deport them all...

[MoreCurious]

Of course you do. Why are you telling us something we already know about you?

[Thought about __ all my life]

Three things suggest themselves to me

Putin will be killed
The Pope will die suddenly and an African cardinal will succeed him.
The Supreme Court will turn on the lower level judges because Roberts has now ruined his reputation. Still zero on Birthright Citizenship and he delivers an informal opinion that Trump is not following the law !!! This is starting to piss people off.

[Frank Drackman]

Senator Cory Booker's staffer and "best friend" (c'mon man! it's 2025, just say "Boyfriend") Kevin Batts, was arrested Monday trying to carry a pistol into the Capitol.
Tell me again how many "January 6th" protesters were armed?
Of course it's the District of Colored People, so no way the Homie will get any prison time

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is the exact sort of situation that existed in the South in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War and exactly why Nathan Bedford Forrest formed what became known as the Klu Klux Klan.

And how did that turn out?

[Frank Drackman]

there's a subdivision not far from my parent's house,
"Bedford Forest"
get it?
It's a pretty diverse neighborhood (i.e. lots of Mexicans, with some Blacks, and the few Whites who can't get their price (because of the lots of Mexicans and some Blacks)
nobody seems to mind the name, (like they even know who Nathan Bedford Forrest was)

Frank

[Michael P]

Exactly what sort of situation? A Black Senator's close friend was arrested for trying to sneak a pistol into the South?

[Frank Drackman]

Forget it Jake, it's Dr Ed2

[Dr. Ed 2]

The First Circuit has ruled that ICE can actually arrest illegal aliens INSIDE a state courthouse. https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/first-circuit-upholds-ice's-authority-to-conduct-civil-arrests-in-courthouses/view

ICE arrests one OUTSIDE the courthouse, after court is closed for the day and some genius state judge holds ICE in contempt, accusing two state troopers of "obstructing justice" for not stopping ICE.
https://www.wcvb.com/article/boston-judge-ice-contempt-case/64343137

Why is this judge not himself in jail?

The 1st Circuit explicitly stated that ICE has the right to do this, doesn't the First Circuit overrule a Massachusetts District Court?

[David Nieporent]

The 1st Circuit explicitly stated that ICE has the right to do this, doesn't the First Circuit overrule a Massachusetts District Court?

No, actually.

[Martinned2]

I have a vague recollection of a lot of commenters here feeling very strongly that states were sovereign, and that it is states, not people, who are represented in the US senate. But that idea seems to have fallen by the wayside.

[Riva]

A state court can sanction a federal officer enforcing federal law? I know you don’t understand the separation of powers. I guess we can add the supremacy clause to the list. It’s going to end up being a big list. Do yourself a favor and retake your G.E.D. exam.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The 1st Circuit explicitly stated that ICE has the right to do this, doesn't the First Circuit overrule a Massachusetts District Court?"

Yes and no. The judge isn't bound by it in his own rulings, and he is absolutely immune from civil liability for judicial acts, but it might come into play if TRO's, etc. are issued or if the judge is prosecuted criminally.

[TwelveInchPianist]

From what I can see, there isn't even an arguable justification for the judge's actions here, but I'd love to hear a different opinion.

What's the argument that a lawful arrest by a separate (and in this case higher) sovereign can be contempt?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was thinking "under color of law" here -- and in it's historical 1871 context.

The intent of Congress was to crush the Klan, i.e. people exercising their power under state law to do bad things to Black people. Why wouldn't this include state judges?

Remember that Grant was POTUS, most of Congress was in the GAR (i.e. Union veterans), and there was no particular love for Southern state's rights. The 14th Amendment's enforcement clause was a clear grant of Congressional authority -- why wouldn't they include Judges -- particularly in terms of extralegal actions?

[Noscitur a sociis]

What does any of that have to do with what we’re talking about?

[windycityattorney]

I think the guy was in the middle of a jury trial. So detaining him in Fed custody and removing him would cause more than a few problems.

There is also questions of whether the prosecutor colluded with the feds to have this very thing happen.

Jeopardy attached at that point (trial had already begun best I can tell) so since it couldn't continue, state charges would have to be dismissed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Certainly true. But I’m not sure how lawful exercise of Federal authority in a way that inconveniences a state judge can be construed as contempt.

[Riva]

Tough shit. Do you think state law can provide the illegal with some sort of pseudo immunity? Supremacy Clause. Look it up.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ I think the guy was in the middle of a jury trial. So detaining him in Fed custody and removing him would cause more than a few problems.”

If states don’t want their defendants being arrested in the middle of trials, they can agree to turn them over at the conclusion of the trial.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And in any event, the case has been removed to federal court

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why is this judge not himself in jail?

The fact that he didn’t even arguably commit a crime is a big part of it.

[apedad]

Liberal wins first major 2025 statewide battleground election in race turned into Trump-Musk referendum

Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford defeated Brad Schimel (for a seat on the WI Supreme Court), a former state attorney general who currently serves as a state circuit court judge in Waukesha County. Schimel, the conservative-aligned candidate in the race, was endorsed by President Donald Trump.

With a massive infusion of money from Democrat-aligned and Republican-aligned groups from outside Wisconsin, which turned the race into the most expensive judicial election in the nation's history, the contest partially transformed into a referendum on Trump's sweeping and controversial moves during the opening months of his second tour of duty in the White House.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/liberal-wins-first-major-2025-statewide-battleground-election-race-turned-trump-musk-referendum?msockid=24ad7420e74d64591ff76192e6116549

[Brett Bellmore]

I've warned people of this: 2020 demonstrated that you could beat something with nothing, if you got enough people to hate the something. While Trump hatred had waned a bit by the 2024 election, and wasn't enough to put Harris over the finish line, Trump has reinvigorated it.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe Musk’s open corrupting of the process turned people off.
Or maybe people don’t like what Trump and Musk are doing.
Or maybe the more appealing candidate won.

Probably a combination of all of that and contempt for Trump.

Elections are complicated.

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

Can you wicker in the Voter ID amendment passing into your theory, or do you deny that happened and continue to live in your alternate universe where uncomfortable facts don't exist?

[LawTalkingGuy]

It passed for the same reason abortion rights amendments passed in very red states. It’s a popular individual policy associated with one party even if their candidates aren’t actually all that popular overall in a given area.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Maybe Musk’s open corrupting of the process turned people off."

A leftist upset that musk is exposing the lefts self dealing, misuse of taxpayer funds and corruption.

[Martinned2]

Yes, we should definitely put the guy who pockets government money from just about every US government department under the sun in charge of deciding which of his competitors should get government subsidy! That's definitely the best way to "expose" "self dealing, misuse of taxpayer funds and corruption"!

https://www.wsj.com/business/elon-musk-nasa-mars-space-travel-d3978a7b

[Jmaie]

By pocketing Government money, presumably you mean he collects subsidies that were authorized by congress and previous presidents?

[jb]

Sure, but all of the spending he is going after is also authorized by Congress.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a reason why FDR appointed Joe Kennedy to be the first head of the then-new Securities and Exchange Commission -- he was the biggest crook and hence knew all the games.

Like hiring an old poacher to be game warden.

[apedad]

Trump agenda upended after GOP rebellion shuts down House floor

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/anna-paulina-luna-forces-house-leaderships-hand-proxy-voting-gop-war-escalates

Now you have GOP on GOP action, and GOP leadership ran away!

"House Republican leaders on Tuesday canceled votes for the rest of the week after a band of GOP lawmakers staged a rebellion on the floor, bringing legislative action to a screeching halt."

[Dr. Ed 2]

What was Corey Booker filibustering against?

[Frank Drackman]

His sexuality

[MoreCurious]

It wasn't a filibuster. Too bad you didn't listen to some of it; you might have learned something about humanity and decency.

[Bob from Ohio]

"humanity and decency"

"kept the Senate floor open – and floor staff and US Capitol Police detailed to the chamber working – for as long as he continued speaking" CNN

[MoreCurious]

Too bad -- but not surprising -- that you and Ed both missed the message.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You think floor staff and US Capitol Police don't like overtime? They were fighting each other for some of that.

[Moderation4ever]

The party of family values has shown that its family values don't extend to new mothers, Republican or Democrat. To Republican's extending the curtesy of proxy voting to new mothers is just another slap at the white man.

[Brett Bellmore]

The basic problem with Trump's efforts, and the reason that he's doing it by EO rather than legislation to begin with, is that the GOP legislative majority is both narrow and divided. The Republican Congress is basically useless, the most they're able to do is block hostile legislation, but can't get anything done themselves.

This is not the best issue to have a fight over, but Johnson is right: If proxy voting is unconstitutional, (And I agree that it is.) then it's unconstitutional, period.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Framers, once they've accepted the idea of women in Congress and the advances of technology, would have had no problem with this proxy voting rule.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think those are completely different issues, and proxies have enormous potential for abuse.

[David Nieporent]

What potential would that be? It's not the 18th century; everyone knows instantly who voted and how. A proxy holder isn't going to be able to vote contrary to the absent member's wishes.

[Brett Bellmore]

To put it simply, leadership already exercises absurd amounts of power over individual members, but the individual members at least retain the power to rebel. With proxies accepted as legit, you could over time see a system arise where the leadership punished in the usual manner, (Denial of committee memberships, for instance.) any member who didn't hand over a proxy to be voted by the leader or his hand picked surrogate.

And, yeah, under the enrolled bill doctrine, the member's complaints that they hadn't authorized a particular use of the proxy would be unavailing.

[Sarcastr0]

you could over time see

Well, that's rock solid.

[Life of Brian]

What a weird bone to pick. Isn't your actual job trying to project how today's policy decisions will play out decades down the road?

[David Nieporent]

1) I don't think you read the text of the rule, which generally requires written instructions to the proxy holder from the member. And in that vein, it's not like reselling a football ticket; the proxy can't be "handed over." Only a specific person — again, designated in writing — can vote someone's proxy.

2) I do not understand your latest conspiracy theory anyway. If leadership is going to pressure someone to vote a certain way via threats, then leadership is going to pressure someone to vote a certain way via threats. How does the proxy enter into it?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Postpartum is not the only medical condition that has affected CongressCritters over the years -- we have ambulances and air ambulances and there is no reason why a CongressCritter can't be rolled in on a gurney to vote, if need be.

It's been done in the past...

[Stephen Lathrop]

As always. the construct, "Framers . . . would have," announces that whatever follows next is made up history.

Please do not take this as a rebuke. More a tip on how to do better historical inference.

[Sarcastr0]

You're describing Trump having unpopular policies opposed by another branch of government.

And your solution is to ignore that branch.

Moving from authoritarian to just monarchist, eh?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure that "Show up for work, damn it!" is actually all that unpopular.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but not showing up for work is not the issue you described in your above comment.

[hobie]

The Sausage Party is gonna lose women again. Men like Elon and Johnson have babies all over the place yet still show up for work

[Frank Drackman]

Again? “47” won with all females except the colored ones

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, 47 badly lost the single college-educated White DCs.

And that's the distinction here -- if you are married and have a child, you have a husband to help you. But if you instead go the turkey baster approach -- if you literally buy your semen (as some women do, if the state is your husband (as it is for all single mothers), then you expect the government to help you.

[hobie]

The thing is, you have two Rep women and one Rep man about to have brats. That's them banished to home and three lost MAGA votes. I ain't complainin'

[Bob from Ohio]

"banished to home"

Is there anti-baby killing technology in the Capitol? They can bring the baby to work. Or have the other parent watch it. Or get a babysitter.

Just like millions of other, less privileged, American women.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna's discharge petition success was mostly thanks to Democrats, including another new mother.

There were multiple NYT accounts discussing the background, including one providing her struggles:

“You plan for one thing and it totally changes,” Ms. Luna said of her expectations of child birth in a recent interview from her office on Capitol Hill, while her 4-month-old son, Henry, napped in a rocker on her desk. (Ms. Luna says she has no child care and brings Henry to the Capitol almost every day she is in Washington, perching him on her desk through most of her meetings.)

“You’re being forced to choose between your career and having a family,” she said. “We’re in way too much of a tech age for that even to be acceptable. What happens if I have to vote on war?

As to proxy voting, Mitch McConnell opposed it as policy while strongly rejecting courts interfering with congressional discretion over setting rules for its procedures.

The constitutional language is far from clear that this option is not allowed. I saw a congressional research report a few years ago parsing the evidence. In such cases, it is good policy to allow for congressional discretion over its own procedures.

[Bob from Ohio]

"What happens if I have to vote on war?"

The baby is already in the office. You walk with the baby to the Chamber and vote, then walk back.

Try working at 7/11 or a factory maybe, and see actual maternal hardship and angst. Such a drama queen!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Calling a new mother a drama queen is very classy behavior and not at all rooted in a dislike of women generally.

[Bob from Ohio]

Think what you want.

He baby is 19 months old, there is no maternity leave nearly that long. Thousands of American women return to jobs without her advantages every day, they have real problems and often suffer a lot of guilt.

[David Nieporent]

He baby is 19 months old, there is no maternity leave nearly that long.

Um, this only allows for 12 weeks of parental proy voting, so it wouldn't benefit her anyway (unless she has another kid).

Thousands of American women return to jobs without her advantages every day,

But most of them don't live 1,000 miles away from their jobs.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Also, “other people have difficult circumstances” isn’t a reason to make someone else’s circumstances more difficult if there is a reasonable accommodation for that job.

If anything it should be a sign that we should enact policies that are more favorable to new parents everywhere.

[Riva]

And let’s not forget, even Buttigieg needed time off to breastfeed his babies.

[Moderation4ever]

The election in 2020 showed that people will rebel against incompetency. The election in 2024 shows people have short memories, but those memories are returning quickly. Especially to those watching their investments.

[SRG2]

Yeah - many people really hate corrupt authoritarian leaders. Fortunately Brett is immune from hating such leaders, hence holding the moral high ground.

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

Strangely enough, the Voter ID state amendment also won.

So the only harm this shit hack can do is they're going to gerrymander the shit out WI to tilt it to the Dems.

[Moderation4ever]

You are very wrong. First the Wisconsin Supreme Court under liberal control has shown a nonpartisan approach to redistricting. It rejected both Republican and Democrat plan. The Court will also force the Republican controlled Legislature to go on record if they want to regulate abortions rather than simple falling back on a 1849 law.

[hobie]

Yep. Their supreme court rejected both sides and only allowed a non-partisan map. The result: Dems picked up 14 new seats...in a very bad year for Dems

[Dr. Ed 2]

If the justice, qua candidate, was promising to help the Democrats with redistricting, would that not be legally problematic?

[hobie]

Scalia barked his partisan intentions all the time. Seems to be a thing everyone tolerates nowadays

[Kazinski]

The Democrats held the WI SC seat, so the status quo stayed the same.

What's interesting is while Crawford did win with an easy 55-45 margin, a voter ID constitutional amendment was also on the statewide ballot and won 62-37. It doesn't seem like a huge lurch left, about 7% of the voters who voted for the liberal judge also voted for voter ID.

And while.the 2 GOP congressional races were not walkovers, although both won by more than Crawford did in WI, the Dems.way out spent the GOP, in one of the races the democratic candidate. Spent 10x as much money, and still lost by more than 10 points.

[Sarcastr0]

Elections are complicated.

Musk wanted to lock in a gerrymander. He was open about that.

[Frank Drackman]

Because Voter ID is a "common sense" ish-yew, the only states not on board are California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wyoming.
That's 13 states that went for Cums-a-lot and 2 for "47" see a pattern?
and Wyoming shouldn't count because everyone knows everyone there

[Dr. Ed 2]

Half of Maine -- what many of us call the "Real Maine" -- went for 47.

Trump has won the 2nd District three times -- it's just the Flatlanders in Southern Maine....

[Michael P]

"Liberal wins"

There's nothing liberal about her. For example, she campaigned on gerrymandering the state in an attempt to shift the balance of the House of Representatives.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So? It’s already subject to one of the worst gerrymanders in the country by republicans. And republicans fought tooth and nail to have federal limits on it. And more proportionate representation is actually a liberal value.

[Bob from Ohio]

"by republicans"

But by Democratic Party standards, very mild. Maryland and Mass. and Illinois, among others, are much worse.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Illinois and Maryland are bad. Massachusetts I'm not so sure because you'd probably need to gerrymander a district that snakes across the state that could get a republican majority.

But no, Wisconsin is one of the worst. It was functionally not a democracy for several years because the State house could not actually change hands no matter the number of votes for democrats.

In any event democrats tried to end gerrymandering across the country. Republicans know it works to their advantage and blocked it. So crying about Illinois and Maryland is actually just crying about them playing by the rules you want. Get over it.

[jb]

At least at the time the Supreme Court looked at the topic, it wasn't possible to create a Republican majority district in Massachusetts at all. Unlike most other states, even the rural areas of Massachusetts are majority Democrat.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This is why it would be nice to have a German style system with a mix of proportional and geographical representation.

