Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

In what FBI officials are calling “an intentional act of terrorism,” a car bomb exploded Saturday morning outside a fertility clinic in Palm Springs, California. The suspected bomber was killed, and four other persons were injured.

The American Reproductive Centers in Palm Springs is a fertility clinic which according to its website provides in vitro fertilization, genetic testing, egg donation and other reproductive health services. https://arcbabies.com/

Here is an article containing some information about an audio recording said to have been left behind by the bomber: https://bnonews.com/index.php/2025/05/bomber-of-california-fertility-clinic-described-as-pro-mortalist/

I remain baffled as to why nutjobs like this regard it as any of their business whether other folks reproduce or do not reproduce, as well as the methods they choose to do so or avoid doing so.

[AmosArch]

The guy is part of the antinatalist/childfree movement (although obviously they have disclaimed him) that has grown up around reddit. Which has gotten real silent about this since they were really hoping over there it was some misinformed MAGA antiabortionist. Reddit like tumblr before is a hotbed where a lot of strange usually left leaning subcultures take root due to common causers being able to find each other. Which is ironic since they like to accuse other places of the same thing.

There are worlds upon worlds of these subcultures, often revolving around hating or being contrarian about something. Theres one community dedicated entirely to hating dogs, another based on hating cats. Yet another is completely dedicated to criticism of the wife of former Prince Harry. Must admit I find some of the content pretty funny.

[not guilty]

As Hank Williams, Sr. sang with the Drifting Cowboys:

Mindin' other people's business seems to be high-toned
I got all that I can do just to mind my own
Why don't mind your own business
Mind your own business
If you mind your own business you'll stay busy all the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZH2bmbUTl4

[Speaking for normal people]

Yes, wel you could have sung that to Nazi approval

I've read a lot on the Third Reich and people like you made it happen

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemöller

[JasonT20]

I've read a lot on the Third Reich and people like you made it happen...

Uh, that's not how I see it. The Nazis (and the Stalinists, Maoists, and every other totalitarian regime ever) absolutely wanted people up in their neighbors' business. They wanted them to inform the regime of anyone disloyal.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So does the nanny state.

[JasonT20]

Nanny state = Nazis, got it!

[Speaking for normal people]

THe point is what you are downplaying , that information was used so they could go after the already-chosen targets: The Jews, the socialists, and trade unionists

Dietrich von Hildebrand is my clarifier here

" At a time when everyone—including many devout Catholics—remained silent about the evils committed by Hitler, von Hildebrand spoke up. In 1922, for example, Hildebrand had a conversation with a Catholic priest about the murder of a Jewish friend. The priest asked, “How can one more death really matter?” Von Hildebrand was in shock, “deeply upset by this moral value blindness and the loss of any sense for the horror of murder, which had permeated German public opinion.”"

If you bypass the horror of murder because it was only a Jew, or a socialist, you are complicit.

Blindness for the misfortune of others, lack of imagination of the heart, inner differences toward the witnessed evil--that is moral guilt.”
― Karl Jaspers

[JasonT20]

That famous quote says something different to me that it does to you, if you think it is relevant here. not guilty is talking about how people shouldn't be concerned about how other people behave in their private lives in ways that don't affect anyone else. Martin Niemöller was arguing about how we should all stand up for the rights of other people, including people we don't know or have no association with at all, because that is how we protect our own rights.

Now, I do see that as being not as strong a reason as it should be, from a moral and ethical point of view. It is a utilitarian view of human rights. I prefer a more positive motivation:

We would not want our rights violated, so we should stand up for the rights of others.

Stating it that way makes no reference to whether our own rights are in danger if we don't work to protect the rights of other people. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need a selfish motivation or a concern over reciprocity to want to see other people treated justly.

[Speaking for normal people]

Your view is tremendously ridiculed in certain circles. It came from Anders Nygren.

You say : In an ideal world, we wouldn't need a selfish motivation or a concern over reciprocity to want to see other people treated justly.

But 4 errors there
It is not now and never will be an ideal world. You live in the real world

It is an unselfish motivation , why is helping anyone different from helping your sister? Because they aren't related to you? If you care about people, you can call it selfish but many thinkers have said the opposite. Nygren popularized the idea that human love (eros), is a manifestation of selfishness or self-centeredness

The rights of other people come from God so in an ideal world it would be a most unselfish motivation to advert to that. I cannot let that person be persecuted because they have the same rights from God that I have. Says the Declaration of the US ( I assume you are not American) We are all endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights

Finally,what meaning can attach to 'concern for reciprocity' ??? It is infinetely rare that the one you save will someday save you. The generalized ethic is actually what you are mocking and avoiding

A: Your brother is being tortured , you need to help?
B: Depends, which brother is it ?

[Bwaaah]

Wasn't your professional life devoted not just to minding other people's business, but also to make your best effort to punish them for it? (Regrets if I have that wrong.)

This is not to say that's wrong, but that you strike me as a person whose inclination is to do anything but mind his own business.

[not guilty]

Where do you get that, Bwaaah? My career was as a litigator, primarily criminal defense work with a concentration on appellate advocacy.

[Bwaaah]

Regrets. I thought you had been a prosecutor.

[not guilty]

I thought from time to time about crossing over to the other side. A good lawyer should be able to present either side of a lawsuit with roughly equal facility.

But I decided that I would never get used to having a stick up my butt.

[Bwaaah]

LOL. It looks to me like you'd be a natural that way. I admit that I know little of you, and only from the view here. There's enough merit to your positions that I mostly reserve judgement despite our differences (inasmuch as I know them).

Thanks for your good-spirited response. Apology for my misunderstanding.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I like the way the military does it -- you are assigned either side.

I'd like to see a "Criminal Defense" license where -- to obtain it, you will have to have been a prosecutor for 18 months and to keep it you have to 10% of your work as a prosecutor.

[David Nieporent]

I definitely think we ought to take advice on how to design the criminal justice system from a guy whose only knowledge of it is as a defendant.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm 5-1-1 on speeding tickets, which is pretty damn good.

And it's advisors, not janitors, who get dragged down to court to hold the hands of undergraduates, so of course I would never have seen what passes for the Hampshire County (MA) Defense Bar.

And hence I wouldn't have an informed, disinterested perspective that no lawyer could.

[Speaking for normal people]

St Teresa of Avila used to say "Be wary of the person with a strong desire to punish" So you are wrong there. But worse is your 'mind your own business" a piece of advice almost universally labeled evil

Edmujnd Burke
"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little"

DANTE
the sin of not taking sides is the sin of the neutrals, who are punished in the Vestibule of Hell. These are souls who were neither for good nor evil in life, but instead were self-serving and cowardly, choosing neutrality in the face of conflict

“Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are, and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are.”
― Augustine of Hippo

[David Nieporent]

For the record, there's no evidence Burke said that. (And it doesn't sound like his 'voice', FWIW, so if he did it would almost assuredly be a paraphrase of what he said.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

How is it your business whether or not women color their hair or get a boobjob, NG?

[not guilty]

As Justice Scalia said, concurring in Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 505 (1987), "De gustibus non est disputandum. Just as there is no use arguing about taste, there is no use litigating about it."

It's nothing more than my opinion, but I regard massive breast implants and peroxide blonde hair as trashy. As Sevier County, Tennesee's beloved native Dolly Parton has stated, she modeled her over the top stage persona on the “town tramp”, a local woman who wore high heels and tight skirts, who Parton would look out for on trips into town. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/oct/09/dolly-parton-on-style-stardom-and-sexists-rockstar-behind-seams-my-life-in-rhinestones (Neighboring Cocke County was then known as a hotbed of vice.)

[Paladin_44]

Dolly Parton - one of my favorite people. Kind, generous to a fault, and a damn good entertainer to boot.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So the fact that you think it's trashy makes it your business?

[not guilty]

I have opinions, but I have never tried to prevent any woman from undergoing cosmetic surgery or lightening her hair. If my wife or my daughter asked for my opinion, I would offer it.

And most assuredly I have never committed any act of violence, nor have I ever advocated the government trying to enforce my preferences, in regard to a woman's appearance. And I doubt that I will ever understand the perspective of those who take such actions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's like tattoos, particularly on women -- she has a right to do it and I have a right to not respect her for having done it.

[bernard11]

Neighboring Cocke County was then known as a hotbed of vice.

No kidding. And not just vice but violent crime in general (maybe a result of the vice). A friend who grew up in Newport - the county seat - told me that many of his friends routinely assumed they would end up in prison.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm the only male in my peer group -- brothers and cousins -- who has never been arrested.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I, who remember seeing Johnny Carson telling Dolly Parton bra jokes as a teenager, honestly thought that both her breasts and hair were real. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DKufSr7QhY

[not guilty]

She still looks good at age 75.

[Speaking for normal people]

even more so , how is it your business to even ask ???????

[Kazinski]

No worries about that happening here, we never agree on anything.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"I remain baffled as why nutjobs like this regard it as any of their business whether other folks reproduce or do not reproduce, as well as the methods they choose to do so or avoid doing so."

For a long time in this country, we had the same attitude toward domestic violence, i.e. "why is it anyone else's business how I treat my wife and children?"

[Martinned]

O, f*ck off!

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks Sherriff Justice, I heard the Bandit's heading East on I-20

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

lol there is no way in hell that foreigner will get that reference.

[TwelveInchPianist]

He didn't mean to single you out Martinned.

[Armchair]

"A 25-year-old man the FBI believes was responsible for an explosion that ripped through a Southern California fertility clinic left behind “anti-pro-life” writings before carrying out an attack investigators called terrorism, authorities said Sunday."

Gosh..."Anti-pro-life"? Interesting terminology that. Well, I guess we know he wasn't going after Planned Parenthood.

https://apnews.com/article/palm-springs-fertility-clinic-explosion-a4040e8b98cc4474a0a5bdc1078033fb

[Speaking for normal people]

So far on here no one gets it. To complain that you were born is maybe the the lowest animal state for a human."I didn't ask to be born soooooo I think I will kill YOU" It is my years in business , schools, non-profits, teaching that tells me there is something wrong with anyone who hears about this and doesn't see that the anti-natalist is demonic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I look at this a little bit differently -- we talk about female empowerment while it is men committing suicide (which this was).

Perhaps if we cared a little bit more about men.....

[Speaking for normal people]

It is female desertion of marriage, morality, respect fo life that produces these men

. . .The psychology behind that is that so many men today are withdrawing and rejecting women in many ways. That a good man is becoming impossible to find. And so I see that women responding to bad behavior on the part of men toward them. I mean the whole gay movement is a withdrawal from women and the whole pornography movement is a withdrawal from women.

Some men have withdrawn from women for all kinds of reasons. Here is the way men treat feminists generally. They ignore them. You cannot get into an argument with a woman. A man can’t because if he wins, he is being man unchivalrous and besides he defeated a woman. But if he wins there is no plus and if he loses he is castrated. So it is a no win situation that is why in universities, in fact, men have not been debating feminism. It is just “Let’s have a woman’s department and let them be in the woman’s depart so they put them off over there, but men don’t debate feminists.”

[JasonT20]

Well, I don't see it as "demonic" since I don't believe that demons exist. But a fucked up, irrational, and probably psychopathic line of thinking? Yeah, totally.

[Speaking for normal people]

I suspect you just don't know yourself.
Demonic means it isn't just you whereas you with very little self-awareness don't see that you are not irrational and psychopathic , you become such.

And you meant to say 'You believe (note : believe) that demons do not exist" but you mock anyone with a different belief.

There you go.

[Speaking for normal people]

You are an ass. NO idea of conscience. You aren't baffled you are conscience-less

[not guilty]

Please tell me, Speaking for normal people. Just how does my denouncing a nutjob like the late, unlamented Guy Edward Bartkus evince any lack of conscience on my part?

In the words attributed to the Apostle Peter, "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters." I Peter 4:15 (KJV) (emphasis added).

[Speaking for normal people]

Okay so here is Peter talking to other men about their business !!! So busybody cannot mean what you take it to mean. It is not doing what is your business to do while occupying yourself interrupting others doing their appointed duty.

It certainly does not mean staying unconcerned about others> All you did (if you can call it doing anything constructive) was you called someone a nutjob. My father used to say "If you can't boost don't knock"

[Commenter_XY]

Where did the nutjob learn and adopt the ideology, in the first place? That baffles me.

[Speaking for normal people]

Modern psychology and philosophy make intersubjectivity not wholly determinative but largely so. It explains the food and music you like and don't like (when I was growing up you never would touch let alone eat what is now my favorite CATFISH) No act of anyone's is without repercussions. Even the solitudinous homosexual is depriving someone of a good role model.

[John F. Carr]

I don't see an act of terrorism as the term is used in federal criminal law.

[santamonica811]

I give President Trump shit for a lot of what he says and writes. Because . . . well, a lot of what he says and writes is pretty awful. So, I'll give him props for his response to Biden's cancer announcement. Trump's response was short and kind, and was, essentially, "My wife and I wish Biden a full and fast recovery."

That's it. Trump often (usually?) manages to insert himself into the story, but not here. It was short, sweet, to-the-point, and without agenda. Nicely done, and--dare I say it--presidential.

(It says more about me and my own lack of character that my own first response to reading Trump's note was, "Who wrote this on behalf of Trump . . . because it sure doesn't sound like Trump himself wrote it?" I find that a very uncharitable reaction, and I regret that this was my knee-jerk response.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Enough with the self-harm/vice signaling.

Based entirely on objective factors, he almost certainly didn't write it (neither did Steven Cheung), and you know it.

Donald Trump's severe mental derangement doesn't "take a day off".

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshyte -- while he may or may not have physically written it (and I suspect he did), if he didn't agree with it, (a) it wouldn't remain there long, and (b) someone wouldn't remain in his employ long.

[Kazinski]

Ehh, knowing what we know now about Biden's mental state, and now physical health its hard not to have empathy for him.

And its hard to have anything but contempt for the elder abusers in his inner circle.

Anyone that knows anything about prostate cancer (I had it 15 years ago) knows that while someone could suddenly get diagnosis of a 9 Gleason score and bone metastasis prostate cancer, it would have to be someone that doesn't get regular medical checkups.

They knew, and not only did they keep it secret, they also decided not to do more aggressive medical treatment like surgery or radiation that likely would have stopped it from spreading, and political consideration probably played a part in that. However I will concede at his age and condition something else may well kill him first, so there is that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Just wondering -- he's had two brain bleeds which is a whole bunch of related medical concerns.

Could this have precluded the standard cancer treatments because he would not have survived them because of this? Or could there be a third factor that we don't know about?

I'm more inclined to think that they chose not to act rather than didn't know about it, and it may have been the right decision.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a nasty way to die, that's for sure. Given Biden's age his doctor was probably just playing the odds, and anticipating that he would die before it got this far. In most cases that's what you'd expect.