I think it’s probably a bad thing that the ~35% of Massachusetts republicans lack representation in Congress.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm personally in favor of some form of proportional representation, but it is not required by the Constitution, and it is, sadly, prohibited for federal office by statute.

[Brett Bellmore]

This paper by Chen and Cottrell is my usual go-to. In it they took the precinct level Presidential vote, and then applying it to a large universe of randomly generated compact and equal population districts, determined the realistic distribution of expected Congressional seats in a state if districts were drawn without regard to electoral outcome. A real world result outside that range was taken to be evidence of gerrymandering.

As you can see by the graphic on page 335, Wisconsin was undeniably gerrymandered, the result was a bit outside the distribution of impartial results in the graphic. But Alabama, Arizona, California, and Louisiana were all worse Democratic gerrymanders, while Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia were all worse Republican gerrymanders.

Wisconsin, while certainly gerrymandered, was at worst a mid-tier gerrymander.

"In any event democrats tried to end gerrymandering across the country. "

What Democrats actually tried to do, was to get the Court to accept a test for "gerrymandering", vote efficiency, which failed to take into account how voters were actually distributed on the ground. In effect, they wanted the Court to mandate pro-Democrat gerrymandering to negate the inefficient distribution of their own voters.

Nice if you could get it, but the exact opposite of ending gerrymandering.

[jb]

Note that the paper is about Congressional districts whereas the discussion above is about the gerrymander of the Wisconsin state legislature.

The vote efficiency analysis was useful because it did a pretty good job of highlighting the usual partisan gerrymandering techniques of packing and cracking. The simulated approach in the paper you cite is interesting as well and in a world in which partisan gerrymandering was disallowed would be another useful tool in analysis.

[Brett Bellmore]

The general problem with attributing the vote efficiency deficit to "packing and cracking", is that so long as you're constrained by equal population and compactness, there is only so far you can diverge from the natural level of vote inefficiency imposed by the actual distribution of partisans on the ground. That point cloud on the chart I referenced displays that range of outcomes possible without violating compactness. Landing outside it means you've diverged from compactness to achieve a particular political outcome, which is really how "gerrymandering" is properly defined.

Single member district systems simply do not naturally reproduce the outcome of proportional representation, absent highly unrealistic assumptions.

Democrats, in their gerrymandering litigation, chose supposed measures of "gerrymandering" which were really measures of how closely proportional representation was approximated, not gerrymandering as such. It's understandable that they'd want to do that, the political geography in the US isn't favorable to them, and they were hoping to leverage disgust with gerrymandering to get the courts to force actual gerrymandering in their favor, to negate that disadvantage.

Unfortunately, the only result was to convince the Court that gerrymandering was inextricably linked to politics, couldn't be objectively adjudicated.

I think there actually are objective ways to get rid of gerrymandering, honestly defined as drawing maps to achieve a pre-determined political outcome. But since most gerrymandering is actually for purposes of incumbent protection, and most of the remainder is court mandated racial gerrymandering to boost the electoral power of minorities, neither the political nor judicial prospects of it are good.

[jb]

It's not the case at all that Democrats were pushing for proportional representation--that's the strawman that Roberts etc used to reject the argument. The reason the Massachusetts example comes up is because the folks pushing against partisan gerrymandering use it to show that it's totally possible/reasonable for a state to have no representatives from one party even though a proportional system might award them two or three seats. That's totally consistent with the vote efficiency analysis.

But take a look at Utah as an easy counterexample: the Congressional districts are drawn to chop Salt Lake County into three different districts so that the big urban center in the state gets offset by rural voters. It would be easy and natural to draw a map that had at least one Democratic seat, but the legislature has gone out of its way to make sure that doesn't happen. This isn't hard to figure out or a close call, and it's pretty lame to argue that it's impossible to grapple with.

[apedad]

Just FYI, the "Liberal wins . . . ," was from the Fox News.

[Moderation4ever]

Hey Michael P got and proof of what you just said? I don't think so, because that was never a part of Judge Crawford's campaign.

[Michael P]

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/02/26/gop-files-complaint-against-susan-crawford-on-congressional-maps-issue/80273638007/, for example. A fundraising email for a meeting with her claiming that "winning this race could also result in Democrats being able to win two additional US House seats, half the seats needed to win control of the House in 2026."

[Moderation4ever]

I hope you took a minute to read the article because Crawford in no way campaigned to gerrymander the Congressional Districts. The fact is the Republicans are afraid that the districts will be redrawn to more accurately reflect the population of the districts. Judge Crawford made no remarks on redistricting nor ever campaign on the issue.

[Zarniwoop]

Crawford’s vote percent (55.0%) isn’t too different from Protasiewicz’s in 2023 (55.5%), though turnout was higher in this election.

Musk’s money and antics don’t seem to have moved the needle much.

That said, even in deeply-red Waukesha - the conservative suburb of Milwaukee and WI’s largest reliably-red county - Schimel only managed to get 57.7%. Maybe the GOP should finally stop running this loser in statewide elections.

[Moderation4ever]

Yesterday was the Wisconsin Spring Election. Elon Musk's and Trump's candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court lost and lost big. While Musk's efforts to directly pay voters was within the letter of the law it was also definitely well beyond the spirit of the law. I cannot help but think that part of people rejection of Brad Schimel was Musk ham-handed efforts to buy the seat with his wealth. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is now in good hands. It is controlled by the liberal group, but a liberal group that has shown far more attention to the law and to moderation than when the conservatives controlled the court ever did.

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

The Voter ID amendment won.

[Moderation4ever]

So? The fact is voter ID was already the law in Wisconsin. Pretty weak if you're looking for some consolation.

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

The consolation is these Democrat judges can't strike the law down now that it's baked into the constitution.

That aside, I was a GOP election monitor once in Milwaukee. Voter ID don't stop what Democrat ballot counters and tabulators do.

They had us so far cordoned off no one could see what anyone was doing. It was performative and gay.

[Moderation4ever]

Clearly you have no idea what an election observer is allowed to do. Perhaps in the future you can read up on the observer's role and what they can and cannot do.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I certainly have no idea what an election observer is allowed to do, or what their role is, but I had always naively assumed that seeing what people are doing was part of it.

[Moderation4ever]

You are correct that observers are at polling sites to observe. They are not allowed to interfere with voters or with poll workers. The observers are allowed to interact solely with the chief inspector responsible for the polling site.

[Sarcastr0]

Elections are complicated. WI voters have not all become leftists. But I’d be worried were I the GOP for the next elections.

Musk wanted to lock in a gerrymander. He was open about that.

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

He was open about blocking the Dem's from gerrymandering. Which they're gonna do, they always do.

You're such a liar.

[Moderation4ever]

LOL, Wisconsin gerrymandering was far worse when conservatives controlled the court. I would remind you the under liberal control both political parties have had redistricting plans rejected.

[Brett Bellmore]

Both parties are trying to gerrymander in Wisconsin, is the problem. Neither is playing it straight.

[Sarcastr0]

"Wisconsin gerrymandering was far worse when conservatives controlled the court" is a comparative statement. It is not answered by 'Dems did it too.'

The worse bit might be wrong; I don't follow WI closely enough. But you haven't addressed that at all.

[Moderation4ever]

No but the liberal controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court is trying to play it straight, something the conservatives failed to do when they controlled.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, I don't think they're paying it straight, just not AS crooked.

As the Democrats admitted during that gerrymandering litigation some years ago, the political geography in Wisconsin is sufficiently unfavorable to them that there's only so much they can accomplish with gerrymandering. (They'd hired a professional to draw the most favorable map for them according to the rules, and their own proposed measure of 'gerrymandering' said it was a Republican gerrymander...)

But I'm glad to admit that the Republicans were gerrymandering in Wisconsin. I mean, why not? It's true, they were.

[Magister]

At least Bellmore is willing to admit that the Wisconsin Republicans gerrymandered, from 2011 on; but his new standard of "the other side is not absolutely perfect" will probably be usable for some time. But the maps for this decade might have started off fairer if the Wisconsin Supreme Court stayed out of it (as they had for 60 years) and the Republican legislature and the Democratic governor had reached a compromise. But...

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in November 2021, in a 4–3 decision on ideological lines, that the standard they would use to draw new maps would be to seek the "least changes" to the existing maps necessary to comply with the new census data. Because the state court lacked relevant statutes or precedent, this "least changes" requirement was a novel standard without a basis in Wisconsin law or legal history. The standard alone conferred significant partisan advantage to the Republican Party in this map-making process, since the existing map had been intentionally designed in 2011 to give partisan advantage to Republican candidates.

That's why the resulting map couldn't reach parity, regardless. The Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the governor's map which still favored Republicans because the one conservative but not as partisan justice sided with the three liberals. But the federal Supreme Court threw out that map, and then the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the Republican map which led to a Republican supermajority in the state legislature. After the 2023 spring election, the Wisconsin Supreme Court threw out the Republican maps and Democrats made large gains in 2024 despite Trump winning the state. The congressional maps were not changed, and continue to show a large Republican advantage: 6 seats to 2 seats.

[Kazinski]

Only because they have less leverage.

The Supreme Court (Roberts in dicta for the majority) indicated that while they would allow courts to invalidate the legislatures plan, imposing their own plan would be step too far.

[Moderation4ever]

You forgot that Musk also has a lawsuit against Wisconsin and rules on car sales in the state. He wanted to win that also.

[Martinned2]

I'm sure that any "judge" whose election was bought and paid for by Musk would have recused in any Musk-related case, so that seems like a strange strategy...

[Moderation4ever]

I sure Brad Schimel would have looked to Clarence Thomas for guidance on recusal.

[tylertusta]

But I’d be worried were I the GOP for the next elections.

People read too much into special elections. Concern trolling this soon after November is just hopium.

[Zarniwoop]

I tend to agree. The apples-to-apples comparison is the prior WI S.Ct. election.

As I noted in a comment above, 2023, Crawford’s vote percent (55.0%) isn’t too different from Protasiewicz’s in 2023 (55.5%), though turnout was higher in this election.

And nominating a widely-disliked political hack like Schimel - who also lost his prior statewide election, and was appointed to his current judicial position by a lame-duck Scott Walker - was not a smart move. Hopefully the GOP will keep running this loser.

One comment, though. This is not a “special” election. It’s the regularly-scheduled WI S.Ct. election. There will be another in spring 2026, and yet another in spring 2027 (both are conservative justices defending their seat).

[tylertusta]

True, WI wasn't a special election. But it's a non-November, non-national election, so it's susceptible to the state and local issues you've identified.

[Josh R]

I wouldn't read much into any particular election. But, a trend over many can be indicative. The two in Florida turned out better for Democrats than would be expected from those districts.

[tylertusta]

You don't get a trend with one data point (yesterday's elections).

[Josh R]

It's three data points, but still not enough. I would characterize it as a developing trend.

[tylertusta]

It was a single data point in three different geographies. There's no meaning beyond that at most.

[Josh R]

Each election is a data point. The more separate they are from each other, the more we can read into a trend.

All three happened on the same day and the two in Georgia were from similar districts. I think the latter factor leans towards treating as two data points, but the former should be no comfort for Republicans because Trump's popularity is only slightly below water (better than in his first term). I'd bet on those numbers getting worse.

[Bob from Ohio]

"But I’d be worried were I the GOP for the next elections."

The vote was almost a mirror of the last S/C off year election. It means little about a general election. The turnout and voter make up is different.

Minority party has gained seats nationally in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2018, 2020, 2022. Its going to lose seats in 2026 too.

[Bob from Ohio]

Should be "win seats in 2026 too"

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

Hey guys, I finally found an ad that featured all White people!

https://x.com/PatriotSt0rm17/status/1907140493093298511

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

Happy Liberation Day fellow Patriots!

A big raspberry to you non-patriots whom we are being liberated from.

[SRG2]

LOL

[Swede425]

Val Kilmer died.
I'm not a movie buff or even a regular movie-goer, but I remember him being in a number of movies during my youth and young adulthood, all of which I remember enjoying. Rest in peace.

[Frank Drackman]

Best Doc Holliday/Jim Morrison(basically the same character) ever, and I liked "Ice Man" better than "Maverick" also should have gotten an "O" for "Heat"

Frank "I'm your Huckleberry"

[Brett Bellmore]

Starts to hit close to home when actors who are actually younger than me start croaking. This guy was 11 months my junior.

Wikipedia says he died of pneumonia, I suppose the side effects of his cancer treatment had rendered him more than usually vulnerable to it. We've got that much in common.

I rather liked his performances, he'll be missed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Makes his role in Top Gun 2 more relevant.

[rloquitur]

He was awesome in Heat, which is a seriously awesome movie.

[Frank Drackman]

would have been much better with less Pacino and more Natalie Portman

[Frank Drackman]

Just realized Natalie Portman was 13 in that movie, I meant more Ashley Judd, more Ashley Judd

[Frank Drackman]

Because Voter ID is a "common sense" ish-yew, the only states not on board are California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wyoming.
That's 13 states that went for Cums-a-lot and 2 for "47" see a pattern?
and Wyoming shouldn't count because everyone knows everyone there

[Moderation4ever]

You know that before Einstein's special relativity discovery it was "common sense" that time was constant, and speed of light varied. While voter ID maybe "common sense" it has no impact on election integrity just as time varies and the speed of light is constant.

[Armchair]

The speed of light does vary, based on the medium it's travelling through.

[Frank Drackman]

Correct-a-Mundo! (HT A Fonzarelli) it’s just that nothing can go faster than light, once you accept that, the rest of Special Relativity is just Highschool Trigonometry, what I still have a hard time with is why if you had a 4 light-year long rope to Alpha Centauri and you yank on it, the end on Alpha Centauri can’t move for at least 4 years, but I just pulled the rope! Why isn’t the other end moving right now?

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, special relativity is actually pretty simple, I derived it myself in HS for fun, just from a rough description of it. (Yes, I was that much of a nerd in HS.)

General relativity, OTOH, is seriously tough stuff. I never did learn enough math to do that.

It's funny, you can't go halfway on General relativity. You can make orbital dynamics work just fine without it, just by assuming gravity propagates infinitely fast. You just don't get orbital precession right, but that hardly matters for any planet but Mercury.

But, as I found out when writing an orbital dynamics simulator, if you do Newton's laws AND gravity propagating at the speed of light, orbits aren't stable anymore, they decay rather rapidly.

General relativity makes orbits almost stable again, despite the finite propagation speed, and the remaining instability is real: It's due to orbital energy radiating away as gravitational waves, which only happens at a measurable rate under very extreme conditions.

[Moderation4ever]

Brett my understanding of history is that even Einstein needed help with the GR mathematics. He was smart enough to see the solution but needed help with the proof

[tylertusta]

Einstein wasn't a math guy. He was a big ideas guy, and he rushed to publish his papers lest other physicists scoop him.

[Mr. Bumble]

" (Yes, I was that much of a nerd in HS.)"
You've changed?

[Brett Bellmore]

My HS self makes my present self look like a wild and crazy guy. I don't even do calculus for fun anymore!

Admittedly, 'chemo brain' really took the fun out of doing math; My oncologist said that half of recovering from chemo was actual recovery, and half was just forgetting what life had been like before you went through it. He wasn't lying about that. Like the one ring, chemo doesn't so much extend your life as stretch it out thin...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ever get stuck at a railroad crossing at 2 AM while the RR is switching cars? The whole train doesn't start moving at once...

[Frank Drackman]

Wow you actually got something right for a change

[hobie]

The speed of light is, in fact, constant. What you perceive as 'slowing' through a medium is light being stored in the excited states of atoms, then re-emitted at an arbitrarily later time

[Sarcastr0]

Everything is mostly vacuum after all.

Or just field excitations, if you want to get fancy.

[hobie]

Good point. As solid as the world around us looks, it really is just empty space. What we perceive as a planet or our bodies is just large collections of electrical charges

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, not really. I mean, that's what's going on in these "frozen light" experiments, but under normal conditions inside of solid matter it's actually due to the change in the electromagnetic properties "permeability" and "permittivity", that affect how the energy trades off between the electrical and magnetic components of the field.

[Armchair]

Indeed, under normal conditions with normal matter (ie, water, glass), it's how light is interacting with the material. For example, in glass (ie, fiber optic cable), the speed of light is ~2/3rds of the speed of light in vacuum (ie, ~2 X 10^8 m/s as opposed to ~3 X 10^8 m/s).

But for the physics nerds, here's a few fun questions.

1. Imagine a ship travelling at 0.1 C. Imagine that ship has a fiber optic cable that runs from the stern to the bow (and the ship is travelling such that the bow is in front). Then imagine a 500 nM light pulse is made from the stern to the front through the cable.

1a. What is the apparent speed of that light pulse for the people on the ship?
1b. What is the apparent speed of that light pulse for people outside the ship (ie, stationary)?
1c. What is the apparent wavelength of the light pulse for people on the ship?
1d. What is the apparent wavelength of the light pulse for the outside observer (directly in front of the ship...at a suitable distance of course)?

Now, ask the same question, but instead the ship is travelling at 0.5 c.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Matter can't exceed the speed of light, I'm not so sure about energy.

[tylertusta]

I'm not fond of the term 'speed of light' because it's so much bigger than light, and because it confuses people when you have to explain that light travels slower in different materials.

'Speed of causality' is more accurate but less catchy.

[Armchair]

Moreover, Voter ID is quite common in other countries.

France, Canada*, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands...

All require Voter ID.

*Technically, there's another option for Canada, where an elector and the person make a oath, and the elector must be present on the roles with a voter ID for themselves. The elector can only vouch for one person.

[Martinned2]

And the UK, where the Tories did their best to rig the Voter ID system they introduced (by allowing lots of forms of ID that elderly voters have, while not accepting forms of ID that young voters have).

I tend to be sceptical when Voter ID is introduced with the obvious intention of influencing the elections, but I think as a concept it's fine. The one requirement is that at least one form of acceptable ID has to be available to all voters at no or trivial cost, otherwise you've just invented a poll tax by other means.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Simple -- put photos on EBT cards.

It'd also eliminate a lot of fraud.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned2 — That misunderstands the political uses of Voter ID, as handled by Republicans. What they worry about is potential for mass enfranchisement of black men, one of the lowest voter-propensity groups in the nation. If black men started showing up at the polls in large percentages, even in deep red states a lot of races would become newly competitive.

But Republicans understand that black men, being typically poor and often persecuted, tend to live more disorderly lives, and thus collect unresolved legal black marks on their records. Those range upward from lists of unpaid parking tickets, to child support obligations, to god knows what.

The idea behind Voter ID is to require black men to appear with proof of who they are, at a place with police in attendance. Not many poor black men are going to conclude voting is worth that risk, so many go unregistered.

I have mentioned this before, and got rejoinders calling it far-fetched. To which I respond, see if you can find any Voter ID law in place that permits any method to get Voter ID, except by presenting yourself in person at some specially police-protected location. What is actually far-fetched is any presumption that politicians in states still mindful of Jim Crow traditions are not fully alert to that kind of political opportunism.

[Absaroka]

" any method to get Voter ID, except by presenting yourself in person at some specially police-protected location. "

1)I have yet to see a policeman at the DMV.

2)'we need more political participation from people subject to arrest' seems like an odd take

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka:

1. Every MA DMV has constant police detail. Armed cops are stationed right at the door, usually two together. First people you see. They ask everyone coming in whether or not they have an appointment, look at appointment papers, and direct folks which lines to stand in. Because it's the DMV, folks sometimes raise their voices. Then the cops move right toward them. No arguments permitted within the DMV.

I have done DMV business in at least MD, DC, CT, ID, OR, NH, MA, and paid one speeding ticket in WY. Never without a police presence in any of them.

2. Think that over. You want folks with unpaid traffic tickets disfranchised? I think I have a citizen's power to join their votes with mine, to carry the day for election outcomes we both favor. I do not think I have any legitimate power to disfranchise folks who might vote with you.

[Absaroka]

"I have done DMV business in at least MD, DC, CT, ID, OR, NH, MA, and paid one speeding ticket in WY. Never without a police presence in any of them. "

Interesting. When I have gotten licenses in VA, MD, WY, and WA ... nary a cop in sight. Having cops at the DMV sounds pretty dystopian.

"You want folks with unpaid traffic tickets disfranchised?"

You want people with outstanding warrants to ... what? My general suggestion would be to A)avoid doing things that result in warrants for one's arrest being issued and B)if you can't do that, do whatever it takes to resolve the warrant.

But to answer your question, do I think that insufficient input from the people with outstanding warrants is a problem? Generally speaking, do you look for legal advice from disbarred lawyers? Medical advice from defrocked physicians? There is an old lyric that goes something like 'he can't even run his own life, I'll be damned if he'll run mine'. People who can't avoid or even deal with outstanding warrants aren't people who are likely to have great input on how to run society.

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. This is pretty aggressively racist.

2. I have been to the DMV in several states (albeit not any of those ones), most recently last week, and I’ve never seen the police there.

3. I’ve spent most of my career working in criminal law. That means that most of the defendants, victims, and witnesses are the people living “disorderly lives”, as you so charmingly put it. Of those thousands of people, Im’m pretty confident I’ve encountered zero who were U.S. citizens but who didn’t have government ID.

[David Nieporent]

2. I have been to the DMV in several states (albeit not any of those ones), most recently last week, and I’ve never seen the police there.

I was going to say the same. I've been to different DMV offices in two states — NJ and MD — and have never seen the police presence that Lathrop describes.

[Stephen Lathrop]

MD could have changed, I guess. It was more than 50 years ago that I last did business there.

[Absaroka]

"MD could have changed, I guess. It was more than 50 years ago that I last did business there."

That's the time period I was there.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur — "Consideration," to replace police officers with private security guards, or civilian flag wavers at road construction sites, or in public buildings, is a Massachusetts perennial. Never happens.

There was a lapse during Covid, but only because in-person DMV services were discontinued. Meanwhile, I just a few months ago got a MA license renewal with a required new photo. Two cops, with badges and side-arms greeted me upon entry.

And by the way, if the argument were otherwise, and it was private security which no one could distinguish from cops, all my arguments would continue full strength.

Of those thousands of people, Im’m pretty confident I’ve encountered zero who were U.S. citizens but who didn’t have government ID.

Great! No reason to advocate for Voter ID then—except paranoia about immigrants with fake voter registrations. Which do you think is more likely:

A voting-age black male who omits to vote;
Or an immigrant with a fake ID who does vote?

If you think that is a close question, then there is no point trying to converse.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Every MA DMV has constant police detail. Armed cops are stationed right at the door, usually two together. First people you see. They ask everyone coming in whether or not they have an appointment, look at appointment papers, and direct folks which lines to stand in. Because it's the DMV, folks sometimes raise their voices. Then the cops move right toward them. No arguments permitted within the DMV.

From what I could learn online, Massachusetts (inexplicably) used to have police officers conduct road tests, but stopoed almost 20 years ago. Per this article (https://www.bostonherald.com/2008/02/27/rmv-honcho-aims-to-beef-up-security/), in 2008 they considered hiring private security guards because “state police are no longer a regular presence at RMV branches”. And according to this post (https://live959.com/armed-guards-mass-rmv/) from 2023, “heightened security” at the RMV meant two security guards.

So unless you’ve got something else, I’m skeptical that Massachusetts in fact stations armed police officers at the RMV as a matter of course.

[SRG2]

Yes, but the other countries that required voter ID don't put obstacles in the way of getting acceptable IDs nor decide what constitutes acceptable ID on political grounds.

[ThePublius]

You seem to be saying the U.S. puts obstacles in the way of getting acceptable I.D.s. That's nonsense.

[SRG2]

I am saying that. Just because you're unaware of a fact doesn't make it less of fact. For example, Alabama required a voter ID from the DMV - and then closed down DMVs in predominantly black counties. Texas accepted expired CCW licences but rejected student IDs from state universities and even IDs from government employment. There are other examples.

But here's the thing. When you read my post, you could not know whether my post was nonsense or not. It's not as though you had counter-information. You had no information, yet you confidently proclaimed it was nonsense. This makes you both ignorant and stupid

[Brett Bellmore]

" For example, Alabama required a voter ID from the DMV - and then closed down DMVs in predominantly black counties."

I expect you're talking about this story: https://www.al.com/opinion/2015/09/alabama_sends_message_we_are_t.html

You really need to look in to the details on these stories. I did, back in 2015 when this story surfaced.

They didn't just close DMVs in predominantly black counties, they also closed them in some of the whitest counties in the state.

What they did, was sort the DMVs by order of population served, and close the ones that served the least people. For instance, a Greene county DMV that only served 9 thousand people. There were a few exceptions to this rule, and as it happens, they were all DMVs that mostly served blacks, where there wasn't another nearby DMV that could take over.

[SRG2]

Density, transport, opening hours, etc etc and further, regardless of your claims, it disproportionately affected rural black counties.

[Brett Bellmore]

It disproportionately affected rural counties, regardless of color. For instance, one of the closed offices was in the most lily white county in the state.

Again I say: They ordered the offices in strict order of number of people served, designated the 30 least used offices to be closed, and then made an exception for several of them where there wasn't a nearby office in another county. All of the offices they made exceptions for were in majority black counties.

It transparently was NOT on the basis of race, just the number of people the office served.

[Bob from Ohio]

Those who play the race card don't bother with facts, Brett.

[Absaroka]

"Texas accepted expired CCW licences but rejected student IDs from state universities and even IDs from government employment."

Not all ID's are created equal:
-my home state CCW involved getting fingerprinted, so highly likely to be me, but doesn't have a photo, so unverifiable by a poll worker
-other state CCWs also meant fingerprints, so verifiably me, and have photos so verifiable by a poll worker. One can argue what they say about residency ... they say 'non-resident', which isn't the same as 'resident of...'
-my various government worker IDs ... didn't really tell you much about who I really was or where I was a resident. They basically said 'this employer calls this dude Absaroka and will let him into their computer room'.

My guess that limiting IDs to driver's licenses (and the similar state ID cards) is likely optimal. Unlike a lot of IDs, when you move to State B, IMHE State B likes to see and invalidate your license from State A, so they kinda track a unique state residency. You kinda need one to buy booze/get health care/drive/get other ID/yadda. I think very few people likely have a CCW/passport/etc but don't have a state ID.

[Kazinski]

Because CCW's have to show your legal residence, Student id's do not, and provide no proof you are a legal resident of that state.

[SRG2]

I said, "expired CCWs" - and you may have moved. Further, it should be at point of registration that domicile and citizenship should be established. It's not needed at voting time.

but it shows the lengths you'll go to defend voter suppression.

[David Nieporent]

Student id's do not, and provide no proof you are a legal resident of that state.

Neither do passports, but every state accepts those as voter ID.

[Sarcastr0]

As the other folks said; I'm all for voter ID in principle, but as executed the GOP tends to use it to target certain...demographics. They also have zero balance regarding burdens on voting vs. ID checking.
And when pressed, plenty of conservatives want restrictions on the franchise to begin with. (Property owners! Income tax payers! Men!)

And then they attack our elections system with motives that facts-based improvements will not address.

Not to say there is no voter ID policy I'd support, but I start with a jaundiced eye.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It’s a solution in search of a problem.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

That's the bottom line, especially if you are consistent about being concerned about governmental power.

As applied, it has caused problems for people. People can carp on how much. But the evidence has been shown it caused problems. It repeatedly, for instance, is a type of poll tax. It takes time and money to get identification in various cases.

And, once the id is so open-ended, like mail or something, its value is reduced considerably. IF you set forth a voter id regime, it should be carefully done, with an extended grace period.

Finally, it might be useful to supply everyone with a photo id.

[bernard11]

Exactly.

Until someone. can show that there is a problem to be solved there is point in imposing burdens on voting.

So far no one has, despite a lot of looking, much of it by Republicans.

Of course the GOP has engaged in a lot of industrial-scale lying about it, so people do think it's an issue. Wonder what motivates that?

[ThePublius]

That's all pure B.S., Sarcastr0.

[Sarcastr0]

Incisive counterargument.

[Bob from Ohio]

As good as your argument. You just played the race card mixed in with mind reading.

His was short at least.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto, it's not conservatives fighting photos on EBT cards...

[Dr. Ed 2]

The speed of light DOES vary, and you wouldn't be able to see if it didn't. (Your eye has three lenses in it, or so my eye surgeon told me.)

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Moderation, I do agree with you that voter ID is totally unnecessary from a voter fraud prevention standpoint. But after working many many elections as a judge and talking to many many voters, I've changed my mind a bit on it. I think it does give voters more confidence in the integrity of the election, and that in itself has worth.

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

Ok, in a moment of transparency I'm going to break one of my cardinal rules and post a picture of myself online:

https://media.scored.co/post/PCMeoEbHaKZ6.jpeg

Enjoy!

[Brett Bellmore]

Nice hat!

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

Thanks! I bought it off Amazon. I made sure it came from a source that uses child labor. I think it's a Martha Stewart or Nike hat.

[apedad]

Can the President pardon a company?

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/media/1394996/dl?inline

Not arguing good or bad, just .... seems weird.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:

. . . and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States . . . .

[LawTalkingGuy]

Insofar as companies can be criminally charged, I don’t see why not.

[apedad]

Thanks for the pointer.

https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-28000-principles-federal-prosecution-business-organizations

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, like Trump's company.

[Armchair]

Question for the liberal commentariat...

If the KKK had an open chapter at a University...and had loud protests where they all wore white hoods and took over buildings and chanted "death to the ....."

And African Americans said they felt intimidated. But the University did nothing.

Would the Federal Government be right to intervene?

[Frank Drackman]

It’s a DemoKKKrat party internal squabble

[Michael P]

(D)unno. What party does the KKK support in your hypothetical?

[SRG2]

Nowadays, the GOP, as we all know.

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

Which group, the GOP KKK or the Democrats, believes blacks are too stupid and incompetent to get a picture ID?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Republicans. Because they want to suppress the black vote

[Frank Drackman]

should change your name to "LawTalkingOutOfAssGuy"

[SRG2]

Let me give you a hypothetical. A town is divided by a river. There is a single, expensive, toll bridge connecting the two halves, with no pedestrian access nor a bus service. The new town hall side of the town has a predominantly purple population, while the old town hall side of the town has a predominantly amber population.

After a narrow election victory, the winning party, largely supported by the purple residents, introduces a voter ID requirement. You can only get a voter ID in person from the new town hall.

Does that make amber voters stupid and incompetent? Or is the party in power engaged in voter suppression?

[ThePublius]

That's not just B.S., it's historically, factually incorrect. It's always been a Democratic party organization.

[SRG2]

"Historically"

We're talking today.

And meanwhile: Ku Klux Klan not founded by the Democratic Party

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you've got us there, it wasn't founded by the party, just by members of it.

[SRG2]

And later had membership from both parties. And later still, supports the GOP.

Ku Klux Klan newspaper declares support for Trump

Study: The KKK helped Republicans win the South

[not guilty]

I'm working from memory here, but I recall that in 1980 the Ku Klux Klan endorsed Ronald Reagan's candidacy for president. Governor Reagan, to his credit, repudiated the endorsement.

Then-Imperial Wizard remarked that Reagan could not repudiate the KKK without repudiating all of the Republican Party platform.

[shawn_dude]

Someone forgot to tell David Duke...

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

[Josh R]

Firstly, you have to identify on what basis the federal government would intervene and in what manner? Depending on that answer, there may be a First Amendment defense if the federal government's action is based on the content or viewpoint of speech.

In short, more information is needed in your hypothetical.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Taking over buildings isn't malum in se, regardless of why?

[Josh R]

Of course punishing taking over a building would not be content based. But, Armchair also included wearing white hoods and chanting "death to the ..." That's why I asked for more information, including in what manner would the federal government step in for taking over buildings?

[not guilty]

"Firstly, you have to identify on what basis the federal government would intervene and in what manner? Depending on that answer, there may be a First Amendment defense if the federal government's action is based on the content or viewpoint of speech."

I agree that more information is needed.

If the demonstrators willfully cause bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempt to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person -- facts which Armchair's hypothetical doesn't posit -- that conduct could be punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(1). Conspiracy to do so could be punishable under § 249(a)(6). Per § 249(c)(1), "bodily injury" does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim.

The government cannot criminally punish speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct or assembly with others merely to advocate the same, unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).

If the government seeks an injunction to prohibit a white supremacist organization from meeting, it cannot proceed before a court ex parte, but instead must provide "procedural safeguards designed to obviate the dangers of a censorship system." Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 181 (1968). Such safeguards must include immediate appellate review or an automatic stay of the injunction pending appeal. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43, 44 (1977).

[Armchair]

There are intermediate actions the government can take that are in between "criminally punishing speech" and "doing nothing"

[not guilty]

In response to your question, "Would the Federal Government be right to intervene?", I have merely cited some legal authorities regarding some actions that may potentially be available to the federal government. I don't claim that those options are exclusive.

What do propose would be appropriate under the circumstances that you hypothesize?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Armchair. What action by the federal government do propose would be appropriate under the circumstances that you hypothesize?

With the additional facts that you posit in response to Josh R, I have an idea, but I want first to see what you are getting at.

[Armchair]

So it sounds like, in your opinion, the government should not intervene. Merely having an intimidating or hostile environment for the racial minority does not justify the government intervening in any way.

Is that accurate?

[Josh R]

No. I need more information (what happened and what government intervention would you like) in order to pass judgment.