I got treated for it 15 years ago, because I was young enough at the time that the odds were it WOULD be the thing to kill me. If the same test results came up at my current age, the advice would be to just keep an eye on it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OR it was political to ignore it. Perhaps all the trips to Delaware were for chemo or something.

There are recordings of Biden 2 years ago essentially saying he has cancer. Much like FDR knew he was dying in 1944, I think he knew and hid it.

His PSA result was never released.

[Frank Drackman]

Practicing Medicine without a license again Kazinsky?
I'd stick to the letter bombs.
The main way Prostrate Cancer is diagnosed is by biopsy, after an elevated PSA.
The problem is, PSA is one of those tests that is "Sensitive" but not "Specific" (or is it "Specific" and not "Sensitive"??, I hated that one class we had on medical statistics)
Either way, the most Bad-Ass Cancer Cells (in the medical biz we call them "Anaplastic") stop doing their normal jobs, Lung Cells stop breathing, Liver Cells stop Livering, and Prostrate Cells stop Prostrating.
One of the things normal Prostrate Cells do is make PSA (AKA "Prostrate Specific Antigen") and some of the most aggressive Prostrate Cancers don't make PSA.
Bottom line, think you're in like Flint because your PSA is normal?
Not so Fast my friend! (HT L Corso) Only way to know for sure is to have a Prostrate Biopsy, which sounds as painful as it is.
Even then, do you want to know? You gotta die of something.
Like with most Cancers, the key is prevention, and there's only one thing that's been shown to reduce the incidence of Prostrate Cancer, good thing is every man does it.

Frank

[Michael P]

Sensitivity and specificity are exactly what they sound like; PSA tests are sensitive but not very specific.

And maybe you should go lie down with all that prostrating.

[Kazinski]

Yes Frank, I realize that. But while you can't use PSA to diagnose PC its actually a good indicator of when you should have a biopsy.

Unless of course he fell for the "watch and wait", but he almost certainly knew he had it, but perhaps thought it slow enough that he'd die of something else first.

[Bubba Jones]

Prostate cancer therapy can have a lot of downsides.

Most people die "with" prostate cancer rather than "from" prostate cancer.

Biden may still end up there.

[Dr. Ed 2]

any evidence that prostate use prevents cancer?

[Poxigah146]

I've been thinking about this too. Biden was never a lunatic leftist too for the first 77 years of his life, so the anti-American, anti-white tone he took starting in 2020 means he either changed drastically, which seems unlikely, or he was just a patsy, with someone else pulling the strings.

Now that we know about his illness, the latter seems to be the most likely scenario. These people are despicable.

[Bubba Jones]

Biden was whatever he needed to be.

Lunatic leftist wasn't the path to political success when he was "tough on crime."

[Bubba Jones]

My empathy tells me that Biden was an opportunistic asshole his entire life, who surrounded himself with opportunistic assholes.

While I don't actively wish him harm and suffering, this is likely just another example of him (and his wife) putting his political career ahead of all else.

If he had resigned in 2022 because of declining health, THEN he could have had my sympathy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Maybe the goal was to get re-elected in 2024 and then resign because of the cancer so that Heels Up could be POTUS.
Or do a FDR-'44 and just run it till he died...

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Donald Trump's severe mental derangement

Mirror, mirror on the wall....

[gVOR08]

It seems to be newsworthy that Trump sent out a civil message.

[Brett Bellmore]

For all we know, Trump has reason enough to be sympathetic; If I had to bet, he probably has prostate cancer, too. At his age the odds strongly favor it.

[ReaderY]

Trump listened to his wife on something?

[Armchair]

Oh, give yourself more credit. Biden being around makes Trump look good.

[Speaking for normal people]

You shold regret most of all Biden's bullseye comment just before the Trump assassination attempt. I don't judge Biden's conscience but if you can't see he is a fool then YOU are a fool

[ducksalad]

Never fear, it was only temporary.

HOW MUCH DID KAMALA HARRIS PAY BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN FOR HIS POOR PERFORMANCE DURING HER CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT? WHY DID HE ACCEPT THAT MONEY IF HE IS SUCH A FAN OF HERS? ISN’T THAT A MAJOR AND ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION? WHAT ABOUT BEYONCÉ? …AND HOW MUCH WENT TO OPRAH, AND BONO??? I am going to call for a major investigation into this matter. Candidates aren’t allowed to pay for ENDORSEMENTS, which is what Kamala did, under the guise of paying for entertainment. In addition, this was a very expensive and desperate effort to artificially build up her sparse crowds. IT’S NOT LEGAL! For these unpatriotic “entertainers,” this was just a CORRUPT & UNLAWFUL way to capitalize on a broken system. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord, this is embarrassing.

[Kazinski]

Hint, he isn't embarrassed.

I know the appeal of his speaking style is selective, I know it doesn't appeal to me, but it seems to be pretty effective with most of his base.

Thank God its hard to imitate, at least without being too obvious or we'd be seeing it imitated a lot more, in both parties, because its successful.

[Brett Bellmore]

My wife has been sharing these "baby Trump" videos, and as annoying as I find Trump's manner of speaking, they ARE hilarious. Especially the coffee one.

[bernard11]

Would you have found them hilarious if Biden were the speaker?

Or evidence of severe mental deterioration? Which they are. Is incoherence to be admired when it's your hero being incoherent?

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, these videos aren't particularly incoherent. They're just funny.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm embarrassed.

I'm not a huge dignity of the office guy but...this is embarrassing.

[Magister]

"a CORRUPT & UNLAWFUL way to capitalize" is kinda funny, at least in isolation.

[JasonT20]

(It says more about me and my own lack of character that my own first response to reading Trump's note was, "Who wrote this on behalf of Trump . . . because it sure doesn't sound like Trump himself wrote it?" I find that a very uncharitable reaction, and I regret that this was my knee-jerk response.)

That's my knee jerk response as well. But I don't think it says that much negative about us. That we're cynical, definitely. But we have seen more than enough from Trump that is self-centered and lacking in empathy to be justified in being skeptical that he would express sympathy without any qualification.

Don Jr. showed what we expect from him and his father. He retweeted and agreed "100%" with his fathers post, but then followed it up less than 30 minutes later with a stupid conspiracy question about why "Dr. Jill Biden" didn't catch this "stage 5 cancer" sooner.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What says more about you is the fact that you're far more concerned with some dumb tweet by Don Jr. than you are about the fact that the White House, most senior Democrats and much of the "news" media actively and consistently lied about the POTUS's mental decline for years, and that it's looking like the White House, at a minimum, like about his physical health for even longer.

[Speaking for normal people]

You get points for honesty. But I will bet your current view of Trump came froma long trend of blaming him for the folly and evil we all have but giveing him no credit for the good he did.

It was a life lesson to me to see crude direct abrupt Trump saying true things, and Hillary , who was ugly to the core, smiling and calling tens of millions deplorables. He at least said he would be everyone's President whereas she shat on everybody who didn't share her opinions

MItch Ryder's Devil with a Blue Dress on
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/NINTCHDBPICT000513560561.jpg

[Kazinski]

Moody's downgraded US debt last week, but it was the last credit rating agency to do so, SP did it first in 2011, and Fitch downgraded in 2023.

Some people blame tax cuts, some spending, some both.

So i looked at sending and taxes as % of GDP back to 1980 using St Louis Fed Data.*

Pres _ years _ Taxes/GDP% _ Spending%
Jimmy Carter 1980-1981 19.05 21.35
Ronald Reagan 1982-1989 17.95 21.93
George H.W. Bush 1990-1993 17.28 21.40
Bill Clinton 1994-2001 18.74 19.05
George W. Bush 2002-2009 17.08 20.23
Barack Obama (1st term) 2010-2013 15.75 22.38
Barack Obama (2nd term) 2013-2017 17.725 20.55
Donald Trump (pre-covid) 2018-2020 16.35 20.60
Donald Trump (covid) 2018-2020 17.05 30.55
Joe Biden 2022-2024 18.43 24.67
current 17.7 24.70
average 17.55 22.49

So one thing stands out right away, only Bill Clinton is blameless, everyone else averaged about 4% deficit over their terms, (not considering the 2 covid years), other than Joe Biden of course who averaged 6% deficit.

Bill Clinton only averaged 0.3% annual deficit over 8 full years in office, less than 1/10 the average since 1980.

So my conclusion is to fix our mess we need to raise our taxes as % of GDP about 1%, and lower our spending a little less than 5% (as a percentage of GDP) to duplicate what Clinton did, and please note thats really only 1.5% lower than Obama's 2nd term (or Trumps pre covid years) spending so I think thats pretty doable, it won't put us back in the stoneage.

* I had Grok do a first pass, and it decided to do fiscal years which makes sense because for instance Fiscal year 2025 would get attribted to Biden, since it started October 1 2024, so even though Trump is President, its almost June with no tax or spending bills passed yet, and just 4 months left in the fiscal year. I also split Trump to pre and post covid, and Obama two two terms because his first term was dealing with the financial crisis, the data shows clearly why a split is justified. And since I arbitrarily started with 1980 only Carter's last 2 years are counted.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Regardless of why you sliced and diced the data in the way you did, the entire exercise is obviously meaningless, because presidents don't control spending or taxes.

Well, until now...

[Kazinski]

Well somebody proposed the American Rescue Act, the inaptly named Inflation Reduction Act, several student loan forgiveness programs, some which were not stopped, the Infrastructure bill.

Biden might not have had a good idea what was in them, but his autopen signed them. Something caused spending to jump 4% from pre-covid levels.

And Trump is definitely responsible for his tax cuts, he proposed them and made sure they got passed, and actually signed them.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Obfuscating nonsense.

Presidents "take credit" and "put blame" on each other all day long; it doesn't change the facts.

[Speaking for normal people]

But that makes you look goofy as if noboby really has credit or deserves blame

[Speaking for normal people]

Which is to say , your experience is that Presidents don't lead.
They just diddle interns, or go to the beach, or put their two girls in a hugely expensive school while fighting freedom in education. Yeah, I get it

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was Newt Gingrich, not Clinton.

[Kazinski]

Give them both credit.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "It was Newt Gingrich, not Clinton."

Uh huh. In fact, it was:

1. 55% Clinton
2. 40% GWH Bush
3. 5% Gingrich

There were two major deficit reduction bills, one under Bush and one under Clinton. Both were passed by a Democratic Congress, the WJC one without a single GOP vote. Both were critical to the budget success under Clinton and Bush would merit more credit but he renounced his own responsible act shorting after signing it & was back campaigning for tax cuts in the subsequent election.

Has Ed ever gotten a single thing right?

[bernard11]

Is this the same Newt Gingrich who repeatedly predicted that Clinton's tax increase would lead to economic catastrophe? Sorry, no credit.

[Kazinski]

I left the last column off because I worried it wouldn't format correctly.

It was deficit as % of GDP, so here it is seperately which I hope further highlights where the problem is.

Jimmy Carter 1980-1981 -2.30
Ronald Reagan 1982-1989 -3.98
George H.W. Bush 1990-1993 -4.12
Bill Clinton 1994-2001 -0.31
George W. Bush 2002-2009 -3.15
Barack Obama 2010-2013 -6.63
Barack Obama 2014-2017 -2.83
Donald Trump (pre-covid) 2018-19 -4.25
Donald Trump (covid) 2020-2021 -13.50
Joe Biden 2022-2024 -6.24

Obama had a decent excuse for his 6.63% deficit, as well as Trump for his 2 covid years. But I am unable to think of a good excuse to still have 6% deficits 2 years after covid is over.

[Commenter_XY]

There isn't one = excuse

How does the government incorporate these credit agencies downgrades into their legal briefs arguing that spending cuts via staff reduction and agency reduction/elimination are necessary? ISTM that this reality needs to make it's way into legal argument, yet another reason why we can't have government run by TROs and injunctions.

[Kazinski]

Hopefully the budget bill will moot a lot of these lawsuits, if Congress weighs in the courts are out in the cold.

[tylertusta]

But I am unable to think of a good excuse to still have 6% deficits 2 years after covid is over.

I think you understand that this is a subjective argument.

Growing segments within the Democratic Party's coalition have been arguing for higher domestic spending levels for decades, and in recent years some of those factions on the left have started to lean towards the so-called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), which argues in favor of unlimited deficit spending as if it had minor, manageable economic drawbacks.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, but the credit markets are objective. Long term rates are rising. That is bad news for the US.

[tylertusta]

I agree, but others do not view the economy that way.

[Kazinski]

Not really. Using mortgage rates as an indicator of the long term rates by decade:

1960s 6.0%
1970's 8.9%
1980's 12.7%
1990's 6.1%
2000's 6.3%
2010's 4.1%
2020's 5.1% so far

Currently 6.81% which looks a little below the long term average, and completely unremarkable, but more likely to go down than up from here.

We got spoiled in the 2010's, we will not see its like again. Absent another major housing recession.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Memory is my parents got a 4% mortgage in 1964.

And memory is that rates were 18% circa 1980, one of the reasons Reagan won.

[Jmaie]

An acquaintance (married, high salary, good credit score) bought a condo in 1980. 14% first, 20% second.

FWIW.

[Sarcastr0]

in recent years some of those factions on the left have started to lean towards the so-called Modern Monetary Theory

MMT has been around since the 1990s, it's always been fringe; I'm not sure where you're seeing a recent lean.

Here's Krugman going at MTT hammer and tongs 6 years ago:
https://archive.is/Btd5n#selection-399.0-410.0

Google Trends shows a slight increase in US interest since 2008 but nothing recent:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all_2008&gprop=youtube&q=MMT

Vastly more common is the right running around about "THE DEBT" as thought it's on a credit card. Of course, their prescription is that they get everything they want, and own the libs.

It's a running joke about political cartoons that just take big things and write DEBT on it and call it a day.

[tylertusta]

Look man, you need to do something better than come at me with straw man arguments.

This is about political influence, not whether the whole electorate is googling it. A google search of US trends is inappropriate.

Factions of the left includes- but is not exclusive to- AOC and Bernie Sanders.

[Sarcastr0]

AOC seems to have mentioned it once in 2019.

I don't see anything with Sanders talking about it.

[bernard11]

What are you even talking about?

[Kazinski]

Well jut what did Joe Biden mean when he said "Milton Friedman isn't running the show anymore”?

That there was a more Modern Monetary Theory to take his theories place?

That's how I read it.

That's how Ioe started out governing.

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty bold take to declare there is no middle ground between Milton Friedman and MMT.

[Kazinski]

Oh so as long as its in the direction, but we aren't completely there yet its not a thing?

Annual deficits of > 6% of GDP is a train roaring straight to the MMT station.

[Brett Bellmore]

The annual deficit was >9% last year; They didn't count the cost of interest on the debt in the >6% figure.

[Josh R]

No.