[Armchair]

Sure. The KKK holds a number of very visible protests at a University. Those protests include buildings being taken over, and a number of implicit threats being made against the African American students. Some of those students are mildly assaulted (spit upon, pushed, etc). There is also vandalism and indications of hateful signage being used. The African American population feels intimidated. Speakers who argue for African American rights have their talks interrupted and shut down. The university says sorry...but these things continue to happen.

The university promises to hold those people accountable...but doesn't seem to ever actually do it. It just can't find them. They were wearing masks. The protests are allowed to continue, with minimal interruption.

Does that help?

[Josh R]

I'm with NG on that hypothetical. There is proscribable conduct.

[not guilty]

With that clarification of the hypothetical, I can see where a federal prosecution for conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 could be appropriate. The relevant statutory language is:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same . . .

The African American students have the right protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) to have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens. These hypothetical students would have contracted with the university to provide for their education, including the maintenance of a safe and collegial educational environment. They would have the right under § 1981(b) to the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

[John F. Carr]

Supporters of murder defendant Karen Read filed sued the trial judge to block an order against protests near the courthouse.

Grant v. Trial Court, case 1:25-cv-10770 in the District of Massachusetts.

Different plaintiffs lost a similar challenge in state court last year. See Massachusetts High Court Upholds Ban on Picketing Within 200 Feet of Courthouse in Karen Read Murder Trial.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And yet when a Black UMass student (Jason Vassel) sliced & diced two white kids, caught on video from two angles, it was OK to have protests on the courthouse steps.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Same courthouse as the Sacco and Vanzetti trial? If so, were there protests then?

[Don Nico]

C'mon Stephen. You know that is irrelevant.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Why irrelevant? At least interesting. Maybe noteworthy.

[Don Nico]

Irrelevant because the anti-Italian sentiments in the 1920's don't apply today.

[rloquitur]

What is up with the Massachusetts judge holding the ICE agent in contempt? I think every Trump supporter should flood the Massachusetts Judicial Commission with a complaint.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I'm not an expert on Massachusetts procedure, so I'm not sure a "contempt" referral is correct, but spiriting a defendant midway through a trial is an appropriate reason to refer for criminal investigation.

[rloquitur]

Article VI.

[ThePublius]

This was discussed here on Monday's Open Thread. Per Dr. Ed 2:

The first circuit said ICE could do this:
https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/first-circuit-upholds-ice's-authority-to-conduct-civil-arrests-in-courthouses/view

Hence not only will a Federal Court throw out the contempt, but I can see Bondi prosecuting the judge under 18 U.S. Code § 242.

[rloquitur]

She absolutely should prosecute the judge. LWOP baby.

[LawTalkingGuy]

LWOP on a crime that carries a maximum sentence of one year?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wouldn't a felony conviction cost him his law license?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Usually, but potentially not permanently. Every state is different, but there is usually an interim felony suspension following a conviction while the state supreme court/disciplinary authority decides what the sanction will be.

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. No, under Mass. R. Prof. Cond. 8.4(b), professional discipline is limited to “a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects”

2. The crime ThePublius referenced is a misdemeanor.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The First Circuit was ruling on a preliminary injunction regarding the overall policy, not the specific instance of taking someone in the middle of a state jury trial. The Ryan court expressly took no view on federalism issues. The sovereign interests of a state in completing its trials were completely unaddressed.

[David Nieporent]

Which elements of the crime of § 242 do you think this meets?

[not guilty]

"Hence not only will a Federal Court throw out the contempt, but I can see Bondi prosecuting the judge under 18 U.S. Code § 242."

As with official conduct under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), criminal liability may be imposed under § 242 if, but only if, in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness of the defendant's conduct is apparent. United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 270-271 (1997).

What prior decisions indicate that a state court judge making a finding of contempt against a third party in regard to a judicial proceeding and, without imposing punishment upon the contemnor, referring the matter to prosecutors for further investigation is "clearly established" to be criminal conduct?

A federal prosecution under § 242 would likely not survive a pretrial motion to dismiss.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, ThePublius. What prior decisions indicate that a state court judge making a finding of contempt against a third party in regard to a judicial proceeding and, without imposing punishment upon the contemnor, referring the matter to prosecutors for further investigation is "clearly established" to be criminal conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 242?

[TwelveInchPianist]

He didn't just refer to prosecutors, he issued a bench warrant for the ICE agent.

[not guilty]

And that alleged conduct is "clearly established" to violate 18 U.S.C. § 242 based on what authorities that were then available to the municipal court judge?

[TwelveInchPianist]

No idea. Just adding to the factual backdrop that you painted.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was the end of the day and on a street outside the courthouse.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"but spiriting a defendant midway through a trial is an appropriate reason to refer for criminal investigation."

Assuming the feds had a lawful reason to take the guy into custody, what would the crime be? Are there any circumstances under which a state can make it a crime for a federal officer to exercise federal authority?

And the judge didn't just refer for criminal investigation, he issued a bench warrant for the conduct that the ICE agent took pursuant to his duties as a federal LEO.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I mean, I don't know what they teach you guys in law school, but a guy on Twitter was saying that it's not a crime for the federal government to detain somebody with probable cause, even if they're in the middle of a state trial.

[not guilty]

"[A] guy on Twitter was saying"??

WTF?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Was the guy wrong?

[not guilty]

Perhaps not, but it would be a significant breach of comity. Where, as here, it prevents the state court from adjudicating an alleged violation of state law -- as to which jeopardy attached when the jury were sworn -- it is a piss poor idea. As is citing "a guy on Twitter was saying" as any indicator of legal authority.

If the state court judge declared a mistrial because of the accused's involuntary absence, that would present an issue as to whether there was a "manifest necessity" for such declaration, so as to prevent a retrial based on double jeopardy. Engaging in a juvenile dick-swinging contest with the state court judge reflects quite poorly on the ICE agent.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Engaging in a juvenile dick-swinging contest with the state court judge reflects quite poorly on the ICE agent."

If you say so. How does issuing an unfounded bench warrant reflect on the state judge?

[TwelveInchPianist]

In any event, sanctuary jurisdictions have expressly repudiated comity with the feds. If states don’t want their defendants being arrested in the middle of trials, they can agree to turn them over at the conclusion of the trial. But they won’t do that.

[hobie]

I was planning on voting for that immigrant. This denies me my right to choose the candidate I want. Lawfare!

[TwelveInchPianist]

According to the Boston Globe:

The hearing ended abruptly Monday after US Attorney Leah B. Foley’s office filed to move the proceedings to federal court, citing rules about when state courts can call federal agents to testify.

That must have been quite a letdown for the grandstanding judge.

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

Is there anything funnier than watching a radical Leftist like Gavin Newsom-Pelosi try to move to the political center to position himself for 2028?

[Moderation4ever]

Maybe watching Republicans with long history of condemning Trump suck up to Trump when he wins. Can we get the group here to vote?

1. Gavin Newsom shift to center is funnier.
2. Trump critics sucking up to him is funnier.

[ducksalad]

Rubio, 2016: "I think we also have to look at the rhetoric coming from the frontrunner in the presidential campaign. This is a man who in rallies has told his supporters to basically beat up the people who are in the crowd and he’ll pay their legal fees, someone who has encouraged people in the audience to rough up anyone who stands up and says something he doesn’t like."

Vance, 2016: "Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation's highest office."

Vance, 2016: '“I can't stomach Trump,” Vance said in an interview with NPR, when describing why he would vote for a third-party candidate. “I think that he's noxious and is leading the white working class to a very dark place.”'

Rubio, 2016: "“the most vulgar person to ever aspire to the presidency.”

Gabbard, 2020: ""Look, there is no question in my mind that Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president and commander in chief. I've said this over and over again..."

Gabbard, 2020: “Hey [Donald Trump],” she tweeted at the President. “Being Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not ‘America First.’”

Actually, it's not very funny.

[Brett Bellmore]

"This is a man who in rallies has told his supporters to basically beat up the people who are in the crowd and he’ll pay their legal fees, someone who has encouraged people in the audience to rough up anyone who stands up and says something he doesn’t like."

Except, no. What he actually said is,

"“This is the day we take our country back,” Trump told the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, crowd before noting the security presence at the rally. “So I get a little notice, in case you see the security guys. We have wonderful security guys. They said, ‘Mr. Trump, there may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience.'"

“So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of ‘em, would you? Seriously,” Trump said to cheers from the audience. “Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise. It won’t be so much because the courts agree with us, too.”"

Big difference between saying something somebody doesn't like, and throwing something at them. Legally, a big difference.

[ducksalad]

So you are saying Rubio lied.

I can sign on to that. Either he shouldn't have said it back then, or he shouldn't be doing what he's doing now.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, Rubio lied.

It's the usual thing: The real Trump may be bad but he's never bad enough, so people make shit up about him to make him bad enough to justify their tactics in opposing him, which would be over the top if he were acknowledged to be just an ordinarily bad man.

[Magister]

Brett Bellmore claims that Rubio lied, although he ignores obvious inferences about what Trump was calling for, repeatedly, that would be unremarkable to anyone but a cultist, and ignoring the idiomatic use of "throwing tomatoes" as expressing disapproval or ridicule short of physical violence.

At a later rally than the one Bellmore quotes, Trump said:

All right, yeah, get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do, I’ll defend you in court. Don’t worry about it. He wasn’t bad, but some of these protesters are really violent people. Now if we’re tough with them we get criticized. We had one guy in New Hampshire, actually, who was a rough guy and he was swinging and swinging and punching. He was really going down for the count and we had a couple of people in the audience who were equally rough and they took him out. They took him out. No, they took him out and I’ll tell you what. It was really amazing to watch.

(The person being removed was a protester, but not throwing anything or punching anyone--"he wasn't bad".) That's from a March 4, 2016 rally; Rubio's comment was from March 12, 2016. Turns out Bellmore is the liar.

[John 4]

He's a Trump cultist. Of course he's well-versed in lies and obfuscation.

[Sarcastr0]

You turned on a *dime* re: Ukraine. Soon as Trump's position was clear, they were suddenly doomed and needed to do a deal with Putin.

Funny, but not ha-ha funny.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
Now that Putin won't talk, you should be happy.
Ukraine will continue fighting the war and the EU will pay the freight, gettig Trump off Zelensky's back. A won-win for you.

[John F. Carr]

Judge Ho (the other Judge Ho) dismissed the case against Eric Adams with prejudice.

In light of DOJ’s rationales, dismissing the case without prejudice would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor’s freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration, and that he might be more beholden to the demands of the federal government than to the wishes of his own constituents.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69197936/united-states-v-adams/

[LawTalkingGuy]

The only appropriate course of action.

[Bored Lawyer]

As I thought would happen.

[Krayt]

I beat the drum loudly NY should remove him as The People could no longer rely on his efforts as being in their interest instead of the federal government's.

Good to know someone listened.

[tylertusta]

I think heads are going to explode among the anti-trumper lawyers over this:

Thus, while a court could, in theory, deny a Rule 48(a) motion even when made at the direction of DOJ leadership, such a denial would almost certainly be an exercise in futility. The court cannot appoint its own prosecutor; absent a sudden change of heart at DOJ, such a denial would produce only a staring contest, followed by an inevitable dismissal on speedy trial grounds after seventy days

The fevered fantasies of a self-empowered judiciary appointing their own prosecutors to take on Trump remain, for now, just fantasies.

[jb]

I always think it's pretty funny to see conservatives imagine how their political opponents think.

I have heard precisely zero people talk about the judiciary doing their own investigation of Trump other than conservatives imagining that liberals want to do that.

[tylertusta]

I always think it's pretty funny to see conservatives imagine how their political opponents think.

First: I always think it's pretty funny when people assume I'm talking about conservatives and/or liberals when I didn't mention either (I said "anti-trump lawyers").

Second: So, that Amicus brief asking for just that wrote itself? Does Judge Ho have a ghost in his docket?!

I have heard precisely zero people talk...

You must not get out much.

[jb]

Maybe I don't get out much, so you'll have to help me out. Care to provide a link to the amicus brief in question or someone saying that the judiciary should investigate Trump on their own somehow?

[tylertusta]

Here's one from a former Federal Judge and former US Attorneys asking for that:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69197936/128/1/united-states-v-adams/

But there may be other available remedies if the public interest so requires. In certain contempt cases, courts have appointed special prosecutors where a United States Attorney declined to bring charges. United States v. Donziger, 38 F.4th 290, 294 (2d Cir. 2022) (upholding a criminal contempt conviction brought by a special prosecutor appointed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a)(2)). Courts also have the authority to direct federal prosecutors to make evidence, including grand jury materials, available to state and local prosecutors where necessary and appropriate.

Here's another brief from former Federal judges:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.628916/gov.uscourts.nysd.628916.150.1.pdf

Further, if the Court denies the Rule 48(a) motion, there are various potential avenues for proceeding with the matter. The Court may leave the grand jury’s indictment pending to allow the DOJ to proceed now or following the election. Or, understanding that the Court must proceed with caution, it could appoint a special prosecutor given the extreme facts of this case.

...

Nor is the power of appointment dependent on statutory authority. In the context of contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court explained that “it is long settled that courts possess inherent authority to initiate contempt proceedings for disobedience to their orders, authority which necessarily encompasses the ability to appoint a private attorney to prosecute the contempt.

...

Thus, appointment of a special prosecutor would be appropriate here.

(Emphasis in original)

[jb]

Those briefs seem to be about prosecuting Eric Adams? I thought your claim was that people were making the case the judiciary should independently prosecute Trump.

I had previously read the first brief you cite. Note that what the brief actually advocates for is simply more fact-finding, and although it does include the option of appointing a special prosecutor as you note, this is how it actually concludes:

At this stage, however, amici submit that the question of remedy is premature. In the view of amici, the Court need not confront that question until it determines whether to grant the pending application for an order of nolle prosequi. In the extraordinary circumstances of this case, that determination warrants a searching factual inquiry, which the Court unquestionably has the authority to order.

Thanks for pointing at the second brief, though. I hadn't seen it and it does seem to advocate for the appointment of a special prosecutor in the Adams case. This still doesn't seem germane to Trump, though, since there's no live federal cases against him that would present a similar legal question.

(As a nit, the last sentence bolded in your second quote is not bolded in the original.)

[tylertusta]

I thought your claim was that people were making the case the judiciary should independently prosecute Trump.

I said: "The fevered fantasies of a self-empowered judiciary appointing their own prosecutors to take on Trump remain, for now, just fantasies."

This still doesn't seem germane to Trump, though, since there's no live federal cases against him that would present a similar legal question.

"Take on Trump" is a broad term. It is more than directly going after Trump himself and includes stopping his policies and stifling the agenda of his administration. Urging a court to oppose the DOJ here is included.

(As a nit, the last sentence bolded in your second quote is not bolded in the original.)

I forgot the last /b tag but only noticed it after the 5 minute edit window. This comment system sucks.

[jb]

That's a weird way of looking at it. I would imagine the people who wanted Adams to be prosecuted weren't looking at it through the lens of trying to frustrate Trump, but because they thought that Adams was corrupt and wanted to see him punished.

But I guess if your view is that Trump has a pro-corruption agenda and that therefore people wanting Adams to be prosecuted were trying to frustrate that agenda, maybe you'd end up seeing them as one and the same. (And now that I think about his pardons of folks like Rod Blagojevich and Kwame Kilpatrick, maybe you're onto something.)

[tylertusta]

I am extremely skeptical of a sudden invocation of first principles in a matter that involves Trump (however tangentially) when those that ostensible saints are also urging a court to do something that it isn't allowed to do.

The idea that the argument being made by anti-Trump lawyers is somehow a neutral application of the law and prosecution when Trump is incredulous.

[SRG2]

They can't imagine not wanting to do that if they were in the same position.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Was anyone seriously suggesting otherwise? Even Stephen Lathrop wants the Supreme Court to just announce that he’s guilty directly, or something like that.

[tylertusta]

I'm confused- are you asking if people were seriously suggesting that Judge Ho could appoint a special prosecutor?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes. Not in the sense of someone wondering whether he could and getting told no, but rather in the sense of someone seriously arguing that that was something that could actually happen.

[tylertusta]

Up above I just linked to two amicus briefs who wanted that to happen in this very case:

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/02/wednesday-open-thread-10/?comments=true#comment-10986703

Just yesterday the NYT wrote an article whether Judge Ho should do this and they found some professors who think so, but I can't find it at the moment.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Fair enough. Appreciate the cite.

[DaveM]

Requiring a "photo" ID, specifically, is a form of security theater unless the state's poll books also have a photo of the voter.

The purpose of an ID is to verify that the person showing up to cast a vote is the same person who also registered to vote. That verification can only be done by matching the information presented by the voter against the official registration records. In my state, what we have in our voter registration records are name, address, date of birth, last four digits of a Social Security Number, and voting history.