The CBO reports that outlays in fiscal 2024 were 23.4% of GDP including interest on the debt which was 3.6% of GDP. Revenues were 17.0% of GDP for a deficit of 6.4% of GDP including interest on the debt.

[bernard11]

They didn't count the cost of interest on the debt in the >6% figure.

I don't know where you got this, but I wouldn't rely on your source ever again. They are either idiots or liars, possibly both.

It's simply not true.

[Sarcastr0]

No. What are you talking about?

MMT isn’t deficits are high.

Words mean things.

[Kazinski]

Now I understand why you seem clueless sometimes.

Its because you are clueless.

[Sarcastr0]

OK then, if I'm clueless to point out your 'as long as we're going in that direction' definition is wrong, what does MMT mean?

[Kazinski]

MMT posits you can create as much money as you want through "fiscal policy", which is deficit spending, spending more money than you are taking in,

It goes on to say that if you get too much inflation as a result you can raise taxes to take excess money out of the system, which is easier said than done and creates problems of its own.

Larger deficits are not only going in that direction, it proved beyond any reasonable doubt it will create inflation.

[Magister]

Interesting that ever increasing debt was accompanied by decreasing inflation in the Biden years, once we got past the pandemic/supply chain issues.

[Sarcastr0]

You have MMT right.

But there is no direction! There are plenty of ways to be a deficit dove without being into MMT.

By your conflation of theory and practice, the GOP are more into MMT than the Dems.

You're doing the equivalent of creating a continuum of how clean parents insist a child is, and declaring it tells you how you're either tending towards Semmelweis or the Hygiene Hypothesis.

[bernard11]

Since Friedman hated tariffs it's clear he's not influencing Trump either.

[bernard11]

You read it wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

"So my conclusion is to fix our mess we need to raise our taxes as % of GDP about 1%, and lower our spending a little less than 5% (as a percentage of GDP) to duplicate what Clinton did,"

The problem is that Congress reliably responds to revenue increases by increasing spending even more. What you saw during the Clinton years was a dot com boom that happened to coincide with Congress being totally tied up with the impeachment fight, so that they were unusually slow to respond to the revenue surge. But spending caught up with revenue fast enough after the impeachment fight was over.

The other problem, of course, is that the accumulated debt is now so large that just servicing the debt is a substantial part of the federal budget. To even get to a balanced budget we'd need to run a pretty large 'primary' surplus.

For most of post- WWII history, all you'd have needed to solve the deficit problem was to stop raising spending for a few years, and let the revenue catch up. I believe that's no longer the case, thanks to the large debt carrying component of federal spending, even a freeze of all other federal spending would no longer stop federal spending from rising as fast as revenue.

[grb]

Brett : "What you saw during the Clinton years was a dot com boom that happened to coincide with Congress being totally tied up with the impeachment fight, so that they were unusually slow to respond to the revenue surge."

How the f**k can anyone repeatedly peddle something this lame? Four Points :

1. In terms of motivation, here's why: Brett likes whining about the deficit. But unlike Kazinski, he refuses to face any of the difficult choices and compromises necessary to confront it. He's interested in dealing with federal debt only if the Right gets everything they want, sates every desire, has no difficult choices, makes zero compromises, and owns the Libs every step of the way. Otherwise, Brett is satisfied with two-faced talk alone. What happened in the Clinton years is therefore a "problem" that has to be explained away, however absurdly.

2. I don't care if Brett "blames" Clinton's economic success entirely on the "dot com boom". Presidents usually get too much credit/blame for the macro economic trends during their term anyway. But in terms of this discussion, its irrelevant anyway. Reagan almost had as good an economic expansion as WJC and he buried the country under debt. The difference between the two was the deficit reduction bills passed under Clinton and GHW Bush.

3. Can anyone read Brett's gibberish about Congress being too distracted to spent without laughing their asses off? What a pathetic spectacle of weaseling! First, Congress has never been that absent-minded. Second, they had (from the two deficit reduction bills) created strict structural procedural blocks that prevented new spending without offsetting cuts or new taxes.

4. Something like that still exists today, but it's toothless and easily finagled. The real controls were eliminated after the election of W Bush to allow his massive tax cuts. Whatya wanna bet Brett applauded every single step that led back to massive deficits?

[Sarcastr0]

One of my favorite political cartoons

Might be one of the cutest Obama caricatures we got.

[David Nieporent]

I don't understand why this perennial discussion here never seems to mention the peace dividend.

[Kazinski]

Well it was not only the peace dividend during the Clinton years, but also we had the Savings and Loan crises during Bush 1 which raised the deficit, and put a lot of assets on our balance sheet. There were a total of 450 billion on Resolution Trusts ledger totaling 450 billion, and an 85% recovery rate when they disposed of the assets. A lot of those assets were acquired during Bush 1 and disposed during the Clinton years.

The First 2 trillion Federal budget was 1999, so that actually had quite an impact.

[bernard11]

The fact that you fail to give Clinton even a smidge of credit is proof your comment is dishonest.

The man got taxes raised in the face of all sorts of doomsaying by the right, but you can't even bring yourself to mention his name.

[Kazinski]

I think you are wrong Brett, the tech sector was a smaller part of the economy then and not only is it much larger, its still booming.

We had just as large of relative deficits after WW2, and while we had a little faster growth, we had more frequent recessions.

We go a decade with under 1% deficts then we will be back in reasonable shape. 2% growth, 2% inflation 1% deficit = -3% relative dent.

Over 10 years that's a 34% decrease in relative debt.

And any deficit % lower than the inflation+ growth rate is sustainable, but won't fix the problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

"We had just as large of relative deficits after WW2"

Federal Surplus or Deficit [-] as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

No, in fact we did NOT have just as large of relative deficits after WW2, unless you are talking only about the 1946 fiscal year, when the war was technically over, but the government was still on a war footing.

This chart is, by the way, not taking into account debt service, which is why it shows an actual surplus for a few years during the Clinton administration.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S

So, for 2024, the deficit not counting debt service was 6.28% of GDP, add debt service, and it was 9.3% of GDP. Whether you count debt service or not, we were nowhere near these numbers until at least 40 years after WWII.

[Kazinski]

Do you have a cite for the proposition that debt service isn't included in the data for Federal Spending?

I don't think that's the case, adding the debt service to the deficit is double counting debt service.

And debt service by itself is just 2.5% of GDP.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know what? I take that back: They're counting interest, they're just not counting accumulation of future obligations.

I know the government sometimes talks about "primary" surplus and deficit, but that wasn't the case here.

[bernard11]

What do you mean by "accumulated future obligations?"

PV of future SS and Medicare obligations? If you're going to start counting that then you you need to include future revenues as well.

And the only real reason to do that is to encourage Congress to take some action, which will change those estimates.

[bernard11]

Debt service is in fact not included.

Take a look at this graph.

It shows the 2024 deficit as 6.28% of GDP.

Now look at the second one here.

It shows the total deficit and the primary deficit (the deficit minus interest) as % of GDP.

The total for 2024 is shown as 6.4%, close enough to FRED's figure, and the primary deficit for 2024 as 3.3%. Besides, the FRED graph would surely mention that if it was true.

So the figure in Brett's link does not exclude interest. That's a take he got from one his terrible sources on economics.

Still, good news. We're 3% better off than Brett thinks.

[bernard11]

"Debt service is in fact not excluded."

[jb]

"So my conclusion is to fix our mess we need to raise our taxes as % of GDP about 1%, and lower our spending a little less than 5% (as a percentage of GDP) to duplicate what Clinton did, and please note thats really only 1.5% lower than Obama's 2nd term (or Trumps pre covid years) spending so I think thats pretty doable, it won't put us back in the stoneage."

I'm okay with this if we're willing to keep Medicare and Social Security spending at the same portion of the GDP as in Clinton's era.

[Martinned]

That wouldn't be a very good deal for the left. Because of an aging population (no immigration!) and Baumol's cost disease both healcare and social security spending would normally increase by more than GDP even absent any change in what that money is actually spent on.

[jb]

I think it's an issue of generational equity, not left/right.

The Boomers have systematically screwed over subsequent generations while enriching themselves. Now that they're aging into entitlement programs, we shouldn't slash all other government spending to try to keep entitlement programs working for them, especially if the goal is mostly to keep taxes low.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, we boomers were also screwed over. They increased out SS contribution drastically to bail out the system, and then instead of bailing it out they just frittered the money away.

If they'd left it pay as you go, I'd have enough retirement savings today that I wouldn't NEED Social Security!

[jb]

The "they" doing the frittering was mostly Boomer politicians, though!

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, but it's not a case of "boomers" vs everybody else, it's a case of boomer politicians screwing over everybody else, including non-politician boomers.

And I can't say I've seen much of an improvement over the boomer politicians in the next generation, so don't count on things improving when McConnell finally kicks the bucket.

[Kazinski]

We will probably have to reduce the spending on entitlements by means testing SS and Medicare.

[Magister]

Or raise the income level subject to those taxes.

[Krayt]

If corruptions hadn't been borrowing hand over fist for two generations, we'd have an extra $500 billion a year to spend not on borrowed money.

What? It's up to $900 billion interest payments a year?

Remember this the next time you hear sob stories.

[not guilty]

Here is an interesting article about the U.S. District Judge who will preside over the Judge Hannah Dugan dog and pony show: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/wisconsin-judge-dugans-case-goes-before-scotus-bashing-jurist?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Perhaps now Pam Blondie and Company will come to appreciate the maxim from Aesop's Fables: Be careful what you wish for; your wish may be granted.

If this case should somehow go to trial, I will be surprised if it survives a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Be careful what you ask for....

[Kazinski]

She can beat the rap, but not the ride.

Probation was all she'd get anyway.

And she is still suspended.

[Martinned]

Who needs an independent judiciary anyway?

[Kazinski]

Had nothing to do with anything she did on the bench, and she is a state court judge anyway.

[Commenter_XY]

If the Dugan suspension converts to removal from the bench permanently, that would be appropriate. She did the public perp walk, mug shot. That is forever, Kaz. Hannah Dugan won't be going to her lib cocktail parties w/o someone thinking about her self-inflicted scarlet letters (ICE); she'll recognize the knowing looks. That is forever. I'm sure Judge Dugan sees herself as a martyr for the cause.

Are judges elected in WI? Just imagine that re-election campaign (with posters of her mugshot everywhere).

As for the presiding judge, I vaguely remember when he ran for office decades ago (remembered the name, and I bet National Review did a blurb on him). What is one step down from a loon? That's him. I just don't know what to call that.

[Kazinski]

Don't kid yourself, in Milwaukee in legal circles they are giving her high fives, and 'you go girl'.

[Commenter_XY]

If Judge Hannah goes to a judicial conference, I promise you, they won't be giving her 'high fives'. She'll see a roomful of knowing looks, and not a few just turning away.

That perp walk and mugshot will follow her for the rest of her life. Nothing hurts a progressive like public humiliation, Kaz. How can she possibly sit in judgment of others, is my question?

[Magister]

More dishonest crap from Commenter_XY "the process is the punishment".

A legal conference is likely to have a whole bunch of the people who decried this arrest as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary; being attacked by people as vile as Commenter_XY will not bring shame to any progressive. So she will not suffer for vindication in the face of Trump's judicial intimidation, which is why Commenter_XY is so eager to denounce it now. But it is a fair observation that people like Commenter_XY and the cult he follows never feel shame for their vileness.

If she chooses not to retire (she's 65 or 66 years old), her next election as a judge would be in 2028, coincidentally at the same time that Wisconsin has a presidential primary. But maybe Elon Musk will spend scads of money to affect that election; it worked so well in this year's Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

[Sarcastr0]

"Mr. C is not a born Nazi. He is the product of a democracy hypocritically preaching social equality and practicing a carelessly brutal snobbery. He is a sensitive, gifted man who has been humiliated into nihilism. He would laugh to see heads roll."

Or, as Michael Mann put it, “Fascism was a movement of the lesser intelligentsia.”

[Commenter_XY]

Run Hannah, run! 🙂

[Magister]

She won convincingly in 2016 against an appointed incumbent; apparently unopposed in 2022. I don't see her running for any other office, and Milwaukee County in spring 2028 looks favorable to candidates whom Trump dislikes. I would expect acquittal to carry as much weight as a mugshot.

[Mr. Bumble]

A judiciary independent of the law?

[Bwaaah]

Reminds me of parents.

[Michael Ejercito]

A state judiciary independent of federal law?

[Magister]

A judiciary independent of the law?

Only if you think Trump is the law, rather than constitutions, statutes, precedent and tradition.

[TwelveInchPianist]

18 USC §1071 and §1505 are statutes, not Trump, correct?

[Magister]

The independent judiciary is one that does not take orders from the executive branch. Laws and procedures being misused to intimidate judges is an attempt to stomp on that independence.

[not guilty]

The matter is set for jury trial beginning on July 21, 2025. https://www.wied.uscourts.gov/sites/wied/files/documents/25cr89%205.15.25%20Arraignment%20Minutes.pdf

The facts appear to be essentially uncontroverted. I see no reason that the trial cannot commence as scheduled.

[windycityattorney]

She has Paul Clement on her side. Unlike the present DOJ and solicitor general... I believe he still has a sterling reputation and is known for superb advocacy. Wouldn't be shocked if he somehow gets it thrown out prior to trial. There is a motion to dismiss already on file claiming judicial immunity.

[Life of Brian]

I saw the media blitz about Clement last month, but can't help but notice he hasn't appeared in the case. Doesn't necessarily mean he's not involved on some level, but after making him part of the the shock-and-awe campaign it's a bit puzzling they wouldn't want his name on the papers.

[not guilty]

Actually obtaining a dismissal prior to trial -- especially on a claim of immunity from prosecution -- would be idle ceremony. If I were in Judge Dugan's position I would want jeopardy to attach sooner rather than later.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

From what little I've read about the case, I think she'd make a better politician than a judge. Perhaps a career change is in her future?

[not guilty]

I don't think so. The woman is innocent, but she is also old, obese and unattractive. If the facts in the affidavit supporting the criminal complaint are correct, she also appears to be a bit bitchy. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/FBI_charging_document_against_Milwaukee_Judge_Hannah_Dugan.pdf These are not appealing characteristics in politicians.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure what basis there is for saying she's innocent, beyond that the charges haven't been proven in a trial yet. Are you sure you didn't mean, "At worst guilty of something I don't find objectionable."?

[Michael P]

not guilty's infamously reliable legal judgement is that what Judge Dugan did shouldn't be considered a crime. He reads the law to require an absurd level of success in the offense.

David Nieporent tried to explain it last week, but last I saw had made no progress against that invincible arrogance.

[not guilty]

Michael P, the language of criminal statutes -- which must be construed strictly against the government -- matters. What Congress has prohibited simply does not define as a criminal offense what Judge Dugan is alleged to have done here.

I respect David Nieporent's analytical ability, but he is simply wrong here.

[Michael P]

... says the same legal mind that spent many thousands of words explaining why Fani Willis and Nathan Wade had an ironclad arrangement that complied with all the ethical rules.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fani-willis-georgia-election-indictment-removed-0aa6db3b7abed22eb08ed9323f687972
https://apnews.com/article/fani-willis-georgia-open-records-act-violation-8b79847469f33d36f9c37f86940a238d

[tylertusta]

I'm of the opinion that our friend Mr. Guilty offers views that are charitably described as aspirational and should be regarded with that disability in mind.

[not guilty]

tylertusta, Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said in a 1983 op-ed piece for the Washington Post, "First, get your facts straight. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

I would add that opinions are like assholes. Everyone has (at least) one. They often stink. And one should offer neither his opinion nor his asshole casually.

[tylertusta]

"Polemics are certainly necessary at times, but they are only justified by being necessary; otherwise they produce more heat than light."

Richard Strier, 1995

[not guilty]

With my background as a criminal defense lawyer, I don't often speak of actual innocence. This woman, however, is stone cold innocent.

She is accused of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1071 by concealing Eduardo Flores-Ruiz "so as to prevent [his] discovery and arrest" by federal agents. https://san.com/wp-content/uploads/securepdfs/2025/05/25cr89-indictment-us-v-dugan.pdf Actual prevention of such discovery and arrest is an essential element of the offense; a mere attempt to do so will not suffice. Federal agents at all relevant times knew where Mr. Flores-Ruiz was -- a DEA agent rode down the freaking elevator car shoulder to shoulder with him -- and the feds actually effected the arrest, according to the affidavit of FBI agent Lindsay Schloemer in support of the criminal complaint. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/FBI_charging_document_against_Milwaukee_Judge_Hannah_Dugan.pdf

Judge Dugan is also charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1505 with "corruptly endeavor[ing] to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper administration of the law under which a pending proceeding was being had before a department and agency of the United States, namely the administrative arrest of E.F.R. for purposes of removal proceedings conducted by the United States Department of Homeland Security, by committing affirmative acts to assist E.F.R. to evade arrest[.]" The culpable mental state of acting "corruptly" is an essential element of the offense. The actual actions and omissions attributed to the accused in the indictment, however, fail to evince that culpable mental state of acting "corruptly", to-wit:

a. confronting members of a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Task Force and falsely telling them they needed a Judicial warrant to effectuate the arrest of E.F.R.
b. upon learning that they had an administrative warrant for E.R.R.’s arrest, directing all identified members of the ICE Task Force to leave the location of the planned arrest (a public hallway outside of Courtroom 615 of the Milwaukee County Courthouse) and go to the Chief Judge's office;
c. addressing E.F.R.'s Milwaukee County Circuit Court criminal case off the record while ICE Task Force members were in the Chief Judge's office;
d. directing E.F.R. and his counsel to exit Courtroom 615 through a non-public jury door; and
e. advising E.F.R.'s counsel that E.F.R. could appear by “Zoom” for his next court date.

None of these alleged actions or omissions evince the accused having acted "corruptly." Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Ed. (2009) defines "corruptly" as:

In a corrupt or depraved manner; by means of corruption or bribery. • As used in criminal statutes,corruptly usu. indicates a wrongful desire for pecuniary gain or other advantage.

The relevant definition there of "corrupt" as an adjective is "Having an unlawful or depraved motive; esp., influenced by bribery."

Cui bono?

[Michael P]

You should probably consult 18 U.S. Code § 1515 rather than Black's Law Dictionary for the operative definition of "corruptly":

(b) As used in section 1505, the term “corruptly” means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.

Judge Dugan's behavior satisfies all those elements.

[not guilty]

Fair point, but taking every fact alleged in the indictment and the affidavit supporting the criminal complaint as true, Judge Dugan is not accused of acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.

There are no documents involved here. She withheld, concealed, altered or destroyed no other information.

Judge Dugan made no statement which she knew to be false.

There is no evidence of her acting with an improper purpose by simply maintaining control of state criminal proceedings before her. "[T]he courtroom and courthouse premises are subject to the control of the court." Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 358 (1966). As the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has opined:

If Judge Cassidy ordered Plaintiff removed from the court building, he was also engaged in performing a judicial function. Judges have an obligation to maintain control over the courthouse and over the conduct of persons in the courthouse; the issuance of an order removing persons from the courthouse in the interest of maintaining such control is an ordinary function performed by judges: for example, where a person might not be complying with a court order or might be impeding the judicial proceeding. Cf. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 358, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966) ("the courtroom and courthouse premises are subject to the control of the court"); United States v. Smith, 426 F.3d 567, 569, 576 (2d Cir. 2005) (stressing the importance that the judiciary—not the Marshals Service—play the primary role in controlling access to federal buildings containing courtrooms); United States v. Ulan, 421 F.2d 787, 788 (2d Cir. 1970) (appeal from a conviction for assaulting and interfering with a U.S. Deputy Marshal, which arose after a district court judge ordered the Marshals to clear the courtroom and to escort all demonstrators outside the courthouse); Richman v. Sheahan, 512 F.3d 876, 880 (7th Cir. 2008) (a state court judge ordered the son of a woman contesting a traffic ticket to leave the court building and, when he refused, ordered court security officers to arrest the man for contempt); United States v. Brugnara, 856 F.3d 1198, 1205 (9th Cir. 2017) (district court judge ordered a belligerent juror removed from the building); State v. Bush, 148 Ariz. 325, 714 P.2d 818, 823 (Ariz. 1986) ("the trial judge has the primary responsibility for controlling the conduct of spectators in the courtroom and the courthouse" and, if necessary, "may clear the courtroom and the courthouse of those who may be intimidating witnesses or other court personnel.").

Stevens v. Osuna, 877 F.3d 1293, 1305 (11th Cir. 2017) (footnotes omitted).

[Michael P]

Acting corruptly is an element of an offense for which Judge Dugan is indicted, and so she necessarily is accused of having those characteristics in her actions. For example, she should have known (constructive knowledge) that her claim about ICE needing a warrant was false -- "ignorance of the law is no excuse", to coin a phrase.

Perhaps indictments should be required to detail a specific theory of what facts satisfy each element of a crime, but that's not what our legal system requires or how indictments are normally written.

Your citation there is ridiculous. It's about judges having the authority to order people to be removed from their courtrooms for disruptive behavior. Are you suggesting that either the ICE agents or E.F.R. was disrupting the courtroom? If E.F.R. was disrupting it, ICE stood ready to assist in removing him.

[not guilty]

This case is not going to get past a defense motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's proof.

The arrest, perp walk and indictment of this defendant are an abuse of the judicial process, likely intended not to actually obtain a conviction, but to bully those with the temerity to stand up to President Trump and his goon squads.

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

You don't have a great track record with your partisan, goal seeking analyses.

Just an FYI. We can tell by your confidence that you're clearly not keeping track of how often you're flat out wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

Perp walks are always an abuse, but they don't seem to get in the way of convicting people.

[Drewski]

"'ignorance of the law is no excuse', to coin a phrase."

I can see that expression catching on.

[tylertusta]

Judge Dugan made no statement which she knew to be false.

Was Judge Dugan aware of the Chief Judge's policy about arrests being permitted in the public spaces of the courthouse?

If she was aware (a simple check of her email might suffice), then her statements to the ICE agents that contradicted the policy would be knowingly false.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And it's safe to assume she knows the law anyway. Judicial warrants aren't needed in public areas, like the public portions of the courthouse.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Cui bono is why she is guilty.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 10 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"With my background as a criminal defense lawyer, I don't often speak of actual innocence. This woman, however, is stone cold innocent."

Innocent - stone cold innocent - BS
Those Multiple witnesses dont exist? She was actively involved with assisting the individual to elude ICE. Cant be more blatantly obvious

[David Nieporent]

What do the existence of witnesses have to do with NG's claim? His argument is that what she did doesn't meet the elements of the crimes with which she has been charged, not that she didn't do the things people said she did.

[Michael Ejercito]

If he has evidence of actual innocence, he needs to contact Judge Dugan's attorney.

[David Nieporent]

I disagree with his legal analysis, but I think you're confused about the burden of proof in a criminal trial.

[Kazinski]

The only basis for concluding she is innocent is the venue.

I don't know if that will be sufficient, but its a lot. Thats the reddest part of the state.

[Magister]

Isn't the venue Milwaukee, a county that went 68% for Harris? I have to assume you meant bluest, although Dane County is actually bluer.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, that's actually what I meant.

[not guilty]

The venue is the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The vicinage of the jury will be the Milwaukee Division of the Eastern District, which is composed of twelve counties.

[Magister]

The twelve counties do include Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington which have long been significant Republican strongholds, so things are much less clear.

[Armchair]

" but she is also old, obese and unattractive."

Wow...

[Mr. Bumble]

Only thing he got wrong was "The woman is innocent..."

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble, what part of "the accused did not prevent the discovery and arrest of Eduardo Flores-Ruiz" do you fail to understand?

As I said last week, "Prevent[ion]" here necessarily relates to the defendant's conduct. Here, according to the affidavit of FBI agent Lindsay Schloemer in support of the criminal complaint, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/FBI_charging_document_against_Milwaukee_Judge_Hannah_Dugan.pdf , Judge Dugan's actions at most delayed the arrest of Mr. Flores-Ruiz from no sooner than "approximately 8:43 a.m." when he entered the courtroom (affidavit, ¶18) until no later than "approximately 8:50 a.m." when he got on the elevator -- shoulder to shoulder with a DEA agent. (Affidavit, ¶33.) Further delay was attributable to the inexplicable timidity of DEA Agent A, who could have handcuffed him before he left the elevator.

Prevent and delay are different words with different meanings. As the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the other. Congress could have said "delay." It could have said "prevent or delay." It didn't.

The language of 18 U.S.C. § 1071, "so as to prevent his discovery and arrest," does not subsume a mere attempt to conceal. There is no general criminal attempt in federal criminal law. When Congress intends to prohibit the inchoate offense of attempt along with the substantive offense, it knows what language to employ.

For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) provides that anyone who “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation,” commits an offense. (Emphasis added.)

As to the § 1071 charge, Judge Dugan is stone cold innocent.

[hippo]

I have 2 priors:
Federal conviction rate is what, 90%?
And NGs prediction rate is about 10%

[not guilty]

That 90% conviction rate includes cases that were resolved by guilty pleas. That is exceedingly unlikely to happen here.

[not guilty]

The critical question as to the charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1505 is whether Judge Dugan acted with the requisite culpable mental state. The relevant portion of the statute states, "Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States" commits an offense. Per 18 U.S.C. § 1515(b), "As used in section 1505, the term “corruptly” means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information." These penal statutes must be construed strictly against the goverment. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat) 76, 95 (1820):

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

The phrase, "acting with an improper purpose" necessarily excludes acting with a legitimate, proper purpose. If Judge Dugan believed her actions to be a lawful exercise of her judicial duties, she simply committed no crime under §§ 1505 and 1515(b).

The Supreme Court has made clear that "courtroom and courthouse premises are subject to the control of the court." Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 358 (1966). "A secure courtroom is necessary to protect the judicial function from interference or intimidation[.]" Richman v. Sheahan, 270 F.3d 430, 438 (7th Cir. 2001). "Judges have an obligation to maintain control over the courthouse and over the conduct of persons in the courthouse; the issuance of an order removing persons from the courthouse in the interest of maintaining such control is an ordinary function performed by judges: for example, where a person might not be complying with a court order or might be impeding the judicial proceeding." Stevens v. Osuna, 877 F.3d 1293, 1306 (11th Cir. 2017).

In order to convict Judge Dugan, the prosecution must negate or rebut beyond a reasonable doubt that she believed that she was acting in the lawful exercise of her judicial authority and, a fortiori, lacked the culpable mental state specified by statute.

[Speaking for normal people]

Nothing attractive except your projection of her innocence. I see 🙂

[Martinned]

Hannah Dugan is already a politician. That's how she got her current job.

[tylertusta]

-

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed.

[Drewski]

If we look at it in a vacuum like it's an exam question - ignoring the politics of the matter, the judge assignment, matters of process, etc. - it seems to be a pure question of law. Yeah, she should absolutely put up a Rule 29 motion but I'm personally unfamiliar with the relevant law in this situation. What authority would you suggest she will invoke?

For the record I think she was morally correct, but the law doesn't always back that horse.

[tylertusta]

An 85-year old district court judge that hasn't taken senior status is pretty rare.

If this case should somehow go to trial, I will be surprised if it survives a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal.

At this point, the case is win-win for the Trump administration because Adelman is the judge.

Perhaps now Pam Blondie and Company will come to appreciate the maxim from Aesop's Fables: Be careful what you wish for; your wish may be granted.

The immunity argument raised by Dugan definitely qualifies as the 'be careful what you wish for' wrinkle that will make this case drag out.

[not guilty]

As I have said before, immunity from criminal prosecution for a state court judge is a non-starter. "[J]udicial immunity was not designed to insulate the judiciary from all aspects of public accountability. Judges are immune from 1983 damages actions, but they are subject to criminal prosecutions as are other citizens." Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 31 (1980). "[W]e have never held that the performance of the duties of judicial, legislative, or executive officers, requires or contemplates the immunization of otherwise criminal deprivations of constitutional rights. . . . On the contrary, the judicially fashioned doctrine of official immunity does not reach so far as to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by an Act of Congress." O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974).

[tylertusta]

She's clearly just bootstrapping her judicial immunity argument off of Trump's successful immunity argument, but there may be federalism and separation of powers arguments that may make her immunity argument stronger than you give her credit for.

[Michael Ejercito]

Immunity was meant to ensure state judges could not be prosecuted for orders or judgments issued from the bench 9absent extraordinary circumstances).

What is alleged was not an order nor judgment from the bench.

[tylertusta]

Some of the alleged acts taken by Dugan were from the bench. Her cancelling the hearing was definitely within the province of her position as a judge. It was highly unusual and procedurally indefensible (in the context of the case she was overseeing), but definitely within her authority to do.

Other things, like distracting Federal agents with a faux prohibition on arrests and then her doubling back to usher the illegal alien out through a staff-only hallway definitely were not official acts.

[David Nieporent]

Immunity was meant to ensure state judges could not be prosecuted for orders or judgments issued from the bench

No; it was meant to ensure that state judges could not be sued for orders or judgments issued from the bench. There has never been criminal judicial immunity.

[not guilty]

"She's clearly just bootstrapping her judicial immunity argument off of Trump's successful immunity argument, but there may be federalism and separation of powers arguments that may make her immunity argument stronger than you give her credit for."

I understand the need for defense counsel to file the pretrial motion and thereby preserve the issue for review. But on the merits it is foreclosed by precedents which only SCOTUS can overturn.