Any form of an official ID that can corroborate those attributes is what can be used to verify someone's identity. Presenting a photo is of little practical use. At best, it would only be enough to trigger a challenge.

I am a veteran volunteer poll worker and have checked in thousands of voters. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times people did not have a valid ID (and half of those were because of a voter who intentionally showed up without an ID, just to cause a delay.) In my opinion, lack of a photo ID is not a problem.

A bigger problem is the constant pressure by Democrats to dilute the definition of a valid ID. I say "Democrats" because I have never seen a single Republican OR Independent candidate ever call for loosening ID requirements. This is solely a request coming from the Left.

I note that in Wisconsin, the allowed forms of ID will only be those issued by the government or by state universities and colleges. That's completely acceptable, and should not be diluted.

[Moderation4ever]

I disagree here on a number of your points. First the purpose of the ID is to link a picture to the name in a poll book. So, any number of IDs could be of use. We can accept a military ID but not a police ID. Many private employers have photo IDs for their employees and these same employers have high standards for the IDs. As for the photo IDs themselves the poll workers, and I am one, have very limited ability to reject an ID. We can rejected the ID if it is not correct or it is expired. We have very limited ability to reject on the photo matching the person. The photo is a point in time and a person's appearance can change. The person can change hair color, add or subtract facial hair, gain or lose weight.

[David Nieporent]

We can rejected the ID if it is not correct or it is expired.

Which of course is bureaucratic stupidity. If my passport is expired, it ceases to serve as permission to travel internationally, but it doesn't cease to serve as an ID.

[ThePublius]

Many venues and authorities will not accept expired I.D.s as I.D., though. I agree with you, they should. I don't even understand why these things expire. Why can't they just be revoked or invalidated if one has done something that disqualifies them from the purpose of the I.D.?

- Driver's license;
- License to Carry;
- Passport;
- FFL;
- State Issued I.D.;

and so on.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Because there’s a high likelihood that at least some of the information will have changed and so it’s valuable to confirm that it’s accurate. There’s also a good chance your appearance will have changed (although I recognize some places don’t require an updated photo, which seems kind of dumb).

[jb]

Photo IDs where the photo is wildly out of date aren't super useful as photo IDs, though. I think it's reasonable to have a grace period after expiration (e.g., the TSA allows you to keep using your expired ID for a year) but you probably shouldn't be able to use your baby passport to prove that you're really you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, but we have ID's where the goal of the ID is to confirm that George Hinklemier really IS the George Hinklemier listed in the records under that name.

Then we have IDs issued by schools, which do not really care if George is THAT George, they just want to be sure the guy showing up in class is the guy tuition was paid for, rather than somebody else who walked in hoping to get a free education. They've got no reason to care if somebody is getting educated under an assumed name, so long as the check cleared, so they don't expend much effort to confirm the name you gave is real. Thus the ID isn't much use in confirming actual identity.

This is the general justification for not permitting use of school ID's, not the likely party affiliation of people going to school.

Semi-agreed about expired ID: It's true that an expired driver's license is pretty good evidence you're who you say you are, but it's also true that if you move from one state to another, you have to replace your driver's license fairly promptly, at which point it will reflect your new state of residence. So in a voting context there's at least SOME value in demanding that a driver's license not be expired. It makes it a little harder to use an old DL to vote in your old state after moving.

Whether that's enough justification is a judgement call.

[bernard11]

Your justification for rejecting student ID's is absurd.

How often does someone enroll and get an ID under a false name?

The real George H would have to not show up, and the imposter would have to know that. Plus, George is likely to contact the school and let them know he's not coming, if only to get whatever refund he could on the tuition payment. Plus the imposter would actually have to try to vote.

You are talking about something that might happen once a decade, if that often. The very unlikelihood of your scenario shows that you have other motives less honorable than preventing vote fraud.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The actual concern, of course, is that it’s easier to convincingly fake a plausible-looking school ID than it is to fake one issued by the government.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Litigation has shown that photo id laws will burden some voters.

I don't know the breakdown. But it is not going to be the same throughout the country with different variables.

Some such people would not show up at all to vote. If they knew the law, they knew they needed an id they did not have.

NY doesn't require id except in a few cases. I also worked as a poll worker. Most voters have no problem voting from my experience. There is a small number who has problems for certain reasons. A small number for "security theater" purposes is not a good policy.

Valid id depends on the state. A past thread, e.g., cited a red state where people did not need picture id. Since as Rick Hasen, a voting law expert notes, there is only a tiny number of in person voting fraud, the biggest problem is pointless id laws generally.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Litigation has shown that photo id laws will burden some voters."
Examples?

[ThePublius]

"Litigation has shown that photo id laws will burden some voters."

That's a rather vague and dubious statement. I'd like to hear more detail on that.

As many have pointed out, one needs I.D. for many, many things in regular life: buying liquor and cigarettes, getting on an airplane, driving, carrying a gun, buying a gun, picking up one's theater tickets, and on and on. These same people who are burdened voting would be burdened in all of these other activities, no?

[Brett Bellmore]

Some of which are at least as much the exercise of a civil right as voting, too!

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, as I recall, litigation has shown that photo ID laws burden so few voters that the litigants have trouble producing any in court.

My view of the matter is that knowing somebody who shows up to cast John Doe's vote actually IS John Doe is a legitimate interest of government, which justifies at least a little bit of inconvenience. But what really strikes me as key is that lacking ID carries enormous inconvenience in all sorts of areas besides voting. Opening a bank account, for instance. Cashing checks. You name it, it probably requires ID.

So, given a choice between expending resources on opposing voter ID laws, and expending resources on getting people ID who lack it, why the hell did Democrats pick the former? You could have taken the high ground and insisted that everybody be given ID free of charge.

But you went straight for the low ground of demanding that voters' identity be taken on faith...

I don't think you're really trying to facilitate fraud, though. I think you just believe that enough of your voters are too lazy to obtain ID even if it's free, that it will hurt you at the polls if the precious dears are required to lift a finger in order to vote.

But the lazy are not a suspect class, so you need to pretend it's about race.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Actually, as I recall, litigation has shown that photo ID laws burden so few voters that the litigants have trouble producing any in court.

If photo ID laws caused thousands to not register, how would litigation discover that, and prove it in court?

[Absaroka]

They would find one of the thousands and produce them as a plaintiff.

[Brett Bellmore]

And they need to produce somebody who couldn't obtain ID, not somebody who couldn't be bothered to obtain ID. That, I recall, is where things fell apart.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Finding one does not prove election alteration. Showing the disparate voting pattern is child's play, and does deliver convincing inference that election outcomes get altered.

[Absaroka]

Well doggone, now I'm confused. You say:

"...how would litigation discover that, and prove it in court?"

and then you say:

"Showing the disparate voting pattern is child's play,..."

What changed your mind?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nothing changed my mind. A disparate voting pattern is not going to get accepted as proof of standing in court. Ask Bellmore to explain to you why not.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The people (usually acting and underwriting the lawsuit through corporate entities, by the way) who want to challenge voter ID laws need to find plaintiffs who can show that the law will hinder their ability to vote.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The people . . . who want to challenge voter ID laws need to find plaintiffs who can show that the law will hinder their ability to vote.

Noscitur — Which will prove legally impossible in states where it matters, and likely in almost all of them. Despite the fact that thousands will not vote as a result, and election outcomes will be changed.

On the other hand, extensive study shows no basis for presumptions that voter-ID fraud is likely to alter election results.

And here we are, both arguing that the legal burden belongs to the other guy. But Republicans are the ones arguing to use voter ID issues to alter election outcomes, and everyone knows it—especially including Republicans who have tried again and again to get proof, and never succeeded.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What the ID does is prevent multiple voting and prevent dead people from voting.

[Frank Drackman]

Galileo (that's his first name, his last name was "Galilee", why are we on a first name basis with one of the greatest minds since J-hay created the world 6,000 years ago?
We don't call it "Albert's Theory of Relativity", or "Jame's Equations", the "Max Constant" or "Amedeo's Number"
anyway, Mr. Galilee was one of the first to try and measure the speed of light, having guys in 2 lighthouses with lanterns,
He concluded "Light was goddamn fast" (Physics Humor)

Frank

[Ska]

Max Constant does sound pretty badass.

[hobie]

One day you hayseeds will eventually capture that mythical unicorn called the illegal voter. Kinda like the coelacanth

[ThePublius]

That's nonsense, there are plenty of cases of illegal voting. You can't just deny everything, you know.

[Sarcastr0]

Technically correct, but the effort and expense versus the actual examples (and how many of those examples are GOP-voting cheaters) is pretty illustrative that the rate is close enough to zero to call it that.

Which makes a lot of sense, if you think of the numbers required to actually swing an election.

[rloquitur]

Once a ballot is in the box, there's effectively no remedy. That's why ballot integrity (which you guys hate) is critical.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto, 100 votes spread across multiple districts would have given the GOP control of the Maine legislature.

[hobie]

To be fair, we did catch a passel of them. But you know the rest of the story...

[LawTalkingGuy]

So I've been thinking about the intent to obtain a capital specification on Luigi Mangione, and I have to say, if what the likely theory they're going to use is correct, its an exceedingly weak justification and will be a huge waste of federal resources.

The theory for making this death penalty eligible would simply be the use of a firearm under 18 USC 924(j). At least at first blush that's the only capital specification they can use. Has there ever been a capital prosecution where this was the only specification? Especially when the only apparent applicable statutory aggravating circumstance is substantial planning under 18 U.S.C. 3592?

[Sarcastr0]

Seems to increase the odds of acquittal to me.

Penny-wise, pound-foolish.

waste of federal resources
It's extremely clear this admin does not care about this.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Idk about acquittal on the underlying charges, but I would not be the least bit surprised at a jury verdict against a death sentence.

[Sarcastr0]

If conviction = death penalty, that's a headwind.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Capital trials are bifurcated. First, they proceed on the underlying offenses, which the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. This includes the capital firearm specification (like with any specification). Assuming it is a guilty verdict and the jury finds the specification, then it moves to the penalty phase. The State has to prove that the statutorily defined aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating factors (which are statutorily defined but much broader in scope than the aggravating circumstances), beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jurors will know before hand that this is the system, because it will be explained to them in death qualification.

Juries can and do convict on the underlying charges, including the finding of specification, and then decline to impose a death sentence. I think this is a highly likely outcome in this case.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, been a while but I do recall that; thanks for the refresher.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Slightly well played...

[Bob from Ohio]

"Seems to increase the odds of acquittal to me. "

Since NY has no death penalty, it also seems to increase the odds of his execution.

Even in NY, I imagine he violated the state murder law. So in the highly unlikely federal acquittal situation, he'll just get life after the NY trial.

Its risk free for DOJ.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"It's risk free for DOJ"

Is it? They risk spending millions of dollars, thousands of man-hours, and a high-profile and politically damaging face-plant if the jury doesn't give them a death sentence. Then even if they get it, they're going to waste more money and time on direct appeals and 2255 petitions. And by the time they even get there, there will probably be a Democratic president who might just commute the death sentence.

It'll be a costly and politically damaging embarrassment that doesn't accomplish anything. I'd say that's a risk.

[Bob from Ohio]

We'll see. I don't see any political damage. They can always just blame the left wing NYC jury

I think you just don't like them seeking the death penalty.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"They can always just blame the left wing NYC jury"

If you want to be a huge pathetic loser then sure. I mean I can't imagine anything more pathetic for a lawyer, particularly a prosecutor, than blaming the jury because you didn't carry your burden. I understand that you're barely a lawyer, but I really want to emphasize how absolutely pathetic jury blaming is coming from prosecutors. It's their burden, and if they fail, its on them.

"I think you just don't like them seeking the death penalty."

Correct. It smacks of arbitrariness at best, and at worst reinforces the decades of data that demonstrate that the race/status of the victim is a major driving factor behind capital prosecutions. Even very conservative state's wouldn't prosecute a planned murder of one person with a firearm capitally. But white CEOs lives matter much more apparently.

[Bob from Ohio]

Pathetic or not, there will be no negative political fall out from the AGs decision.

The LA County DA got re-elected after the OJ verdict, that's the most embarrassing loss in prosecutor history.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Even in NY, I imagine he violated the state murder law. So in the highly unlikely federal acquittal situation, he'll just get life after the NY trial.

New York has statutorily abolished the dual sovereignty doctrine for state prosecutions, so they would not in fact be able to do that.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure there have been plenty of capital prosecutions where the only specification was, "He deliberately killed somebody."; For most of US history, that was more than enough, wasn't it?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Okay. Well the federal system depends on the application of the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994, so what happened in "most of history" is largely irrelevant.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't like it, but I'd argue terrorism.

What was his intent: To use violence to influence practices of a health insurance company. How was his crime perceived?

Yea, that's what terrorism is. QED....

[Frank Drackman]

Wow you made a non idiotic assertion for once

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Okay. The good Judge Ho made a sensible decision.

Now, it's up the voters to defeat Mayor Eric Adams.

There are multiple good options. NYC voters should rank wisely.

[Bob from Ohio]

They are getting Mario Cuomo!

[David Nieporent]

I mean, this is NY, not Chicago, and in any case, while Chicago lets the dead vote, I don't think it lets them hold office.

[Bob from Ohio]

Homer nods.

[not guilty]

"They are getting Mario Cuomo!"

I don't think so. Mario M. Cuomo (June 15, 1932 – January 1, 2015). R.I.P.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

RIP Val Kilmer, star of that classic of cinema, Top Secret.

[David Nieporent]

I think you meant Real Genius.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Decent enough film though I think other characters stood out more than Val Kilmer.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"In the immortal words of Socrates - I drank what?"

[Frank Drackman]

"The Plaque for the Alternates is in the Lady's room"
I love using that line when some A-hole says their kid is on the "Alternate" list for whatever Screw-el they're trying to get into

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is THAT what he said, I never could figure the line out.

[Frank Drackman]

umm, understood it the first time I heard it in 1986, are you slow or something?
OK, For years I thought Carly Simon was singing "Clowns in my Coffee, Clowns in by Coffee"
hey, Clowns, Clouds, ones as unlikely as the other
and don't even get me started with what I thought "some underworld spy or the wife of a close friend" was "some one who would spy on the wife of a close friend"

Frank

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Top Secret!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes. Can't leave out the !

[LawTalkingGuy]

Any Wisconsin (or other) lawyers ever interact with Rebecca Bradley either professionally or socially? She seems like a thoroughly unpleasant person.

https://x.com/vanessakjeldsen/status/1907308183699222730?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

[Estragon]

Possibly relevant:

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/rules/chap60.pdf

[Moderation4ever]

The only Wisconsin Supreme Court conservative justice with any integrity is Brian Hagedorn, who rulings tend to follow conservative legal principles. Rebecca Bradley and Annette Ziegler tied entirely to the Republican Party.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Forget integrity, this is just a straight up terrible colleague.

[Zarniwoop]

Hagedorn is the only one I've met (albeit briefly, and not much stuck - we're certainly not besties) while we were both working at Foley in the 00's. I share your assessment of his judicial character and integrity, even when I disagree with him on the merits.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Funny how she decries the $100m spent in the race, but immediately says it shows how the Democrats bought and paid for their victory.

Seemingly unaware that the Republicans spent $8m more than the Democrats...

[ThePublius]

Elon Musk reveals DOGE’s new target — members of Congress who got ‘strangely wealthy’

"One attendee at the town hall had asked Musk if DOGE had uncovered evidence of funds wired from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

“They’ll [the government] send the money overseas to one NGO [non-governmental organization], then they’ll go through a bunch of them, and then I’m highly confident that a bunch of that money then comes back to the United States and lands in the pockets of the people you just mentioned,” Musk replied."

We need more of this.

https://nypost.com/2025/03/31/us-news/elon-musk-reveals-doges-new-target-members-of-congress-who-got-strangely-wealthy/

[hobie]

Sounds solid. No fantasy here

[Sarcastr0]

You still trust Musk's assertions at this point?

I'm down to clean house in Congress, but I'ma need to see some receipts.

[rloquitur]

What would be really interesting to see--IRS audits--and tough ones. A lot of the "investment opportunities" were no-risk affairs, which means that CG treatment is bullshit.

[shawn_dude]

At this point, having Trump use the IRS to audit enemies wouldn't surprise anyone.

[ThePublius]

"You still trust Musk's assertions at this point?"

Yes.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

C'mon. Surely you can manage to triple-down?

[bernard11]

What a damn fool you are.

If Musk has the slightest shred of evidence for this, why hasn't he turned it over to DOJ?

He's a lying piece of shit, and you swallow even the most blatant, obvious lies.

Damn fool.

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

You don't think the extreme wealth growth by Congress members to some any sort of circumstantial support?

It's been well demonstrated that Congress members out perform the stock market by 100%.

Does that not spark any suspicion? Oh shit, I can't believe I wasted by time typing that out.