[tylertusta]

I agree.

I would love to read Judge Aldelmen's regretful denial of a MTD where he says "While you may be right that you have immunity, only SCOTUS can give it to you."

A statement like from Adelmen that would be quite a change from how the lower courts treated Trump's (ultimately mostly successful) immunity argument: abject hostility and a contemptuous, out-of-hand denial.

[Martinned]

In Romania civilisation just about hung on. Nicușor Dan beat George Simion 54/46. In Poland they had the first round, and the result was basically the same the centre-right candidate (Trzaskowski) beat the far right candidate (Nawrocki) 31,4% to 29,5%, with the second round to take place on 1 June. In Portugal the centre right also won, but that was a parliamentary election so the result is less easy to summarise, other than that the far right made serious gains and went from 50 to 58 seats (out of 230).

My sense is that none of these elections had an obvious Trump effect, like the recent elections in Canada and Australia, even though various Trumpists did of course endorse the far right candidates in most of these elections. (In Poland and Romania, I didn't see anything either way about Trumpists endorsing Chega in Portugal.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

In the 250th Anniversary of the Revolution, I am struck at how close the situation is to what it was back then.

Instead of Lord North and the Privy Council, it is Lord Roberts and the Federal Judiciary and the dynamics are the same.

And Lord North lost, as did Roger Taney...

[Martinned]

In both cases a bunch of racists who didn't like paying taxes were/are stirring up trouble for the rest of North America. Plus ça change...

[ThePublius]

That's quite an insulting smear, even for you. Coming from someone whose home country engaged in the international slave trade from the late 1500's, i.e., 200 years before the United States' founding, until after the emancipation proclamation, and then 10 years more in the Dutch colonies, you have no grounds to call the U.S. revolutionaries racists. And, yes, we didn't like paying taxes to a colonizing empire without representation. The American Revolution was a noble, laudable cause.

[Sarcastr0]

Tells us more about the Haitians eating our pets, TP.

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

You can just go find the videos. They're still available all over the place. The government censors didn't squash them all.

[ThePublius]

You're a jerk.

[ThePublius]

1. Do people in Haiti eat cats? Yes, they do.
2. Do people in Haiti practice animal sacrifice? Yes they do.
3. Do immigrants often bring their cultural practices with them to their new country? Yes, they usually do.

But I'm sure you will refute all of this. So, no point in arguing.

[Martinned]

Wait, you think that I'm not allowed to call Americans racists just because most of my ancestors were racists too? I mean, most of everyone's ancestors were racists, that doesn't really have anything to do with anything.

The American Revolution was a noble, laudable cause.

Sure, for the people who were trying to get out of paying taxes, and who wanted more freedom to steal indigenous people's land and have slaves work that land. For everyone else, not so much.

(I'm simplifying, of course. There were a lot more reasons why the revolutionaries were odious people. But then the Brits were no saints either.)

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

Martinned has a point.

We should all go back to where we came from. But, I'm not go to gerrymander cut-off dates to just make Whites look bad.

Everyone should go back to their genetic ancestral homelands. All 9B humans.
- Whites should go back their genetic home in Europe
- blacks should go back to their genetic home in Africa
- yellows should go back to their genetic home in Southeast Asia
- retards and mudbloods can be shipped off to Australia, where they seem to concentrate now

[Bob from Ohio]

"revolutionaries were odious people"

Reading you always makes me wonder why we ever helped liberate Holland in 1945.

[Martinned]

Because the fascists in the US almost won power, but ultimately didn't.

[Bob from Ohio]

"freedom to steal indigenous people's land and have slaves work that land"

Like the Dutch in South Africa and the East Indies?

[Martinned]

Yes, exactly like that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Glass houses, stones something, something.

[Martinned]

We gave up our colonies, you exiled your indigenous peoples to the most uninhabitable parts of your country.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Generally, the Dutch do not celebrate their imperial past, and colonial history is not featured prominently in Dutch schoolbooks. This perspective on their imperial past has only recently started to shift.[80][81]

In a survey conducted by YouGov in March 2019, 50% of respondents in the Netherlands said they felt some level of pride in the Dutch colonial empire, while 6% felt ashamed.[82][83] "
Wiki

[Martinned]

How does that rebut what I said? (Any of the things I said in this bit of the thread.)

I mean, you guys kept the receipts.

First there was this:

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

And then there was this:

Washington was clearly willing to take considerable risks in seeking out choice land for himself. In the same letter, however, he warned Crawford "to keep the whole matter a secret, rather than give the alarm to others or allow himself to be censured for the opinion I have given in respect to the King's Proclamation." He concluded by offering Crawford an alibi should his behavior be called into question. "All of this can be carried on by silent management and can be carried out by you under the guise of hunting game, which you may, I presume, effectually do, at the same time you are in pursuit of land. When this is fully discovered advise me of it, and if there appears a possibility of succeeding, I will have the land surveyed to keep others off and leave the rest to time and my own assiduity." In fact, the letter marked the beginning of a very profitable fifteen-year partnership. Less than two weeks after he had received it, Crawford informed Washington about several tracts in the vicinity of Fort Pitt, and the two men continued to collaborate until Crawford's death in 1782.

https://www.loc.gov/collections/george-washington-papers/articles-and-essays/george-washington-survey-and-mapmaker/washington-as-land-speculator/

[ThePublius]

You are such a joke. The Dutch engaged in an international slave trade for over 300 years. What has the Netherlands done to rectify this atrocity?

You are also quite insulting to call the American Revolutionaries racists who didn't want to pay taxes, and the US who saved you from Nazi government fascists.

Screw you.

[Martinned]

Why are you citing facts as if they somehow rebut my facts? There are lots of facts, the world is full of them!

[ThePublius]

You didn't "give up" your colonies, they became independent, in some case through war. Don't act like it was some altruistic act on the part of the Dutch government.

I might remind you that the Netherlands Antilles persisted until 2010. It certainly took you guys a long time to shed your colonial possessions.

[Martinned]

...and then in 2010 half of the Netherlands Antilles voted to become part of the Netherlands proper. Before that, in 1975, Suriname became independent even though the people there didn't want to be. (Which is why more than half of the population of Suriname moved to the Netherlands at the time.)

Facts, aren't they great! Meanwhile, you still haven't explained how any of this makes the US not-racist.

[Vryedni]

The day Dr. Ed doesn't wishcast the next civil war is a day that doesn't end in "y."

[Commenter_XY]

I wish President Biden well in his fight against cancer. I've had family members battle cancer, it is tough (even to watch, let alone experience). The political differences between family members are immaterial, they don't matter in that battle. Why?

Best of luck, President Biden. Get well soon.

[Gasman]

As Spok noted in Amok Time, live long and prosper is not really an option.
Five year survival with stage 4 prostate cancer is about 30%, made more bleak by the high tumor grade.
And demential shortens life expectancy, which is in aggregate for that cohort is only 6 years for an 82 year old man. Knowing the above medical history, a gardener might tend to focus on planting annuals rather than perennials.

[Kazinski]

In absolutely bizzarro world news, Trump's approval rating in New Jersey is dead even, and his net approval is 18 points higher than it was in 2020:
"President Donald Trump is seeing an unexpected surge in support in New Jersey—a state Republicans haven't carried in a presidential election since 1988.

According to the latest Emerson College/PIX11/The Hill poll, conducted between May 11-13 among 1,000 New Jersey registered voters, Trump holds a 47 percent approval rating, while 47 percent also disapprove, and 6 percent are neutral. The poll, like previous Emerson polls, had a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

That is a significant change from July 2020, when an Emerson poll found that the majority of New Jersey voters (56 percent) disapproved of the job Trump was doing as president, whereas 38 percent approved, and 7 percent were neutral."

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-new-jersey-poll-2073209

Hard to paint this as anything but terrible news for Democrats. Trump only lost NJ by 5 in '24 after losing by 16 in '20.

If NJ turns purple that could really shake things up.

[Mr. Bumble]

Both parties have several candidates. Wait for the primary results for a better picture.

[Commenter_XY]

The People's Republic of NJ is not turning purple anytime soon; I live there (in a rather nice 'small' township). They regularly compete with NY, CA, CT and IL for 'Bluest of the Blue'. There is a Team D supermajority in the People's Duma, and that isn't changing, Kaz.

'Jack' needs to articulate a better alternative. It is a very low bar to run on, "I am not Phailing Phil Murphy and I can work with a Team D supermajority in the Duma".

Right now, whoever Team D selects as their candidate will win election, easily. Unless something dramatic happens here in the People's Republic of NJ between now and November, math is still math. Team D outnumbers Team R by a huge margin.

Something exogenous needs to happen to change the dynamics of the race, or Ciattarelli loses. And that's a fact, Jack. 😉

[Speaking for normal people]

I spent 30 years in NJ including two attempts by South Jersey to SECEDE. people will go for Trump once they see the connection with sen Menendez and fat Christie. No one likes someone pretending to be helping you while getting fat and rich off you.

[hobie]

I think that if these poll numbers hold true, the Democrats need to take notice. Even with all the naked corruption and pointless on/off tariffs, Trump has hardly done anything meaningful...EXCEPT...he's gone after the brownies just like he said he would. It must be this. I'm a lib, yet I have never liked illegal immigration. I suspect other libs may think the same way. Message to lib candidates: drop the immigration avoidance. Get on board this one

[Brett Bellmore]

"with all the naked corruption and pointless on/off tariffs, Trump has hardly done anything meaningful...EXCEPT...he's gone after the brownies just like he said he would."

Illegal immigration is almost universally unpopular, even (Democrats were in denial about this!) in the ethnic/racial groups the illegal immigrants are members of.

But the Democratic party has long had a policy of enduring the political cost of illegal immigration, in the interest of skewing US demographics in a direction they thought would favor them in the long run. Ironically, this IS about "brownies", but for Democrats, not Republicans.

But I think there IS some chance of the Democrats abandoning this project. Not just because it's becoming increasingly expensive in terms of political cost, because they're starting to realize that they don't actually have a political lock on 'brownies', so the whole program may end up pointless, the payoff is vanishing.

[tylertusta]

But I think there IS some chance of the Democrats abandoning this project ... the payoff is vanishing.

There is historical precedent for American political parties to flip on immigration based solely on immediate perceived political gain. Democrats were against it before they were for it.

It has happened before and it will happen again; I expect that the 'evolution' we're going to hear in their immigration rhetoric will be aimed at trying to win back union working class voters.

Perhaps the Democratic Party will learn a painful lesson from their November defeat: sweep en masse illegal immigration under the rug at your peril.

[bernard11]

But the Democratic party has long had a policy of enduring the political cost of illegal immigration, in the interest of skewing US demographics in a direction they thought would favor them in the long run.

Brett Rule #1:

Everyone who does something Brett dislikes always does it for some nefarious purpose, often as part of a conspiracy against the republic, never because they think it's a worthwhile idea and they honestly disagree with Brett.

[Kazinski]

Well I'm open to the incompetence argument.

Please continue.

[bernard11]

Not a question of incompetence, but of differing values.

I personally don't think illegal immigration has a big deleterious effect on the country. It may even be a benefit. Isn't there a lot of bitching about SS shortfalls?

So yeah, we should enforce the immigration laws at the border, but going nuts about rounding up every illegal in the country is insane and cruel - a pointless waste of resources and, once someone has been here a while with no problems, immoral, not to mention, for those who care about such things, unChristian.

[JasonT20]

But the Democratic party has long had a policy of enduring the political cost of illegal immigration, in the interest of skewing US demographics in a direction they thought would favor them in the long run.

This Replacement Theory nonsense gets really tiresome. "Democrats support illegal immigration because they want the children of the illegals to grow up to be Democrats." Say that out loud in mixed company with a straight face sometime.

[tylertusta]

How far we've come!

Once, many within the Democratic Party would repeat the mantra that demographics are destiny. They would actively chase a bloc that was growing and was believed to be a solidly Democratic. Don't worry- they would say- we're on the cusp of a permanent Democratic majority!

Now we're just left to suffer through people who pretend that the last 20-something years of Democratic political strategy was just a conspiracy theory.

All in all, seeing comments like yours is a small price to pay for seeing the strategy smashed so thoroughly.

[Sarcastr0]

I first heard it presented some 15 years ago as 'demography is NOT destiny.'

But regardless of your possibly distorted view of Democrats, even by your own standards you confuse observation with strategy.
Description does not mean action. They are very different words!!

Quite a leap to make. Especially given the timeline.

[tylertusta]

I first heard it presented some 15 years ago as 'demography is NOT destiny.'

'Demography is destiny' goes back to at least the 19th century French mathematician Auguste Comte. It's modern context as being used to support Democratic Party strategy only arrived in the early-to-mid 2000's.

Description does not mean action. They are very different words!!

Not much of a leap at all. The Emerging Democratic Majority came out in 2002, and the party targeted the precise demographic groups Judis and Teixeira suggested in the 2006 election. The victories in 2008 and 2012 seemed to prove it, hence the madness continuing.

[Sarcastr0]

I can't imagine anyone would dare to contradict Comte to me.

As to the book you cite - I'm not one for of-the-moment political prescriptions; seems like more just-so-story than science.

I haven't read the book, but looking it up I don't see any sign it has any policy prescriptions versus a prediction based on demographics.

Certainly I'd have seen if it calls for a strategy of upping illegal immigration.

[hobie]

Can't argue with that. For a hundred years the Democrat Machine saw to it that every ignorant white man could get $100/hr for just pulling a lever. In the end, they turn around and support the party that has been trying to destroy them.

And all the Latinos given nice comfy citizenships. In the end, they support the party that hates them.

Contrary to what others might think, fear drives all of humanity's endeavors. So you get the Unions afraid of the Latinos and you get the Latinos afraid of newer Latinos...boom...you win elections. On paper it shouldn't make sense. But when have humans ever been sensible?

[Harvey Mosley]

They don't need the children to grow up to be Democrats. They just need enough people moving into Democratic strongholds to increase representation in the House and Electoral College.

[David Nieporent]

Weird how people like Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis were trying to help out with that strategy by busing migrants from their states to blue states.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-rise-of-yehuda-kaploun-how-a-hasidic-fixer-became-trumps-antisemitism-czar-nominee/

POTUS Trump's anti-semitism czar nominee. Lengthy write-up.

I bet similar situations arise for divorce lawyers and a few of their clients. How do you avoid that, as a lawyer? Getting embroiled in a dispute that could result in reputational harm.

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

The fact that Trump even appointed an "anti-semitism czar" is disgusting.

[David Nieporent]

Voltage here was all excited until he found out that the guy was meant to oppose antisemitism, not incite it.

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

I don't like all the Jew worship coming out of Washington. Sorry if that hurts your feelings :/ I prefer my government to prioritize American citizens, and not Jews or illegals like you, the Democrats, the Deep State, and most of the DC establishment.

[Riva]

All those Hamas supporting little antisemites on campuses across the country are MAGA? Who knew?

[jb]

From the article:

That lawsuit alleged that Kaploun conducted an affair with a married woman he met through his Orthodox congregation and threatened her husband to keep it quiet.

From Commenter_XY:

I bet similar situations arise for divorce lawyers and a few of their clients. How do you avoid that, as a lawyer?

I don't know a lot of divorce lawyers, but I would hope that this is not a common pattern. At the very least, there's an obvious way to avoid it: don't have affairs with your clients! And if you do, don't threaten their spouses. Hope that helps.

[A Japanese Student]

House Budget Committee has passed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act", a reconciliation bill. I'm not even sure if this passes the House. And many of the provisions in this bill - spanning more than 1,000 pages - will likely be stricken under Byrd Rule in the Senate.

Reconciliation bills can only include spending, revenue, and debt ceiling matters. Even the proposed short title - "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (very unconventional, to say the least) - would be stricken under Senate precedent should a Senator challenge.

[Mr. Bumble]

Making sausage is not beautiful.

[Commenter_XY]

AJS...wait until you see 'The Byrd Bath'. That is when things get interesting, from a legislative perspective.

[Kazinski]

I think it's will pass the the house, the four votes that stopped it in committee Friday voted present today, indicating they are not dead enders.

If some parts of it are dropped in the senate version then it goes to the joint conference committee, I'm not sure if a filibuster is in order coming out of conference.

[A Japanese Student]

My understanding is that almost every debatable motion can be filibustered, including conference reports. see Vote 341, 118th Congress, 1st Session (three-fifth majority required for cloture on NDAA conference reports)

Though, I think you don't actually need conference - you can send bills back and forth between the two Houses.

[John F. Carr]

I gather from seeing news flow past that Senate Republicans want to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian on the scope of reconciliation. By reinterpreting the rules they can pass an otherwise filibusterable bill by majority vote. A form of nuclear option.

[Commenter_XY]

Consider the Senate Parliamentarian, a Harry Reid appointee with some history. The dispute arises over scoring projected tax revenue from continuing the 2017 TCJA tax rates. It only takes a majority vote to decide what the scoring methodology will be; the Parliamentarian doesn't decide that.

[jb]

Yes it is true that Republicans are desperate to fail to deal with the budgetary implications of their tax cuts. I guess you can try to blame the Parliamentarian for that, but it's the Republicans changing how the scoring is done, not the Parliamentarian coming up with some novel approach here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two words --- Bret Kavanough.

The Dems eliminated it for lower judges, then the GOP did for SCOTUS. Kavanaugh passed with something like 48 votes against him.

It's all in the rules of the Senate.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Bret Kavanough.

WHY‽‽‽

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside the substance, the fact that grown adults are calling it the "Big Beautiful Bill" because Trump talks that way ought to be disqualifying to any of them ever being in politics ever again.

[Riva]

I often think the same thing about you posting comments opining on constitutional interpretation.

[Riva]

What were the page counts for all those Biden reconciliation bills? I'm sure you were equally concerned. And as for silly names conveying the opposite of the bills' substance, we had the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which didn't rescue anything but Democrat interests; the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, not aptly named unless it was intended to raise inflation; and The Build Back Better Act, which didn't really build anything back, let alone better.

[A Japanese Student]

IRA is 730 pages (after Senate amendment, but before engrossment; font sizes differ between bill versions, the public law is 274 pages long). ARPA is 628 pages after Senate amendment, 243 as enacted. Long, sure.

To be clear, I don't think long bills are inherently bad. The length can be the result of legislators wanting to clarify the bill, to reduce ambiguity, and most importantly, to prevent the executive from ignoring legislative intent. I'm used to reading long bills - I can probably read 500-page bills in less than six hours if I try.

Short titles can be misleading, but at least it should indicate what a bill claims to do. "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" signifies nothing.

[David Nieporent]

"One Big Beautiful Bill Act" signifies nothing.

Au contraire: it signifies that Donald Trump is a toddler and that the people who support him are feckless enablers.

[Martinned]

A number of people last week mentioned the Lucy Connolly case, typically when arguing that free speech only existed in the US. I can recommend this blog post for people who actually want to understand what happened: https://barristerblogger.com/2025/05/18/will-lucy-connolly-win-her-appeal-against-sentence/

My views:
- This case illustrates why I'm not a fan of (rigid) sentencing guidelines. 31 months (of which, to be clear, she'd serve less than half) is ridiculous when looking at this case from first principles.
- The case also illustrates how plea bargaining can catch people out, even in countries that use it much less aggressively than the US does.
- On the facts it doesn't seem right to put her in the highest severity category, given that she tweeted before the riots really took off.

[Michael P]

Yes, that write-up confirms that freedom of speech only exists in the US.

[Malika the Maiz]

Mikie thinks she should have been sued for 20 billion dollars.

[Martinned]

Lucy Connolly has lost her appeal, presumably because the English rule for appeals is that the sentence has to be "manifestly excessive" before the Court of Appeal will step in, which seems like a bad rule to me.

The judgment is here (I haven't read it yet): https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King.pdf

[Kazinski]

I'm glad to see JD Vance is involved in the trade talks, he will definitely represent the tech companies and social media freedom of expression in the talks.

I hope agriculture is on the table too.

"Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni hailed a “new beginning” in transatlantic relations as she hosted US Vice President JD Vance and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to talk about trade, tariffs and security."

[Martinned]

Is that the same JD Vance who is getting blamed for this "flat out terrible" new FTC commissioner? https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/05/the-new-ftc-commissioner-mark-meader.html

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

If your tribe is having a hissy fit, then that's a strong enough signal to like the guy.

[JasonT20]

MAGA GOP political philosophy: If Democrats like it, we hate it! If they hate it, we love it!

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

Not absolute, but it's definitely a signal.

Sorry for being high-functioning enough that I can notice patterns and shit.

[JasonT20]

Okay, but how good are you at actually doing that objectively?

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

I'm as objective as all these Democrat judges and Democrat reporters.

[Bob from Ohio]

""flat out terrible" new FTC commissioner"

IDK, this seems pretty astute:

"Conservatives must reject the lies they have been told by libertarianism"

[bernard11]

Well, everyone should reject lies they are told by anyone.

AFAICT, conservatives are extremely bad at this.

[Sarcastr0]

"social media freedom of expression" in trade talks.

You got weird priorities.

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

Haha yeah, freedom is a "weird priority". We should be forcing them to have gay pride parades like before instead!! Now THAT's a HIGH PRIORITY!!!

[Malika the Maiz]

On the table is better than the couch I guess….

[Frank Drackman]

Why was Sleepy Joe even getting screened for Prostrate Cancer at age 82?
"The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force says men should be screened for prostate cancer until age 69. The American Cancer Society recommends screening for prostate cancer only if the patient expects to live at least 10 more years."
and now you see why, the only treatment that might extend his life is "Androgen Deprivation Therapy" which could also be called "Testicle Deprivation Therapy" and I'd say "Dr" Jill Biden has been doing that for the last 50 years. (too soon for Biden Cancer jokes??)

Frank

[hobie]

It looks like the mRNA vaccines for cancer have progressed far enough that old Biden might be eligible. We all know they are going to eventually work, even a racist doctor should understand this. What will be enjoyable for me is watching all you antivax kooks squirm when cancer comes a-callin' and there's that mRNA vaccine just sitting there in the medicine cabinet. And I guarantee you a sprinkling of ivermectin will NOT work

[Mr. Bumble]

"And I guarantee you a sprinkling of ivermectin will NOT work"

"In the 1970s, Japanese scientist Satoshi Ōmura discovered Streptomyces avermitilis, a rare bacterium found in Japanese soil, and successfully cultured it in the laboratory. What makes this bacterium special is that, despite decades of global screening, it remains the only known natural source of ivermectin. Partnering with William C. Campbell at U.S.-based Merck & Co., they turned this microbial discovery into a breakthrough antiparasitic drug that would go on to eradicate river blindness and lymphatic filariasis, earning them the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. But ivermectin’s story may not end there. In recent years, scientists have uncovered its surprising potential as an anticancer agent. Could a decades-old discovery from a humble patch of soil now hold the key to a revolutionary cancer treatment?"
https://integrative-cancer-care.org/ivermectins-untapped-anticancer-potential-mechanisms-and-emerging-clinical-trials/

[hobie]

I recall with amusement in 2020 trying to make you rubes understand that a medicine which targets multicellular organisms by a method of action of disrupting nerve and muscle function, could not work on a thing that lacks nerves and muscles. But science is clearly an irritant to the rube.

[Mr. Bumble]

You obviously did not bother to read the linked article.
"Ivermectin’s ability to manipulate chloride ion flow actually makes it a promising candidate for cancer therapy. In 2010, scientists from the Ontario Cancer Institute, Canada, discovered that ivermectin could act as an ionophore – a molecule that helps transport chloride ions across cell membranes – while studying its effects in leukaemia (blood cancer) cells. Compared to normal cells, cancer cells rely more heavily on chloride channels to regulate their electrical balance and cell volume for their survival and rapid growth. By increasing chloride influx, ivermectin disrupts this delicate balance, creating oxidative damage and pushing cancer cells toward apoptotic cell death. This ionophore mechanism makes ivermectin particularly promising as a targeted anticancer agent that spares healthy cells, which are more resistant to chloride imbalances."

[Kazinski]

Wow its absolutely unheard of for drugs to have more than one mechanism and have more than one effect.

The New England Journal at least thought it was an interesting subject:

"More than 60 randomized trials of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19 have been registered, and findings have been reported for as many as 31 clinical trials.5 The results have been discordant, and various review groups interpret the evidence differently — some advocating for benefits of ivermectin, and others reticent to conclude a benefit.6-8 However, most trials have been small, and several have been withdrawn from publication owing to concerns about credibility."

[Sarcastr0]

"Conclusions
Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19."

[Frank Drackman]

Who's "Antivax"?
I've gotten every Vid' jab they've offered (maybe that's my problem) although last few years the Publix Pharmacist looks at me like I asked for a hand job,
"We don't get many people asking for that" (The Vid' jab, not a hand job")
"You know most Insurance doesn't cover it?" (then I really get the Stink Eye when I say I'm paying Cash)
OK, I've skipped the HPV shot, but I don't have your same "Risk Factors"

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Made up persona wonders…

[Frank Drackman]

Don't be so hard on yourself Queenie, as long as you believe in yourself, that's all that counts.

[Malika the Maiz]

Crazy people are drawn to Trump

[Dr. Ed 2]

Maybe this will get us Prostate Cancer postage stamps?

You want to talk about a war on men, compare prostate cancer to breast cancer...

[Josh R]

Why was Sleepy Joe even getting screened for Prostrate Cancer at age 82?

He had symptoms (couldn't pee?).

[Sarcastr0]

Passing around on other fora:
“Although he learned Italian first Joe, now 24, speaks English without an accent and is otherwise well adapted to most U.S. mores. Instead of olive oil or smelly bear grease he keeps his hair slick with water. He never reeks of garlic and prefers chicken chow mein to spaghetti.”

Life magazine, May 1939.

[Frank Drackman]

sounds like Joe Colombo, I was more of a Meyer Lansky fan, although a case can be made if Arnold Rothstein hadn't fixed the 1919 World Series, Baseball would never have become the #1 sport until being replaced by Pro Football in the 60's.

Frank

[Noscitur a sociis]

Okay?

[Sarcastr0]

Joe is Joe DiMaggio.

I thought it was funny how people thought of Italians not that long ago...Godfather seems to have really dominated the cultural stereotype space for Italians when it came out.

'Smelly bear grease.' What in the heck? I tried to look it up...do they mean real bear grease? Used as a hair product?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"do they mean real bear grease? Used as a hair product?"

Yes.

[BrotherMovesOn]

It was speculated that 99% of "bear grease" in 1850s England actually contained pig fat, and that unscrupulous manufacturers would keep a bear skin which they would occasionally attach to a dead pig carcass. The purpose of this carcass was just for display to convince their customers that they sold genuine bear grease.[4]

The swine!
Thanks to both of you for unearthing these nuggets. Hilarious way to end the day.

[bernard11]

Reminds me of an off-topic line I heard.

"Of the DiMaggio brothers, Joe was the best hitter, Dom was the best fielder, and Vince was the best dancer."

Incidentally, "Maggio" is Italian for "May," the month. So DiMaggio means "of May," or "May's."

Coincidence?

I don't think "Mantle" has any interesting translations.

[apedad]

The Annual Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Report (CY2024) to Congress was published.

In 2024, the govt filed 308 applications with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FSIC).

Of the 308 applications, FSIC approved 228, modified 64, and 15 were denied in part.

Zero applications were denied in full.

During CY2024, the total number of persons targeted for electronic surveillance was between 500 and 999.

The total number of US Persons targeted was between zero and 499.

https://www.justice.gov/nsd/media/1397996/dl?inline

For comparison, # of applications:

2023: 327
2022: 317
2021: 388

2020: 478
2019: 848
2018: 1,117
2017: 1,349

2016: 1,477
2015: 1,499
2014: 1,416
2013: 1,655

Note: "US Persons" means US citizens, US green card holders, US companies, and US non-profits, e.g., Boy Scouts, ACLU, etc.

[Michael P]

Thanks, Trump! Dropping those numbers by two-thirds was a big achievement for civil liberties and accountable federal law enforcement.

[apedad]

I wonder if it was actually Trump's (and Biden's) admininstrations simply submitting less applications due to policy or if the law changed which allowed less situations for FISC approvals.

The threat environment certainly didn't decrease during this time - especially by the amount the numbers indicated.

[Commenter_XY]

So...95% were approved. This fact alone is why FISA Court must be abolished. It is a rubber stamp.

[Malika the Maiz]

Delicious to see so many MAGAns finally see Michael Moore was right.

[Frank Drackman]

"finally"??
Fatty Moore was one of the few who thought "45" would win way back in 2015 (Ann Coulter was another)
He sort of got it wrong last year though.

[A Japanese Student]

I'm pretty sure grand juries have higher approval percentage.

[Commenter_XY]

You'd be wrong; it is less than 80% (includes state, local + Fed).

[Noscitur a sociis]

Hahaha what?

[David Nieporent]

Whether or not there are problems with the FISC, the logic is dumb. Close to 100% of people are approved to get through the metal detectors at courthouses. Does that mean the security screening is a "rubber stamp"? Or does it mean that the screening successfully deters the vast majority of people from trying to bring guns into courthouses?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Or does it mean that the screening successfully deters the vast majority of people from trying to bring guns into courthouses?"

I'm not sure this holds up. Presumably it's punishment and other adverse consequences from getting caught at screening that deters people from trying to bring guns into courthouses. Otherwise nefarious actors would be testing the system all the time.