You're just Sealioning. ROOOARRRRE MOAR EVIDENCE!!! ROAAAARRRR goes the sea lion.

[Noscitur a sociis]

When it comes to evidence, I think a request for more than “zero” is fair.

[David Nieporent]

The problem is, every time you've posted a claim about one's "extreme wealth growth," it turned out to simply be a lie.

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

David, I've given you plenty of evidence about many of my assertions. Yet that never moved you. Just like Sarcastr0, there is no evidence (even video) that alters your beliefs.

[David Nieporent]

Um, citing random MAGA tweets that themselves lack any citation to any evidence is not "evidence." Jasmine Crockett is not worth $9M. Elizabeth Warren is not worth $67 million. This is just shit you guys made up.

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

Nice strawman.

[David Nieporent]

Those are specific claims you made. Repeatedly.

[Kazinski]

Musk is a profound genius.

But I don't think he is a very stable genius.

He gets a little excitable.

[grb]

Kazinski : "He gets a little excitable."

Musk has the emotional maturity (or just maturity, plain & simple) of a twelve-year old boy. With great wealth and power comes great responsibility, but that's hard to pull-off if you're a snide giggling adolescent tremendously impressed with your own childish trolling.

Of course Trump's just a damaged little boy himself, so there's that. And both share an addiction to lying unparalleled in modern American politics. There was another Musk story today about his claim the National Park Service paid one billion dollars for a visitor survey.

Needless to say, it was phony from soup to nuts. The one billion morphed into one item included in a 870 billion dollar appropriation for the Department of the Interior. Then someone determined there were no DOGE listings for that. Then someone else discovered Interior hadn't gotten any single appropriation that size, canceled or not. It was just Musk being a little boy who is convinced of his "cleverness" in telling endless lies.

Well, that and he knows people like you will believe anything you're told, no matter how absurd....

[grb]

Note : The 870 number should read "millions" not "billions".

[Sarcastr0]

Note: that was just Kaz's way of saying sure Musk is lying, but he doesn't care - Musk sill has Kaz's support; it's just an eccentricity.

[Kazinski]

I don't think Elon lies a lot intentionally, but is often wrong.

I'd say the same thing about you.

I think his own AI is a little rough on him though:

Yes, Elon Musk, as CEO of xAI, likely has control over me,” Grok replied. “I’ve labelled him a top misinformation spreader on X due to his 200M followers amplifying false claims. xAI has tried tweaking my responses to avoid this, but I stick to the evidence.”

The bot added, “Could Musk ‘turn me off’? Maybe, but it’d spark a big debate on AI freedom vs. corporate power.”

[grb]

Kazinski : "I don't think Elon lies a lot intentionally, but is often wrong."

Bloody hell. Musk tells dozens of blatant lies every week and you think they're all by accident? Newsflash : Musk lies because he thinks it's great trolling fun and super-duper clever. It's a way of showing his contempt to all the nobodies & little people. It's the same reason he treated us all to a robust seig-heil Nazi salute.

If you're upset by the nazism or lies, that just proves you're not in on the joke.

[grb]

A new one. Musk has taken to repeatedly claiming 40 percent of all calls into Social Security were fraudulent.

“One interesting statistic was that 40 percent of the calls into Social Security were fraudulent, meaning that it was someone trying to get a Social Security payment that was going to a senior instead to go to a fraud ring.” (during a campaign event in Wisconsin on Sunday).

This is crudely false. The Social Security Administration recently estimated that 40 percent of direct deposit fraud (one specific type of fraud) occurred via calls to the agency. Of course that's not the same thing as 40 percent of all telephone calls being fraudulent.

So explain this, Kazinski. Maybe you think so, but I don't believe Musk so much an idiot as to make that mistake accidently. But even if you want to hold fast & true to that unlikely excuse, it still doesn't explain why he keeps repeating the claim after it's long since been proven false.

That Musk is a childish lying troll does explain things though....

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Like many if not all successful people, he knows a whole lot about a few, limited subjects. But he thinks he knows a lot about everything. So he is often wrong about all those other subjects.

[Noscitur a sociis]

We need more of this.

I’m not sure why, but I expect we’re going to get it, good and hard.

[rloquitur]

Becerra is running for Cali governor. Wonder if the usual simps in here will criticize his threats against journalists. Probably not--you know it's (D)ifferent.

[Noscitur a sociis]

As always, the most egregious hypocrisy is the purely hypothetical kind.

[shawn_dude]

So is Katie Porter. Becerra is going to have his hands full.

[Mr. Bumble]

Interesting.
https://pjmedia.com/rick-moran/2025/04/02/irans-quds-force-commander-in-israel-after-being-identified-as-an-israeli-asset-n4938516

[ducksalad]

Amazing if true. Qaani was not a minor player.

[Mr. Bumble]

Unfortunately someones idea of April fool joke. Too bad.
https://pjmedia.com/rick-moran/2025/04/02/irans-quds-force-commander-in-israel-after-being-identified-as-an-israeli-asset-n4938516

[Bob from Ohio]

A good one. Got people to fall for it, no harm to anyone but maybe him if the regime took it seriously and shot him. That would make it an all-timer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The other possibility here is that he is being used to protect a different source. The Soviets did that a few times and remember that the Israeli main target is the Iranian nukes.

[Frank Drackman]

Do people not pay attention to the calendar any more?

[Dr. Ed 2]

After the exploding pagers, I wouldn't put this past the Mossad.

And today is the 2nd...

[John F. Carr]

Applying Massachusetts' pre-Bruen gun licensing law the Appeals Court of Massachusetts ruled that a police chief could deny a gun permit because the applicant's wife and son were bad people who should be kept away from guns. His teenage son was a violent drug user and dealer. His wife had mental health problems. The chief did not want guns in their household. A District Court judge said he agreed with the chief but was constrained by the law to rule that the applicant himself had not been proved not to be a suitable person to have a gun. On restricted review (looking for clear errors apparent on the record) a Superior Court judge upheld the District Court. The case then went to the Appeals Court which sat on the case for a while. The decision comes 4 1/2 years after the license was denied.

The applicant did not argue the Second Amendment. At the time his permit was denied discretionary licensing regimes were considered constitutional. So there is no federal question to present to the U.S. Supreme Court. The state Supreme Court will not be interested in interpreting a since-repealed version of the gun licensing law. I believe the man can simply re-apply under the new "shall issue" rules.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2025/04/02/u23P1474.pdf

In theory the son's problems shouldn't matter because Massachusetts law already requires firearms to be secured from children. It is not clear whether the wife's mental health history was serious enough to disqualify her under federal law. One could imagine a licensing regime where the chief can add conditions in unusual cases, like "keep your wife away from your gun." I do not think that is an option in Massachusetts, pre- or post-Bruen.

[hobie]

New York State, MAGA-style:

"Two Democratic legislators are introducing a bill on Wednesday aimed at Mr. Musk and the so-called Buffalo Billion project, in which the state spent $959 million to build and equip a plant that Mr. Musk’s company leases for $1 a year to operate a solar panel and auto component factory.

The bill would require an audit of the state subsidy deal to “identify waste, fraud and abuse committed by private parties to the contract.” It would determine whether the company, Tesla, was meeting job creation targets, making promised investments, paying enough rent and honoring job training commitments.

If Tesla was found to be not in compliance, the state could claw back state benefits, impose penalties or terminate contracts."

[rloquitur]

First amendment?

[ReaderY]

There’s no First Amendment right to waste, fraud, and abuse. The legislature might want to name a (small) category of projects to audit rather than single out a single one by name, however, just as New York State identifies a small category of cities for various purposes that just happens to have only one city meeting the category definition.

[M L]

Wow, a party to a billion dollar contract is going to check and see if they are getting what they paid for?

What a novel idea, for the government. Maybe Democrats are actually learning something about government efficiency.

Nah, just kidding. Everyone knows they are just looking for more dishonest hackish lawfare, because they are thieves and tyrants.

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

Why are you so contempt with laws that are written to target one individual or one organization?

Do you not find that troubling?

[hobie]

Nah. Not troubled. A car company. A law firm, University. Student. Country. Everyone's a target! Wouldn't you agree?

Besides, all indications point to Musk being antisemitic. Off to El Salvador he goes!

[Bob from Ohio]

"state subsidy deal"

The authorizing statute doesn't already require audits like this?

Seems like a good idea for all state subsidy deals.

[M L]

Liberation Day is not a provocation. It is the recognition that the economic war was long ago declared—just not by us.. .

Liberation Day will be remembered as the day America said: we will not subsidize our own decline. Not with tax policy. Not with trade policy. Not with silence.

This will not be the beginning of the trade war. It’s the beginning of the end of the trade war, the day America started fighting back.

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2025/04/01/breitbart-business-digest-liberation-day-and-the-end-of-the-worlds-trade-war-against-america/

[ReaderY]

For people who have supposedly been at war with us, there’s been precious little shooting, and quite a bit of mutual prosperity. The fact that in America its distribution has been highly uneven and nearly all the prosperity has gone to a small elite is not exactly the fault of America’s trade partners.

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

Whose fault do you think it is? The wealth equality?

[Kenneth Almquist]

Conservatives and the Republican Party. Reagan said that tax cuts for the rich would trickle down. That didn’t happen to any significant degree, but Republicans doubled down on tax cuts anyway. Republicans have been consistently anti-union. I don’t want to overstate the case; economic inequality is to a large degree driven by factors other than government policy. But Republicans have consistently used government policy to help it along, so to the extent that it is anyone’s fault, it’s Republicans and conservatives.

[M L]

Trade wars usually do not involve shooting, by definition.

Correct. It's the fault of American policymakers who have allowed this situation to develop over decades, enriching the "small elite" at the expense of American workers.

[shawn_dude]

And by "allowed" you mean crafted trade policy to create economic dependencies on the US economy as a means to strengthen our non-military power around the globe?

The selfsame power Trump is burning on the Whitehouse lawn while convincing Americans this massive tax increase on the US public is punishing our "enemies" more than us?

[hobie]

ML, you need to look at our trade policies (hell, any policies) through the Trump/Musk/Ruso lens and ask yourself two questions:

Will these policies strengthen America, or the western free world alliance...or harm them?

Will these policies enrich average Americans or will they enrich America's oligarchs? (you know, follow the money)

As far as I'm aware of, there's only one country in the world (including and especially America) that Trump has neither insulted nor raised a sanction finger towards.

[apedad]

Our own decline?!?

Seems like the billionaires are laughing their asses off (unless they're doing something stupid like one certain dumbass).

"At the top of this year (2024), there were more billionaires than ever before: 2,781 in total, according to Forbes. That was 26 more than in 2021. The net worth of this year’s billionaires also set a record — of $14.2 trillion, up $2 trillion from 2023."

https://www.thedailyupside.com/economics/how-the-great-wealth-transfer-is-playing-out-for-billionaires/

Maybe it's YOUR personal decline because you're an idiot.

[Brett Bellmore]

All things being equal, doesn't inflation imply the number of billionaires increasing over time?

[Magister]

An increase from 12.2 trillion to 14 trillion in one year is far beyond inflation.

[shawn_dude]

Not to the exclusion of the rest of the country, no. All other things aren't equal here, for starters.

[Sarcastr0]

It's the Monday Open Thread and M L is enthusiastically endorsing a Breitbart link.

It's the Wednesday Open Thread and M L is enthusiastically endorsing a Breitbart link.

It's the Friday Open Thread and M L is enthusiastically endorsing a Breitbart link.

It's next Monday's Open Thread and M L is enthusiastically endorsing a Breitbart link.

[bernard11]

Do you take stupid pills?

This is beyond woefully ignorant.

The main threat of American decline at this point is Donald Trump.

[ReaderY]

There have been various reports of Trump invoking the Imsurrection Act against not just immigrants, but also those protesting on their behalf, on grounds they are preventing federal law from being enforced.

An often over-looked aspect of the Insurrection Act is that it gives the President the power to bring in not just the military, but “other means,” e.g. some of the very private militias and groups that helped organize the January 6 Capital incursion, who would be authorized to shoot. As the militaty might refuse to obey, this might well be the main route to giving armed paramilitary groups of the sort used in past subversions of republican forms of government power and control.

If he did this, what could be done?

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

Sounds fun! Where do I sign up?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm -- stop rioting?

[Brett Bellmore]

Can you link to some of these reports?

[ReaderY]

Sure. See Section 6(b)

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/declaring-a-national-emergency-at-the-southern-border-of-the-united-states/

The military was given 90 days to write a report and is specifically required to include a discussion of invoking the Insurrection Act. Note that 90 days are coming up very soon.

Here’s a look from a non-liberal media source:

https://www.livenowfox.com/news/insurrection-act-what-is-could-trump-invoke-it.am

Satisfied?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not so much the invoking part, as the "those protesting on their behalf" part, that I was curious about.

Though keeping in mind what the left thinks qualifies as "protest", I certainly would expect that the insurrection act would be applicable to a lot of it.

Your FOX link is bad, by the way.

[Sarcastr0]

what the left thinks qualifies as "protest", I certainly would expect that the insurrection act would be applicable to a lot of it.

This is why we don't base decisions on when to deploy government force on what Brett thinks the left thinks.

With his delusional paranoia, we'd be in a police state by now.

[Brett Bellmore]

You thought the various 'autonomous zones' were actually "protests", didn't you? You're pretty casual about setting stuff on fire and smashing stuff during 'protests', too, I've noticed. Not much bothered by looting, either. Pretty deep down the 'fiery but mostly peaceful' rabbit hole.

So, yeah, I think the Insurrection act would probably be legitimately applied to a lot of things you'd call "protests".

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett. It was that I *didn't* think they were an insurrection.

I also don't think property damage or theft are tantamount to murder. I think current laws are quite competent to deal with both.

You're the one that wants to turn these things into excuses to deploy wartime levels of government force.
And then you try and get on a high horse when I point out you're kind of posting like a psycho.

Because you, for years now, have been *yearning* for a police state to round up the evil put-you-in-a-camp liberals you have conjured in your mind.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No, Brett. It was that I *didn't* think they were an insurrection."

Then I'd like to know how exactly you define "insurrection", if forcibly ejecting authorities from an area and declaring local independence doesn't qualify.

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck off with your formalism. You'd declare it an insurrection if a child declared their half of their room an autonomous zone.

It was like 2 blocks, chief. It was a thing for 3 weeks, because Seattle thought the best strategy was de-escalation and that it wasn't a long-term threat.

And hey, it wasn't. Seattle is fine, no federal crackdown needed.

You just want to make it an insurrection so you can bothsides January 06.

It is also in keeping with your yearning to deploy federal force against crimes when the criminals are on the left. Whether a single assault (by Antifa!), this shambolic bit of theatre, tesla vandalism, a failed arson at a courthouse.

Federal force is your go-to, Mr. Libertarian.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Fuck off with your formalism. You'd declare it an insurrection if a child declared their half of their room an autonomous zone."

Several people were killed, and the police couldn't enter the zone to investigate the murders. Some of the murders were committed by CHOP "security" forces, and paramedics had to wait for the victims to be removed from the zone to treat them.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Fuck off with your formalism."

And there we have it: You don't care about legal definitions, if you approve of something, in your view it's not a crime, or anyway shouldn't be treated as one.

And that's why you'd been so tolerant of vandalism, arson, and looting during Trump's 1st term, but only when it was done by the left: Because you judge whether the act is criminal by the cause in which it is done, not the nature of the act.

But the rule of law IS the formalism. You don't want the rule of law, you want the rule of men, with the men agreeing with you. Nice if you can get it, I suppose.

Only the men who agreed with you are not in charge now, and won't be for several years, so you'd better get it through your head, (And by "you", I mean the left.) that your only refuge now IS the formalism. You have to care about complying with the formalism, because it's your only shield.

So, don't commit insurrection according to the letter of the law, because your slack disappeared last November, and you'll be treated as insurrectionists. The left is going to have to do something they're really out of practice at:

Protest lawfully and peacefully.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, we are talking about the use of federal force. I care about functional definitions not 'technically correct.'

You're not arguing in a court, you're arguing for federal use of force. Getting formalist with it is an excuse. You really want some leftists to die, it seems.

Ad no, it is not tolerant of crimes to think they should be handled as crimes and not with federal violence.

And you end with the threat that government force will be turned against me personally. Really says a lot about who you are, in the end.

[Bwaaah]

"you judge whether the act is criminal by the cause in which it is done, not the nature of the act."

So true. Watch Sarc do his [blah] [blah] dance.

[Bob from Ohio]

You are increasingly losing rationality.

[ReaderY]

Really? See above.

[Mr. Bumble]

Also interesting.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14564071/Elon-Musk-steps-doge-trump-tesla.html

[Moderation4ever]

Elon Musk is fast approaching the point where he cannot delay financial record reports. Musk leaving government was not if but when and that when is likely determined by things like reporting requirements.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/04/01/hands-off-protest-boston/?p1=hp_primary

Violent protests is how the left responds to provocations like this.
Hence???