Is there punishment for filing a losing FISC petition?

[Magister]

Would being the guy who brought a huge number of cases to FISC be a career benefit? The DOJ at least would know who that guy is, and nobody would want to be that guy.

But the incentive may just be people wanting to do their jobs well, even if failing does not have a negative impact, even if you'd like to pretend that the only reason any federal employee does their job is that they might get punished.

[Magister]

To clarify, I intended "a huge number of rejected cases".

[David Nieporent]

Even if your argument was accurate, it wouldn't change the point; the process would still be deterring people. The point is, "95% of applications are approved" can mean either:

1) It's a rubber stamp where they'll let anything through; or
2) 95% of applications are actually valid.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The point is, "95% of applications are approved" can mean either:..."

Yes, that part is correct. Your claim about the inferences we should draw from that fact is not, however, because if the mismatch in incentives that I pointed out.

I mean, it's possible that the criteria for filing a successful application are very clear so it's easy to avoid filing failing application. Or it could be that the government is very conservative is what it chooses to file and don't file unless it is sure it has a solid case. Or it could be that the court is a rubber stamp.

My money's on #3.

[David Nieporent]

The criteria are clear, and also the standard for granting warrants — probable cause — is low.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So, you’d feel better about the system if the government were bringing more applications that didn’t pass muster?

What would be an approval rate that would satisfy you that things are going well?

[Malika the Maiz]

Probably just nixing the ones on Michael Flynn…

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it was a big achievement assuming they're not just covertly bypassing the FISA courts, which I wouldn't want to bet against.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and the beat goes on, the beat goes on.

[Malika the Maiz]

“Voters who have not heard much about some of the many major news events from the first 100 days of Mr. Trump’s second term have a higher opinion of the job he is doing, according to the latest New York Times/Siena College poll. A little under half of the 42 percent of voters who approved of the job Mr. Trump is doing as president said they had not heard much about at least some of the ups and downs of his administration’s decisions.”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/18/polls/trump-job-approval-news-attention.html

“I love the poorly educated." The Mad King.

[Mr. Bumble]

You're claiming there were "ups"?

[Michael P]

He's claiming that people who listen to lamestream media have their opinions distorted by propaganda.

[Malika the Maiz]

Mikie likes “had not heard!”

[jb]

So your argument is that in fact Trump hasn't done anything at all during his term and therefore any information about him actually doing something is made up? Seems like a weird rebuttal.

[Speaking for normal people]

Voters are not supposed to look over the President's shoulder. IN Poli Sci you learn there are 2 views of voting: Yours-- I vote for a guy that will do exactly what I would do and the other: I vote for a guy whose attitude, promises,and campaign indicate I can trust him. I have kids, a job, doctor's appointments, a list of things to do

[SRG2]

I vote for a guy whose attitude, promises,and campaign indicate I can trust him

Yes. This is why when Trump does something malign or illegal, Trump voters don't generally have the right to say, "but I didn't vote for that." Though it seems regardless of what Trump does the vast majority of cultists will approve and defend.

[Commenter_XY]

If you voted, you have a right to speak disapproval. Seems only fair.

[SRG2]

You have a right to be disappointed but you have no right to disavow your vote.

[Bwaaah]

SRG2: "voters don't generally have the right to say..."

lol

[SRG2]

I assume that you're making the same point as a law student when asked, "can A sue B in this case?" responding, "yes, but he will lose the case".

[Bwaaah]

I was laughing at how you use the term "right."

[BrotherMovesOn]

I was laughing at how you missed his drift.

[Malika the Maiz]

Boy, I’m sure glad Harris and her “price controls” didn’t get elected!

“Walmart should STOP trying to blame Tariffs as the reason for raising prices throughout the chain,” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social, his social media site. “Walmart made BILLIONS OF DOLLARS last year, far more than expected.”

He called on Walmart, the nation’s largest retailer, to “EAT THE TARIFFS” and keep prices down. “I’ll be watching, and so will your customers,” he wrote.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/05/17/us/trump-news#trump-walmart-eat-the-tariffs-prices

[SRG2]

On the contrary, because Walmart didn't vote for tariffs but a significant proportion of its customers did, it is quite right that they should bear the cost.

[bernard11]

Boy. Those Republicans sure hate government interference with business.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, that was the choice, right? Do you want your "no tax on tips" and other interventionist economic policies with or without taxpayer funded sex changes for incarcerated illegal immigrants?

[Malika the Maiz]

Your Free Speech, cool Joe Rogan GOP at work!

“The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) clarifies the definition of obscenity across all states and provides updated descriptions suited to modern content. The new definition removes dependence on ever-changing and elusive public opinion, replacing ambiguity with practical standards to make obscenity identifiable. This change will prevent obscene material such as pornography from evading prosecution by relying on the legal confusion of differing standards between states. Under IODA, law enforcement will be empowered to identify and prevent obscenity from being transmitted across state lines.”

https://www.lee.senate.gov/2025/5/lee-bill-establishes-obscenity-definition-across-states

[Frank Drackman]

Queenie, you could be a Styx song
"Too much time on my(your) hands"

[Malika the Maiz]

Made up persona upset

[Frank Drackman]

Everybody funny, now you funny too.

[Malika the Maiz]

What causes a person like you to pathetically make up a persona on a website like this? I mean, everyone can see why a person like you supports Trump.

[Bwaaah]

"What causes a person like you to pathetically make up a persona on a website like this?"

What's your excuse? The world needed another nasty bitch persona?

Try to build it out, like Frank does.

[Michael P]

Makika is just the latest in a series of made up personas, often called sock puppets.

[Malika the Maiz]

This poor guy confuses handles and personas. I guess that’s what happens when you spend so much time on your knees to the Mad King!

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe his wife is a little funny

[Malika the Maiz]

Mikie a wife? Be serious

[A Japanese Student]

Isn't obscenity defined under constitutional precedents like Miller? As far as I am aware, the definition of obscenity used in Federal law is the same as the constitutional standard.

[Michael P]

Yes, but the first two prongs of the "Miller test" explicitly rely on the ambiguous "contemporary adult community standards":

1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);
2. Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and
3. Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity

[A Japanese Student]

Miller test is part of First Amendment precedent; removing the community standards requirement seems to run afoul of that decision.

(I guess an argument could be made that the community standards are left to the jurors' conscience.)

[not guilty]

Obscene matter under federal law is not defined by statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 1460 et seq. The task of defining what materials are obscene initially fell to the courts. In Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 481-485 (1957), SCOTUS ruled that obscene matter is unprotected by the First Amendment.

The Court there opined that "sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest." Id., at 487. The "test [is] whether, to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest." Id., at 489. At footnote 20 the Court approved the definition of the A.L.I., Model Penal Code, § 207.10(2) (Tent.Draft No. 6, 1957), viz.:

"A thing is obscene if, considered as a whole, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest, i.e., a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, and if it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters."

354 U.S. at 487 n.20.

In Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), the Court revised the test in finding that a book named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure," a/k/a "Fanny Hill," is not obscene. The plurality there opined that:

Under [the Roth] definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters, and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value.

383 U.S. at 418. At this time obscenity vel non of a particular work was regarded as a matter of law. That led to the tradition of one day a week being "movie day," where the justices (other than Black and Douglas) gathered to watch pornographic movies. (When the second Justice Harlan's eyesight failed, he reportedly brought a clerk to describe the on screen activity.)

Obscenity law is currently controlled by Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), which jettisoned the "utterly without redeeming social value" requirement. The Court opined:

we now confine the permissible scope of [state] regulation [of obscene material] to works which depict or describe sexual conduct. That conduct must be specifically defined by the applicable state law, as written or authoritatively construed. A state offense must also be limited to works which, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, . . . (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Id., at 24.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The Court there opined that 'sex and obscenity are not synonymous.'"

They are if you do it right.

[Malika the Maiz]

The Fuck Your Feelings Prez has named his Surgeon General:

“Means discussed how she participated in “full moon ceremonies with grounded, powerful women where we called in abundance and let go of what wasn’t serving us, and amplified each others’ dreams” and “hiked alone and talked (literally out loud) to the trees, letting them know I was ready for partnership, and asking if they could help.”

https://www.christianpost.com/news/4-things-to-know-about-trumps-surgeon-general-pick-casey-means.html?page=4

[SRG2]

I wonder whether any cultists here can suspend their fealty long enough to criticise this choice.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's why you're here.

[ThePublius]

I read the linked article and I like her! I think it's time we changed course, got off the drug and additive industrial complex treadmill and took a fresh look at health in the U.S. MAHA!

[Sarcastr0]

You can go spend all the money you want on Earthing or whatever.

Forcing that shit on Amercans in general is going to needlessly shorten a ton of lives.

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

Hey, have you looked around at what the govies have done to the state of American Health?

Anything is better than what you people have done.

[SRG2]

You must think that no actually qualified person agrees with you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I will -- we need Dumb Cunt Control in this country, and need to recognize this "female empowerment" stuff for what it is: Manbashing.

And maybe we need to start prosecuting witchcraft -- actual witchcraft -- as the evil that it is.

[jb]

Maybe we can start burning them at the stake again. Those were the times!

[Dr. Ed 2]

That was in Europe, not here.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Dr. Ed probably believes Bridget Bishop was righteously executed. But if I know Dr. Ed he's a hangin' fellow. Clean, Puritan.
Burned at the stake? Too Latin.

[David Nieporent]

"Dr." Ed is an incel who blames his lack of family and career success on women rather than his own disgusting personality.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Volcel. It's very voluntary.

[David Nieporent]

There are two types of people who claim that their celibacy is voluntary: incels, and priests.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Dumb Cunt Control"

I think I saw them in college.

[Commenter_XY]

Does SCOTUS restrain national injunctions from Dist Ct judges? The case was argued this week. What do you think.

My guess: SCOTUS will not restrict their injunctive or TRO power. This power has been around for a long time w/o serious issue, until now. Many decades. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Can a SCOTUS decision be the equivalent of a finger-wagging and stern lecture. That is what I think happens.

[ducksalad]

Stern lecture? I think *at least* five of the justices think they would have done the exact same thing if they'd been the district court judge.

My hope: the SC rules that

(1) national injunctions are appropriate only when the conduct being addressed is (a) nationwide and systematic, and (b) so obviously illegal on its face that there's no realistic chance further hearing of arguments will convince anyone otherwise.

(2) the executive order in question clearly meets the criteria.

[jb]

The administration chose a ridiculously poor vehicle for this argument. My read from oral argument is that several of the Justices wanted to restrain the lower courts in some way but didn't hear any takers for the government's position (although Alito and maybe Thomas will probably talk themselves into it).

My guess is they'll basically punt on the issue here and say that at least in situations where it's necessary for states to fully address their harms, nationwide injunctions are okay. Possibly they'll just DIG this case to get at the same result. I'm skeptical a meaningful limitation will be introduced since it's completely unnecessary to decide this case and they probably want a better vehicle to figure it out.

[ThePublius]

News of Biden's cancer diagnosis is to distract from the release of the Hur tapes.

There is no way that his prostate cancer could have advanced to this stage without anyone noticing. It can take 10 years for it to progress to this point. The WH physicians lied, the WH staff lied, and maybe even the media knew and lied. So, why announce it now? To invoke pity and compassion, and forget about the Hur tapes and the autopen scandal.

[Sarcastr0]

NEVAR FORGET BIDEN.

Sure, I have no doubt Trump has a shitload of people investigating. Bring charges if there are charges to bring, and lets out in court.

In the meantime, it sure makes it looks like you miss speculating about Dem perfidy and are tired of defending Trump's corrupt and arbitrary administration.

[tylertusta]

NEVAR FORGET BIDEN.

Mocking people who are skeptical of manipulation of news regarding Biden's health in the immediate aftermath of recent events is, at the very least, tone deaf.

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

Watch, he's going to pull a Jake Tapper and fully get on the other side of this issue and then pretend he was never lying about Biden's mental state.

[Sarcastr0]

You heard he had cancer and jumped right into a partisan narrative.

You need to get a hobby.

[tylertusta]

If you have bothered to actually read my comments, you would have learned that I did not actually do this.

[Sarcastr0]

You and TP are fighting below. You seem to be aligned with me on this.

And yet, you can't bring yourself to actually *agree* with me.

[tylertusta]

You replied to my comment, falsely accusing me of jumping into a partisan narrative.

And you have the gall to say that I can't agree with you when the only beef we've had on this topic is that I don't care for you mocking others.

I think you need a new hobby besides that of 'troll.'

[Sarcastr0]

Your comment above claims TP is merely skeptical. Jumping to the defense of his partisan narrative.

Below you argue with him and his overdetermined self.

[ThePublius]

Gee, that's textbook whataboutism.

[Sarcastr0]

Let me repost what I posted, since you missed it:
"Sure, I have no doubt Trump has a shitload of people investigating. Bring charges if there are charges to bring, and lets out in court"

[ThePublius]

You left out "In the meantime, it sure makes it looks like you miss speculating about Dem perfidy and are tired of defending Trump's corrupt and arbitrary administration."

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah - my comment boils down to let the consequences fall where they may, and also you seem eager to deflect from this admin's constant shittiness.

Not sure where the whattaboutism comes in.

[ThePublius]

Don't you get that you just contradicted yourself? You're saying you don't know where the whataboutism comes from while saying in the same breath that I'm eager to deflect from this admin's constant shittiness.

Holy cow. Talk about lack of self awareness.

[Sarcastr0]

You may not be clear on whattaboutism is.

Calling you out for conspiracizing and deflecting is not inconsistent with letting the process play out, nor is it whattaboutism.

[Super Scary]

"Talk about lack of self awareness."

That is a feature for people with "Sarc" in their name.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Not sure where the whattaboutism comes in."

Right here: "and also you seem eager to deflect from this admin's constant shittiness."

Hope that helps.

[jb]

And these are the same people who think "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is a winning argument whenever people disagree with something Trump does.

While we're at it, though, some forms of prostate cancer are very aggressive. Just because it's typically a fairly slow developing form of cancer doesn't mean that there needs to be a big conspiracy here for the truth to fit the announcement.

[tylertusta]

Maybe, maybe not. His cancer is fairly aggressive and he might not have much time left.

[Brett Bellmore]

Realistically, he probably wouldn't have much time left even without the prostate cancer. He's 82 and has had serious dementia for several years. The prostate cancer is just piling on.

[tylertusta]

Statistically speaking, you are correct.

If Biden had somehow clung onto the Democratic ticket last year and if he somehow beat Trump in November, he would be resigning right now. The cancer is reportedly too aggressive and if that is true then the short-term prognosis isn't good even with treatment. He would be unlikely to make it through a 4-year term.

[Sarcastr0]

There is no way that his prostate cancer could have advanced to this stage without anyone noticing.
I'd missed this.

Where are you getting this very confident take from?