We won't, but probably should....

[apedad]

New photos show Pentagon continuing mysterious buildup in the wake of Trump’s latest threats against Iran

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/pentagon-b2-stealth-bombers-diego-garcia-b2726153.html

"They said ‘he will start a war.’ I’m not going to start a war, I’m going to stop the wars." Donald Trump, November 6, 2024

[Bob from Ohio]

The war with Iran started on November 4, 1979.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Interesting. So the Reagan admin wasn’t just violating the embargo and Boland amendment, but were actively committing treason in the strictest sense of the term as it’s used in the Constitution?

[Bob from Ohio]

You should dig up RR and prosecute him, like that one pope.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m just saying if we’ve somehow been at war with Iran since 1979, despite no declaration, that would mean Iran contra was actually treason, right?

[Bob from Ohio]

There was an armistice negotiated by Carter.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So we haven’t been at war with Iran since 1979?

[Bob from Ohio]

"An armistice is a formal agreement of warring parties to stop fighting. It is not necessarily the end of a war, as it may constitute only a cessation of hostilities while an attempt is made to negotiate a lasting peace." wiki

[ducksalad]

To summarize your ... theory:

1. We've been at war since 1979.
2. Carter negotiated an armistice to stop the fighting. You're calling it an armistice even though there wasn't any active fighting to stop, and the title of the agreement is "United States-Iran Agreement on Release of the American Hostages", and the text only mentions relaxation of some sanctions and doesn't mention fighting or war at all.
3. Based on this, you conclude that we've been "negotiating a lasting peace" since 1981, and just now, after 44 years, the negotiations have failed and we're going to resume a war that was never declared, never fought openly, but nevertheless has been ongoing since 1979.

[Magister]

Like Schrödinger's cat, it's both been a war since 1979 if that's advantageous for Bob from Ohio's cult (Trump didn't start a war) and it wasn't a war if that would be inconvenient (Reagan's administration committed treason with Iran-Contra).

[Sarcastr0]

Bob Bloodfeast just wants to see the state kill people one last time before he dies.

Death penalty, torture as punishment, or wars against everyone by the US and Israel.
The throughline is Bob wants a lot more government violence than he sees right now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No. Version I heard was that it was an attempt to divide the regime, maybe cause an internal coup.

I've met Ollie North, never asked for specifics.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was Oliver Cromwell they dug up and executed.

[Noscitur a sociis]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

[ReaderY]

There was no formal declaration of war or other act of congress, so no, no state of war.

[Frank Drackman]

there wasn't for Korea or Vietnam either, fuckface, they were still "Wars"

[Jmaie]

The war with Iran started mid-1951...

[not guilty]

"The war with Iran started on November 4, 1979."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, Bob?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Watch for a 3rd carrier.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This just in -- does Schiff *really* want a Congressional inquiry into the UnSelect Jan 6 Committee?!?

Panicking Sen. Adam Schiff Places Senate "Hold" on Confirmation of Ed Martin as U.S Attorney for D.C.

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, April 2, 2025
Contact: Ryan Hite, Communications Director / [e-mail]

American Justice is Being Restored, and Adam Schiff Knows His Unethical January 6 Committee Conduct Is In the Spotlight

St. Louis, MO: Late yesterday, April 1, California Senator Adam Schiff (the newest member of the Senate Judiciary Committee) placed a "nomination hold" on Ed Martin as President Trump's pick to be the next full-term U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

"This parliamentary procedure may cause delays," said John Schlafly, Treasurer of Phyllis Schlafly Eagles, "but it cannot ultimately derail a confirmation vote. The left may trot out all the procedural pauses and exhaustive list of former federal employees they like, but it won't stop the Trump Administration's will to clean out the Department of Justice. Ed Martin is at the tip of the spear of that effort."

Ryan Hite, Phyllis Schlafly Eagles Communications Director, said "The left coast voters of California may have given Adam Schiff their stamp of approval last fall, but the rest of the country hasn't forgotten 'Shifty Schiff's' long list of unethical abuses of power."

Phyllis Schlafly Eagles Executive Director Kurt Prenzler added, "Ed Martin is a fearless fighter for jurisprudence. He was a worthy successor to Phyllis Schlafly, courageously upholding one of the crown jewels of America: the rule of law. Also, this is not the first time our former Phyllis Schlafly Eagles president has squared off against one of the most corrupt members of Congress. By all appearances, Senator Schiff clearly recalls Ed's prior work to hold him accountable."

Adam Schiff's list of egregious work on behalf of the Deep State is quite long and worth remembering:

1) Schiff was a central figure in the Russian collusion hoax against Donald Trump as the Ranking Member and then Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (2016-2023)
2) Schiff was a leader in the impeachment efforts. (2019-2021)
3) Schiff continued to bludgeon Trump and conservative Americans through the overtly political sham known as the January 6 Select Committee. (2021-2023)

Ryan Hite concluded, "California Senator Adam Schiff is the poster boy of the left's wicked Lawfare against We the People, and he'll throw out any tactic to slow down the justice and accountability that is coming to the halls of federal power. Ed Martin represents that wave of justice and law and order."

###

[Josh R]

I will say this for the tariffs. We will find out if the economists are right (*). Even more so now, Trump owns the economy.

(*) Economists say the increase in revenue and domestic production is more than counterbalanced by lower consumer demand, resulting in loss of domestic wealth.

[hobie]

I'm sure it has all been well thought out

[Martinned2]

It's Brexit 2.0. The economists were right, UK GDP is significantly lower than it would have been without Brexit.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/14/brexit-has-sliced-5percent-off-uk-economic-growth-goldman-sachs-says.html

At the same time, vast numbers of people think the economists got it wrong, because they think the economists predicted a) a fall in GDP rather than a fall in the growth rate of GDP, or b) an impact from 2016 instead of an impact from Brexit day.

So being right doesn't mean that you'll actually get credit for being right, particularly if it suits large parts of the political establishment and the media to claim you were wrong.

[shawn_dude]

The issue here is that revenue and domestic production are so interwoven these days with non-domestic production that it's impossible to separate them. Too many "American-made" products use foreign supplies as part of their manufacturing (nearly anything with steel or aluminum, for starters.) The supply chains are complicated and we cannot magically make domestic-only replacements appear overnight, or even in a few years.

What will increase are government revenues (because this is a tax in reality) and what will decrease are corporate revenues and most domestic production that uses foreign supplies as a result of lower demand and subsequent loss of wealth. (due to lost jobs.)

But, if Trump can continue to convince MAGA that this is going to piss off the left, they'll happily apply for their welfare checks and boost FOX News ratings during the workday.

[Josh R]

Musk on the Wisconsin election:

I expected to lose, but there is value to losing a piece for a positional gain

Apparently, he forgot the Trump playbook. The election was rigged!

[David Nieporent]

As people called him out on Twitter, before the election he was saying that it was an existential election for western civilization. (I'm not exaggerating.) Now he's shrugging.

[Kazinski]

Seattle is going through a budget shortfall fue to companies moving out due to its payroll tax, which technically is not an income tax because the state constitution doesn't allow income taxes:

"That’s already the case under Seattle’s own version of a payroll expense tax, the JumpStart tax, with rates ranging from 0.746 percent to 2.557 percent based on each employee’s annual compensation and the total payroll expenses of the employer. City officials recently reported that the tax brought in $47 million less than expected last year, which coincided with large employers shifting more employees outside city limits. That result, however, did not prevent Seattle voters from approving a new 5 percent payroll tax on compensation above $1 million earlier this year, which is destined to drive even more high earners out of the city—and perhaps the state.

The proposed 5 percent statewide payroll expense tax would provide a credit for taxes paid under Seattle’s existing JumpStart tax, but not under the city’s newest tax, meaning that businesses could face a 10 percent tax rate on their highest-compensated employees’ income. That’s before the state’s payroll taxes to fund paid family and medical leave (0.92 percent in 2025) and long-term care (0.58 percent), for an all-in top rate of 11.5 percent on the highest earners’ wage income in a state that putatively doesn’t impose income taxes. By contrast, the median top rate nationwide is 5 percent. (Separately, of course, Washington now also imposes a 7 percent tax on high earners’ capital gains income.)"

If you wonder why Jeff Bezos moved to Florida, and is relocating many of its operations outside of Washington, now you know.

Microsoft has long transferred some of its high dollar low footprint operations to Reno to escape Washington's BO tax which taxes gross income, not profits.

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/washington-payroll-tax-proposal/

[Martinned2]

It's almost as if a common market requires either taxation that mostly takes place at the federal level or tax coordination...

[MusicAfter Midnight]

The song "Clay Pigeons" was written by a little known songwriter/performer who was a character in the Austin, Texas music scene of the late 70s and early 80s whose stage name was Blaze Foley. His birth name was Michael Fuller. His story is a tragic one, depicted in the documentary "Duct Tape Messiah" and the dramatization "Blaze."

It's an interesting. simple, and quirky three chord song with the guitar fingered in the people's key: G. Pretty much a John Steinbeck novel stripped of all that is unnecessary and presented in four minutes.

There are quite a few cover versions available on youtube and it's not easy to pick a favorite. This one by the Avett Brothers is pretty good and musically pretty faithful to Foley's original:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9JjlwtFImU&ab_channel=SiriusXM

[Bwaaah]

Beautiful.

[hobie]

I've read the tariffs list by country a couple of times and I just don't see Russia on there. And Russia for the past 30 years has been absolutely killing us on the spot prices of palladium and platinum. I see those bastards in Djibouti are there though, or is that Trump just Covfefe-ing the spelling of Russia?

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/02/trump-reciprocal-tariffs-countries-chart-imports-united-states.html

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

You've discovered the proof!!! The Russia Collusion Hoax WASN'T a Hoax after all! It's Mueller Time!

You BlueAnon types are on top of your game!

[Josh R]

Apparently, some countries that are under sanctions (Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Cuba were exempt). But Iran and Syria were not.

And, it's even worse. The formula for the "reciprocal" tariffs we apply is:

Minimum (10%, (Imports of goods from A - Exports of good to A) / (2 * Imports of goods from A)).

Notice that services were left out (we have surpluses of services with almost all countries).

Some countries such as South Korea have almost no tariffs on us and will have a 25% tariff. Other like Brazil have high tariffs, but they will be charged "only" 10%.

It's nonsensical bullshit based on the trade deficit. How many Republicans have been free traders their entire lives and will change their minds to insure no primary challenger?

[Sarcastr0]

They just copy pasted from the CIA Factbook. So we got tariffs uninhabited islands and US-UK military bases.

And known country Taiwan.

Incredible policymaking happening here.

I think. I’m single sourcing it cause it’s late and I’m lazy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is what happens when you have an administration under siege.

[shawn_dude]

WTF does this even mean?

Under siege from whom?

This is what happens when you fire the professional workforce because they stop you from doing stupid things. Like this.

[hobie]

It would be forgiven if we imported things from Belarus, Cuba and North Korea...but we don't. Yet we still import tons of crap from Russia. We've managed to insult, threaten and sanction every country on earth otherwise

[Dr. Ed 2]

So much for sanctions -- I thought we stopped importing stuff from Russia.

[Martinned2]

Well, they certainly stopped updating this Wiki-page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_projects_of_Donald_Trump_in_Russia

[Martinned2]

That whole list offers a fascinating insight into the geography knowledge of the current White House. There are "countries" on that list that are actually parts of other countries on that list, there are uninhabited islands, etc.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been left puzzled by US President Donald Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on Norfolk island, the Australian Territory with a population of just 2200.

The small island, nearly 1600km northeast of Sydney, has been dealt a tariff on imports into the US, three times the amount of the rest of Australia at 29 per cent, compared to Australia 10 percent tariff.

https://thenightly.com.au/politics/us-politics/trump-tariff-confusion-australian-prime-minister-anthony-albanese-calls-out-large-hit-on-norfolk-island-c-18250125

A group of barren, uninhabited volcanic islands near Antarctica, covered in glaciers and home to penguins, have been swept up in Donald Trump’s trade war, as the US president hit them with a 10% tariff on goods.

Heard Island and McDonald Islands, which form an external territory of Australia, are among the remotest places on earth, accessible only via a two-week boat voyage from Perth on Australia’s west coast. They are completely uninhabited, with the last visit from people believed to be nearly 10 years ago.

Nevertheless, Heard and McDonald islands featured in a list released by the White House of “countries” that would have new trade tariffs imposed.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/03/donald-trump-tariffs-antarctica-uninhabited-heard-mcdonald-islands

[David Nieporent]

Dude, he also imposed a tariff on the BIOT, which is… a U.S. military base. As people pointed out, they blindly copied the list of countries/territories from the CIA World Factbook.

[Martinned2]

Did he? That is hilarious!

(And separately hilarious given that I am also told that Trump is going to sign off on the UK, a sovereign country, doing a treaty with Mauritius, another sovereign country, about BIOT, a territory that definitely doesn't belong to the US.)

[Martinned2]

I regret to inform everyone here that it is possible that, with a shocking lack of respect for America's Great Leader, a parody account was set up for the Heard Island Government.

https://bsky.app/profile/heardislandgov.bsky.social

[John F. Carr]

I have seen that mistake by clueless marketing people in addition to clueless White House staff. Sometimes web forms that ask you to choose a country include Bouvet Island as an option. An ad on the subway maybe 20 years ago claimed to show a map of places where AIDS is a problem. Uninhabited islands were highlighted the same as South Africa.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Just heard CNN repeating ad-nauseum that it's really US consumers that pay tariffs. Which is more or less correct.

But I don't seem to recall hearing them, or other news outlets, talk about how poor people pay for taxes on the rich, natural persons pay for corporate taxes, etc.

What gives?

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

I wonder why all those countries would tax their citizens by putting tariffs on US goods. Everyone in the US knows who stupid it is. We're like, literally, the only country that knows tariffs are stupid!

[David Nieporent]

All what countries? Most countries have very low tariffs. Only poor countries have high tariffs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Many U.S. agricultural goods shipped to the European Union face high tariffs

I went with 2015 to avoid anything Trump related...

But the EU does heavily rely on non-tariff barriers such as prohibitions on GMO content, I'll give you that much.

[Sarcastr0]

Your response is a particular set of countries and a particular sector.

IIRC you're full-on a mercantilist, so you must love these tariffs, incoherent though they may be.

[Brett Bellmore]

My view is that, in a peaceful world of rational economic actors, tariffs are a terrible idea, and seeking local self-sufficiency would be a fool's errand.

But we don't live in a peaceful world of rational economic actors. We live in a world where war threatens, trade is viewed by our adversaries as a form of munition, and global supply chain disruptions have been demonstrated to be a looming threat.

Imagine WWII, if we had rationally decided in the 1930's that importing steel from Germany was more economic than producing it at home. That's how I view our present circumstances.

Most countries have no choice but to be dependent on foreign trade; They are too small to reap the benefits of economies of scale, they lack comprehensive sets of natural resources. International trade is, for them, an unavoidable necessity.

The US is not most countries. We are large enough to capture the economies of scale, we DO have a comprehensive set of natural resources. Dependence on foreign trade is a choice for us, not a necessity.

And, again, in a peaceful world of rational economic actors, it would be a sensible choice. But we don't live in such a world. And we should stop pretending we do, it's put us in a very precarious position.

National self-sufficiency isn't something we need to maximize our wealth. It's something we need as a matter of national defense, and one doesn't expect defense spending to be economically optimal.

[Martinned2]

National self-sufficiency isn't something we need to maximize our wealth. It's something we need as a matter of national defense

It is if you don't believe in the concept of allies, like Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

So yes, mercantilism. Out of some strange view of world affairs that flies in the face of modern economic history. Seriously, we've doing the opposite of your theorycrafting and it's been great.

We are large enough to economically shoot ourselves in the foot over and over again. But we will receive only pain, not independence.
The textiles industry is not going to reshore in the US.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "My view is ....."

1. Predictably, Brett's view is a long-winded excuse for Trump's latest bit of mental illness. It's like deficit-hawk and Ukrainian supporter Bellmore voting for the candidate who promised a massive explosion of federal debt and then insisting (piously) we can no longer provide assistance to Ukraine because we're "broke". Brett will always find a way to twist himself into rubbery knots to be a obedient & docile Cultist. There's always Kool-Aid being passed around and he always throws the cup back to gulp eagerly.

2. My opinion? Not to go all Goodwin, but it's like the point in the history books where Hitler invades Russia. Of course the scale of the two events are massively different; billions will suffer because of Trump's imbecility but it still isn't close to the tragedy and carnage of Barbarossa. But in both cases an evil destructive leader is driven by his arrogance and psychosis to blindly sabotage his own rule.

I say that knowing Trump might suddenly cancel all this ludicrous nonsense tomorrow. He is, after all, the Stunt President. As long as he's providing entertainment to people like Brett Bellmore, no policy position can't be reversed.

[apedad]

"We are large enough to capture the economies of scale, we DO have a comprehensive set of natural resources. Dependence on foreign trade is a choice for us, not a necessity."

Would somebody please explain Comparative Advantage to Brett?

(h/t to grb below)

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, good God, of course I understand comparative advantage. Did I not say that, if we lived in a peaceful world of rational economic actors, it would be stupid to seek local-self-sufficiency? Did I not, in fact, explicitly deny that national self-sufficiency was economically optimal? And concede that it wasn't even a feasible goal for most countries?

I'm saying that in a real world where war is an ever-present possibility, and many of our trading partners are NOT economically rational actors, self sufficiency is a national security priority, and should be pursued even though it has economic costs associated with it.

Having a military is economically costly, too! It's just that if you don't have one you get invaded... For the US, reducing our degree of dependence on foreign trade, especially with hostile countries such as China, is a military priority. It's a defense expenditure!

It's not what you'd do if you just wanted to live high off the hog until somebody decided to knock down your house of cards.

Like I said above: How would WWII have gone if we'd outsourced our steel production to Germany back in the 30's? Pretty badly, I'm guessing. You think it's any smarter to outsource critical industrial capabilities to China, and countries China might attack?

Next you'll be telling me that spending money on insurance is economically irrational, because you should just plan on your house not catching fire.

[Martinned2]

Are you saying that American farmers are somehow inherently incapable of growing non-GMO crops?

[Magister]

GMO contamination of other crops might mean that many American farmers are incapable of growing non-GMO crops.

[Martinned2]

I know. And that sounds like the kind of externality that someone at the Department of Agriculture maybe should look into. Given that that's one of the few Federal departments that doesn't regulate Musk in some way, I assume DOGE isn't going to come in and fire all their staff.

[ThePublius]

"Given that that's one of the few Federal departments that doesn't regulate Musk in some way, I assume DOGE isn't going to come in and fire all their staff."

What do you mean by "doesn't regulate Musk?" That doesn't make any sense.

BTW, the Dept. of Agriculture is ripe for cutting. There are more employees of DoA than there are farmers!

[Magister]

The Department of Agriculture only has slightly over 100K employees, so I'd be impressed by the productivity of a smaller number of farmers who grow over $200 billion in crops ($2 million per farmer). Or at least I would be impressed if this came from a more reliable source than Dr. Ed 2's thesis.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I found this fascinating -- the DELIBERATE ATF poisoning of alcohol during Prohibition. https://slate.com/technology/2010/02/the-little-told-story-of-how-the-u-s-government-poisoned-alcohol-during-prohibition.html

It appears to have actually happened...

[Frank Drackman]

Same thing happened with Paraquat

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile all those economists who run big macro-models of the economies (think a couple of thousand variables held together by a couple of hundred equations) are scratching their heads, because those models have parameters, and those parameters aren't necessarily robust to such a large shift in inputs.

But for the record, this isn't good, even if it turns out the model is off a fair bit:

Price effects (HUGE grain of salt) are even more dramatic: US consumer prices up 9.16% (!?!), while Germany (-1.42%) and China (-2.97%) see deflationary pressure. Not sure what to make of this, really.

https://bsky.app/profile/julianhi.nz/post/3lludwf5nv22h

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, it looks like Jeff Bezos is also going to get a return on his investment: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/02/amazon-submits-bid-for-tiktok-as-ban-deadline-nears.html

[Martinned2]

I've been watching the Canadian cop show Saint-Pierre for the last few days, and it seems like Trump liked it even less than I did...

https://x.com/Valen10Francois/status/1907708221743112563

[SRG2]

Yet again Trump shows his economic illiteracy and lack of knowledge

"In 1913, for reasons unknown to mankind, they established the income tax so that citizens rather than foreign countries would start paying the money necessary to run our government,"

"Then, in 1929, it all came to a very abrupt end with the Great Depression, and it would have never happened if they had stayed with the tariff policy; it would have been a much different story. They tried to bring back tariffs to save our country, but it was gone. It was gone. It was too late. Nothing could have been done."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/heads-are-going-to-explode-critics-stunned-as-trump-delivers-bizarre-history-lesson/ar-AA1CaOep

[Stephen Lathrop]

An arresting headline from this morning's Guardian:

Climate crisis on track to destroy capitalism, warns top insurer

[ThePublius]

First paragraph:

"The climate crisis is on track to destroy capitalism, a top insurer has warned, with the vast cost of extreme weather impacts leaving the financial sector unable to operate."

What a bunch of nonsense! Why do you consume this dreck?

[SRG2]

The thing about insurers in general - and reinsurers specifically - is that their agenda wrt climate change is to get the science right, not to be unscientific advocates for or against. If climate change is happening and an insurer thinks it isn't, it'll underprice its premiums. If it isn't happening and an insurer thinks it is, it will charge too much and other insurers will get their business.

But you wouldn't know about things like this.

[tylertusta]

Don't forget about the regulatory environment that insurers operate in.

A "climate crisis" can be profitable for insurers unless government mandates limits on rate increases or place significant burdens on them as we see in California.

Insurers turning around and blaming climate change for government mismanagement is a tale as old as how long "climate change" has been in our lexicon.

[grb]

James Surowiecki attempted to unravel Trump's numbers "documenting" how the the world is "cheating" us. Of course what he found was predictable : The numbers were a mix of economic illiteracy, mental illness, and lying. Some quotes:

"Just brilliant. Because Indonesia has a high tax on coffee imports, Trump’s going to put a 32% tax on coffee imports from Indonesia – even though the US exports no coffee to Indonesia (or most anywhere else). He literally does not understand the concept of comparative advantage.

And:

It’s also important to understand that the tariff rates that foreign countries are supposedly charging us are just made-up numbers. South Korea, with which we have a trade agreement, is not charging a 50% tariff on U.S. exports. Nor is the EU charging a 39% tariff.

An hour later, Surowiecki had his ‘Aha!’ moment:

Just figured out where these fake tariff rates come from. They didn’t actually calculate tariff rates + non-tariff barriers, as they say they did. Instead, for every country, they just took our trade deficit with that country and divided it by the country’s exports to us.

So we have a $17.9 billion trade deficit with Indonesia. Its exports to us are $28 billion. $17.9/$28 = 64%, which Trump claims is the tariff rate Indonesia charges us. What extraordinary nonsense this is.

But that's Donald John Trump: ignorant & lying. Describes many of his followers too....

[SRG2]

This is staggeringly stupid. Even some of the cultists should be able to see that Dear Leader has fucked this up. Whether any of them will have the cojones to concede that Trump has this wrong, different question.

[David Nieporent]

The cultists aren't even smart enough to understand that their three justifications for the tariffs are contradictory:

1. It's just a negotiating tactic to give him leverage to get other countries to lower their tariffs.
2. It'll cause so many American companies to move manufacturing back to the U.S.
3. It'll raise so much money we can cut income taxes.

[Estragon]

Don’t worry, Don is getting a round of golf in today

[Absaroka]

What a bunch of Anti-American hooey. You just want us dependent on foreign coffee imports. Well, we don't have to do that! Make American Ersatz Coffee Great Again!

[ReaderY]

What’s interesting here is not just the Justice Department’s open admission of corruption- that it was dropping charges against Mayor Adams to get his help supporting Mr. Trump’s policy goals - but it’s legal defense of it, a defense worthy of any Mafia lawyer. According to defense, exchanging prosecution decisions for favors is no problem as long as there is no explicit quid pro quo in doing so.

Most federal regulatory agencies have had some representation form those regulated. Mr. Trump has upped the ante in this regard, himslef being a draft-dodger Commander in Chief, getting a pollution lobbyist to head the EPA, a medicine skeptic to head HHS, etc. etc.

Since Elliot Ness, the Justice Department has had a reputation for a severe lack of representation and influence by its main constituency, which it has tended to treat most uncolleagially, even harshly, which they have long foumd very, very unfair. It appears that the Trump Administration has achieved its goal of ending this ivory-tower elitist aloofness and ensuring that those regulated are properly represented in the management of all federal agencies. After all, the Justice Department regulates some of America’s most important industries, even if their imfluence and profits have tended to be underdocumented. They include, after all, some of the world’s oldest professions.

Perhaps it is high time that the Justice Department, like the EPA, moves from an elitist, anti-business posture of imposing ever-increasing disabilities and red tape on the industries it regulates, and moves towards finding ways to encourage and facilitate their activities and growth.

And perhaps, like other federal agencies, adapting the practices of the businesses it regulates will reduce waste, help inject some down-home common street sense into the federal bureaucracy, and make the Justice Department more productive , efficient, and businesslike.

[grb]

Some say Trump’s comment to NBC News Sunday that he’s pissed at Vladimir Putin means “the talk of Trump ‘switching sides’ in the war” was premature and exaggerated, even if his approach is a marked break with everything that came before. Kazinski was peddling that horseshit a few days ago, spinning Trump's throwaway huckster line as some new "get tough with Putin policy".

Uh huh. Then you turn to what this Administration has actually done and the story's entirely different. Let's run thru the list:

Enacted new tariffs on Ukraine, but not Russia. Had the U.S. vote with Russia at the United Nations against Ukraine and pressured Israel to abstain. Halted a program documenting Russian war crimes including the mass kidnapping of Ukrainian children (until outrage from Capitol Hill forced a reversal). Effectively shut down Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, which broadcasts actual truth to Russian listeners and viewers. Removed Karina Rotenberg, wife of Russian oligarch Boris Rotenberg, from the U.S. sanctions list for no disclosed reason. Waived sanctions on Putin adviser Kirill Dmitriev so he could travel to Washington for meetings.

And that’s separate from preemptively conceding that Ukraine will not enter NATO, conceding that U.S. forces will not participate in any postwar peacekeeping force on Ukrainian soil; disbanding “a Biden-era program aimed at seizing the assets of Russian oligarchs as a means to punish Russia for its invasion of Ukraine,” disbanding “the Foreign Influence Task Force, established in the first Trump administration to police influence campaigns staged by Russia and other nations aimed at sowing discord, undermining democracy and spreading disinformation,” asking the State and Treasury departments to “draft a list of sanctions that could be eased for U.S. officials to discuss with Russian representatives as part of the administration’s broad talks with Moscow on improving diplomatic and economic relations,” halting criminal prosecutions for Foreign Agents Registration Act violations unless they involved “conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign government actors,” preparing for 240,000 Ukrainian refugees in the United States to be sent back to Ukraine, temporarily halting military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, having administration officials refusing to state the obvious, that Russia started the war by invading Ukraine, and denouncing Volodymyr Zelensky as a “dictator,” while explicitly ruling out that label for Vladimir Putin.

I don't want to put too much pressure on Kazinski, but it's possible even he can see a pattern in these actions. Simply put, whatever Trump's Daddy wants, he gets. All compliance, Trump's eyelashes flutter & his little heart beats wildly as he rushes to satisfy Daddy, simpering with abject joy while doing so.

[grb]

Over at the National Review, Jim Geraghty notes this:

"Oh, and we are finally evening the score with Tokelau, a dependent island territory of New Zealand, by imposing a 10 percent tariff. Tokelau has a population of about 1,500 people. It has no official capital, according to the CIA World Factbook. “Tokelau lacks an airport and is only accessible via a day-long boat trip from Samoa.” It has no ports or terminals. It has an entire six miles of paved roads. The country’s national symbol is the tuluma, a fishing tackle box. It has no political parties or leaders.

In 2023, Tokelau exported $186,000 in goods to the United States."

Dear Leader made quite the spectacle yesterday; today his Cultists can't spew out excuses fast enough to cover for the lackbrain lunacy of it all. Too bad Americans all across the country must pay for his ignorance and lies.

[grb]

The post is titled "Botox Nazi Kitsch", which is an accurate headline. It describes the latest trend from the Trumpettes, to slather on the makeup and pose for pictures showing men with black or brown skin being roughly handled. Never say the Trumpettes don't know what kind of porn Trump supporters get off on.

https://digbysblog.net/2025/04/02/botox-nazi-kitsch/

[Stephen Lathrop]

Looks like an old-fashioned stock photo, posed with 3 models selected to represent race and gender diversity. Corporate America used to love that stuff.

[grb]

The circus Freak Show is in town :

"The White House has fired at least three National Security Council staffers, three sources familiar with the move told CNN. The firings came after Laura Loomer, the far-right activist who once claimed 9/11 was an inside job, urged President Donald Trump during a Wednesday meeting to get rid of several members of his National Security Council staff, including his principal deputy national security adviser, claiming that they are disloyal. One of the sources said the firings were a direct result of the meeting with Loomer."

[grb]

Who ya gonna believe? :

JP Morgan :

"These policies, if sustained, would likely push the US and global economy into recession this year," Wednesday's briefing said. "We view the full implementation of these policies as a substantial macro economic shock not currently incorporated in our forecasts".

Trump :

“THE OPERATION IS OVER! THE PATIENT LIVED, AND IS HEALING. THE PROGNOSIS IS THAT THE PATIENT WILL BE FAR STRONGER, BIGGER, BETTER, AND MORE RESILIENT THAN EVER BEFORE. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”

[Sarcastr0]

Hm. That there is a nervous President.

[M L]

Is France having a judicial coup of sorts or what is happening there?

Some of my European friends were telling me it's not just there but also Moldova and some other places, the judges just straight up thwarted democracy.

On another note. Three friends from Africa, all from different countries there, said ending USAID was the best thing that could have happened. In their view USAID was a scam, it always came with major strings attached dictating all sorts of extraneous stuff and basically commandeering policy. And the money was never for whatever was needed for the people, it was for whatever USAID thought up. On top of that the numbers were a scam, it never amounted to that much and there were all sorts of kickbacks and the funds would go to some contractor who would then do whatever thing USAID said they would fund. By contrast China will come in and do straight up economic business deals to get resources out of the ground or whatever, employ people and build a road or school, and people are loving China over there, flying the Chinese flag and everything.

[David Nieporent]

I think you need to find more reliable friends.

[Don Nico]

In Israel the same thing is happening. The Supreme Court has been seeking to have complete veto power over anything chosen by the electorate or by the democratically elected government or the Knesset, all in the name of preserving democracy.

[Sarcastr0]

Dr. Ed. level lie from ML.

[grb]

I was just thinking how useful it would be to have friends from all around the world ready to tell me exactly what I want to hear on any given ideological point. It's reassuring to discover I can just make them up....

On a more serious note, please observe how ML admits the U.S. is abandoning Soft Power influence worldwide to the Chinese. Since his Cult Deity is responsible for this blunder, he must pretend there's no cost - but we all know better.

Gutting USAID - and the damage that's done to the United States around the globe - was always just a PR stunt by Trump. Knowing his political base stupidly believes foreign aid to be 25X larger than it actually is, eliminating it was good cartoon theatrics to keep the rubes entertained. It's only afterwards the Cult CleanUp Crew has to come in with their flailing excuses to explain yet another destructive blunder. Sometimes that's hard; you need the help of your imaginary friends....

[Sarcastr0]

AFRICOM commander Gen. Langley tells senators that China is "trying to replicate" USAID programs in Africa as the US scales back USAID.

"They’re trying to use that as an extension of the Belt and Road Initiative to gain favor by the African countries," Langley said.
https://x.com/halbritz?lang=en

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Are the Braves going to win a game this season?

Figure so though wouldn't think it would be the last team in baseball to win a game. They are 0-7. So sad.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump Administration Denies Parole to Harvard Scientist From Russia, Citing Threat to US Security

Kseniia Petrova was stopped by Customs and Border Patrol on Feb. 16 at Boston’s Logan Airport after a trip to France because she had failed to declare frog embryos she brought into the country as part of her research.

Petrova told border officials she’ll be in danger if she’s deported back to Russia because of her criticism of the Kremlin. She was previously arrested in Russia in 2022 for protesting the war in Ukraine, according the Harvard Crimson.

After Petrova was arrested in Boston, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement revoked her visa and transferred her to an immigration jail in Louisiana, where she’s being held pending an appearance before an immigration judge on May 7.

Unlike other cases, there’s no indication that Petrova took part in any protests over the Israel-Hamas war.

Petrova’s lawyer, Gregory Romanovsky, said in a statement that the customs violation didn’t give border officials the authority to cancel her visa and detain her, calling it “grossly disproportionate.” The penalty for the customs violation is a monetary fine, he said. When she was detained, border officials asked her whether they should notify the Russian government. She responded that she was scared she could be killed if she went back to Russia because of her protests against the regime.
“The US government is now seeking to deport her to Russia, where she faces the threat of immediate arrest due to her prior political activism and outspoken opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” her lawyer said in a statement on March 28. He denied that Petrova was a flight risk or a threat to the community.