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

It can be deduced from common knowledge, you govie midwit.

You think he went from cancer free to stage 5 cancer down to the bone in a matter of months?

[David Nieporent]

Um, perhaps if you relied on expertise rather than "common knowledge," you'd know that there isn't such a thing as "stage 5 cancer."

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

My bad, i was thinking about colon cancer.
In classic midwit fashion, David Notimportant decided to pick nits.

[David Nieporent]

You were not, because there's no stage 5 colon cancer either. What you were actually doing was quoting one of the dumbest human beings alive, Donald Trump Jr., without attribution.

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

How many stages of colon cancer are there?

[ThePublius]

From medicinenet.com, corroborated by other sources:

"Prostate cancer is a slow-growing cancer and, more often, it is confined to the prostate gland, requiring minimal or no treatment. In some cases, it can take up to eight years to spread from the prostate to other parts of the body (metastasis), typically the bones."

Google AI:
"The time it takes for prostate cancer to spread to the bones varies widely, depending on the specific type and aggressiveness of the cancer. Some cases may see metastasis within a few years, while others can take up to eight years or longer. In advanced cases, it's estimated that approximately 90% of men will develop bone metastases."

Prostate cancer is easily diagnosed. Biden's physicians were surely looking, via a simple PSA test. If not they should be sued for malpractice.

[Sarcastr0]

This doesn't support what you said.

It's also fucking AI.

You're making shit up.

And no, the timing doesn't make sense. When he ducked out of the race would have been the ideal time.

Not everything is a fucking conspiracy.

[ThePublius]

I'm not making up anything. Do your own research. And, the first quote wasn't AI generated.

[Sarcastr0]

Do your own research.

Burden is on you. It's not going to be met by GoogleAI. Which alos

A fellow MAGA below had a more moderate take and you just stamped your foot and yelled no.

Pretty clear you've decided on your facts independent of the uncertainties of reality.

[ThePublius]

I'll repeat this non-AI quote:

From medicinenet.com, corroborated by other sources:

"Prostate cancer is a slow-growing cancer and, more often, it is confined to the prostate gland, requiring minimal or no treatment. In some cases, it can take up to eight years to spread from the prostate to other parts of the body (metastasis), typically the bones."

[Sarcastr0]

"In some cases, it can take"

You are bad at this.

[David Nieporent]

And no, the timing doesn't make sense. When he ducked out of the race would have been the ideal time.

This. Would've given the perfect face saving excuse. "Recently, I learned that I had prostate cancer. I thought I would be able to handle the rigors of the campaign while undergoing treatment. But recent events have shown me that this is not tenable. Therefore, I reluctantly have made the decision to drop out of the campaign. I have full confidence that Vice President Kamala Harris will be able to carry the baton forward. My doctors assure me that I can medically finish out my term as president. If that changes, I will step aside."

The conspiracy theories always founder on actual facts. For example: if it was obvious to everyone around him that Biden was senile, then why did they push for an early debate with Trump, rather than manipulating Trump — it's not hard; the guy has the maturity of a six year old — into refusing to debate?

[jb]

This is dumb. Most prostate cancers are slow moving, but not all:

The vast majority of these malignancies, especially those discovered with the extensively used prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, test, are slow-growing tumors that are unlikely to cause a man any harm during his lifetime. Yet in 10 to 15 percent of cases, the cancer is aggressive and advances beyond the prostate, sometimes turning lethal.

And some of the more aggressive types aren't detected via PSA testing:

Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA): This cancer is a rarer but more aggressive form of adenocarcinoma. It develops in the cells lining the tubes and ducts of the prostate gland. When it occurs, it frequently develops along with acinar adenocarcinoma. This cancer type doesn’t necessarily increase PSA levels, making it harder to detect.

[Kazinski]

So extremely likely its the slower growing type.

"DAC (ductal adenocarcinoma) accounts for 0.17% of prostate cancer on meta-analysis".

[tylertusta]

The higher Gleason score (9 out of 10!) strongly indicates this is one of the aggressive, faster growing forms of prostate cancer.

[Kazinski]

This isn't quite a smokng gun, but maybe a spent cartridge, if true:

"PSA tests are conducted with blood samples. While a PSA test is not mentioned in Biden’s February 2024 health summary, just about every other factor related to the president’s blood was declared normal, including his comprehensive metabolic panel and complete blood count."

https://x.com/jimgeraghty/status/1924463947437965532?t=3M1xgnIumBAVbVN_AxpXSw&s=19

So that's at least 15 months ago they decided they didn't want his PSA score public.

Forgive me for drawing conclusions.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, if you know nothing about prostate cancer you should probably remedy that before it matters.

Biden is in an economic bracket where you routinely get the best of medical care, including regular checkups and comprehensive bloodwork. PSA tests are a routine part of that bloodwork for any guy above an age Biden passed decades ago.

And prostate cancer is a very slow developing cancer, it starts to show up on those tests a decade or more before reaching the stage Biden is at now.

So, realistically? Yeah, there's no freaking way he hasn't been aware he had prostate cancer since some time in the early Obama administration.

The thing is, it IS a very slow developing cancer, even if it's extremely nasty once it metastasizes. And the treatments for it, while very effective before it metastasizes, are no fun at all. So it's quite routine for patients as old as Biden would have been when it was first discovered to be counseled to just keep track of it, and otherwise do nothing, because the odds are something else will kill them first, and research is closing on a cure anyway.

Unfortunately for Biden, he got the short straw.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm no medical doctor, but I do know what cancer has wide variety of presentations, and you're making some pretty broad assumptions about this particular case.

Realistically? You're not a doctor, and you're basically joe_dalassing your way into acting like you are one.

But yeah, bone metastasis is not good news. I think that's a fair general statement to make.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm a prostate cancer survivor, Sarcastr0, so I've been pretty motivated to be informed about this, even if you ignore my general interest in human biology.

It's not impossible for prostate cancer to go from undetectable to this stage in only 15 months, but it's the medical equivalent of being struck by lightning. It is very much NOT the way to bet.

Realistically, they have probably known it for years, and just kept it under wraps. And that's fine by me, it's not like it would affect his capacity to do the job he was elected to, the way the dementia did.

[Sarcastr0]

You had a personal experience with prostate cancer.

Not sure why that would make you an expert on *detection*. I also know a motivated layperson is not the same as an expert.

Realistically, they have probably
Every fucking time.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, every fucking time I make a reasonable observation about the odds, you react this way. It's pathological.

Look, if this had been an administration characterized by honesty and transparency, I'd be a lot more inclined to think they'd been blindsided by this. It's not impossible, after all.

But we already know this administration was covering up medical problems he had, so that they were also covering this up is just the way to bet.

[Sarcastr0]

Your statements about the odds are never realistic, always vibes.

And the vibes are always some conspiracy by ze libs.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc...you're a noise machine. The less you post, the less immaterial the dialog becomes.

[hobie]

It's 2025 and Biden still lives rent free in your head. Speaking of crime families, have I got a doozy for you. You may want to sit down before I tell you.

[ThePublius]

What are you talking about? I'm just objecting to the apparent conspiracy to conceal Biden's senility by the WH and media, and the potential that the autopen pardons were issued illegally. That's all.

[hobie]

You know, you kinda remind me of Sean Hannity. For the last twenty years, not an episode can pass without him repeating:

"Reverend Wright! Sistah Soldah! Benghazi!"
"Reverend Wright! Sistah Soldah! Benghazi!"

It's like his autorepeat function has been broken

[ThePublius]

I honestly don't get that comment.

[Sarcastr0]

""I'm surprised that the public wasn't notified a long time ago, because to get to stage 9, that's a long time ... I did a very complete physical, including cognitive tests. I'm proud to announced I aced it."

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

How did all those elite White House doctors miss Biden's cancer? Is it because they were Democrats, and thus know literally nothing about healthcare (or public education for that matter)?

[tylertusta]

Biden's last physical was in February of 2024. I'm no oncologist, but from what I've learned on this topic since the news broke is that it's entirely possible that this cancer was undetectable during his last prostate screening, assuming that they even performed a prostate screening at all.

Apparently, in some medical circles it's believed to be counterproductive to check for prostate cancer after the man is over 75 years old.

[ThePublius]

No, it's entirely not possible that this was undetectable a year ago when it's at its current stage.

[Sarcastr0]

TP MD.

[ThePublius]

So you're saying one must be an MD to opine on this?

[Sarcastr0]

I think coming in this hot: "it's entirely not possible" is pretty stupid if you're just opining.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Malpining?

[David Nieporent]

So you're saying one must be an MD to opine on this?

Of course not. Poets, golf caddies, and janitors can opine on it. (As to the last, I'm sure Dr. Ed will.) To opine accurately, on the other hand? On whether it's possible for someone's cancer to be undetectable at a given point in time? Yes. (Or some other form of advanced biological education.)

[tylertusta]

No, it's entirely not possible that this was undetectable a year ago when it's at its current stage.

This does not appear to be a correct statement:

Types of Prostate Cancer

The specific type of prostate cancer also influences its growth rate, with some prostate cancer cells developing faster than others. Different types originate in different cell types:

- Acinar adenocarcinoma: The most common type, which is usually slow-growing, develops in the cells lining the prostate.
- Small cell prostate cancer: This begins in neuroendocrine cells and is rare and aggressive.
- Ductal adenocarcinoma: Grows and spreads quickly, starting in the cells lining the prostate ducts.
- Squamous cell cancer: Tends to grow and spread more rapidly than adenocarcinoma, originating in the cells covering the prostate.
- Transitional cell cancer: A rare and aggressive type that begins in the lining of the urethra and typically starts in the bladder before spreading to the prostate.

https://georgiaradiationtherapy.com/blog/how-fast-will-my-prostate-cancer-grow

Most people are familiar with Acinar adenocarcinoma, which grows over a decade.

The rarer forms are much more aggressive and faster-growing. For example, small cell prostate cancer has a 1 year survival rate of 42%.

That's a very nasty cancer that is typically discovered only after it has metastasized.

See: https://www.healthline.com/health/prostate-cancer/small-cell-prostate-cancer

[ThePublius]

So, you're saying I'm incorrect because I don't agree that Biden has a rare form of cancer that grows and metastasizes very quickly, when we don't know exactly what form of cancer he has? The likelihood is that he doesn't have a rare form; that's what "rare" means.

We shall see, I guess. But the most likely case, statistically speaking, is that this has been going on for nigh on eight years.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

[Brett Bellmore]

You were wrong to make a categorical statement, since there ARE forms of prostate cancer that advance that fast. They're not at all common, but it IS possible that he has one of them.

[tylertusta]

No, I said you're incorrect by saying "it's entirely not possible."

It's possible that Biden has less common form of the disease.

The term 'rare' for diseases doesn't mean that it's one in a million prostate cancer patients. The term means that most common forms that doctors see fall into a handful of types with a small amount of other, rarer cancers.

95% of diagnosed prostate cancers are adenocarcinomas, which are slow-growing and detectable on a prostate screening.

That means 1 out of 20 prostate cancers are fast, deadly, and wouldn't be easily found in a standard prostate screening (assuming that Biden even got them).

If you've ever played a board game with a D20 die and you got a 1, congrats, you just got a 'rare' form of prostate cancer. Roll the die again to find out exactly which one you got and how fast it will kill you.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/types-of-prostate-cancer-8633485

[ThePublius]

I'm just speculating from a statistical perspective. If 95% of all prostate cancers are a particular type, that's probably what Biden has. No? Isn't that what "probably" means?

[tylertusta]

If all you're going to base your viewpoint on is that 95% figure then I cannot help you.

All I can say that there is more evidence in favor of this being one of the 5% of aggressive cases than there is of Biden & Co. deliberately neglecting his slow-growing cancer for several years, possibly even during his time as VP.

As I'm fairly sure that Brett and other cancer survivors can attest to, there are less drastic options you can utilize if the cancer is treated before it metastasizes. It's easier to conceal treatments as 'routine medical visits.'

[David Nieporent]

1) But you didn't say "probably." You said "entirely not possible."
2) Yes, if 95% are of one type, then without any other information it's more likely that Biden has that type. But 5% isn't actually that rare,¹ and of course we do have other information, which is that most people didn't know.
​
​​
¹People are very very bad at judging what probabilities mean in the real world. If I told you that something has an 83% chance of happening, you'd probably think it was safe to choose that. But those are your odds of "winning" Russian roulette. If something happens only 7% of the time, you'd think it incredibly rare. But that was the frequency that Babe Ruth hit home runs when he came to the plate, and yet you would hardly think it shocking if he hit one in any given plate appearance (other than the fact that he's dead, of course).

[hobie]

I know/knew two men who were fine one year, then the next...boom...malignant prostate cancer. Your BDS apparently disallows you to have critical thought.

I also cannot figure out why all you people are obsessed with a fair-to-middlin, inconsequential president, who's not in office and may be dying

[tylertusta]

I also cannot figure out why all you people are obsessed with a fair-to-middlin, inconsequential president, who's not in office and may be dying

I can answer this one.

This isn't about Biden.

Us on the right are still pissed about how the Biden administration and especially the national news lied to the public about Biden's health issues. These last couple of months have seen a slow but steady trickle of 'mea culpa but not really' stories from major news outlets as they try to explain why they pretended that the emperor always had clothes on.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Hard to believe you're upset about being "lied to", frankly...

[hobie]

+1

[tylertusta]

I would like to think that people would be upset at being gaslit for years and for obvious political advantage.

But you do you, buddy.

[Magister]

It was pretty obvious that Biden was mentally competent in 2020 when he beat Trump in debates; a strong majority of voters thought so. He seemed OK in all his State of the Union addresses, and even at the debate last year he didn't seem incapable of finishing out his term. Harris would have had a better shot in 2024 if she had taken over being President in 2022 rather than becoming candidate only later in 2024. So it's unclear what you think the "obvious political advantage" was.

[David Nieporent]

+1,000.

I'm not going to say that it's okay that Biden (maybe) lied because Trump lies; it's not. But it's hard to credit outrage from people who support Trump, given that he lies about things that directly affect people.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm quite happy to have waited for it to be established, but at this point, it sure looks like hinky shit was going on behind the scenes.

I'm not into some group of advisors deciding they know what's best. Feinstein as well. And McConnel seems like. And Thurmond was a zombie at the end IIRC.

If there was a coverup by all means get it out there. Under oath.

But yeah Trump people saying the real problem is Biden just seem desperate for an attack vector since defending their guy has got to be exhausting.

[Kazinski]

I'm not pissed off because the lies weren't credible, at least about his mental state. And it certainly jad no effect on my vote.

If I were a Democrat I would be pissed off.

[tylertusta]

The fact that the lies ultimately didn't work for the 2024 election doesn't fix that the lies kept a vegetable in the White House for an entire 4-year term, all while the left pretending it was all a conspiracy theory.

I agree though that Democrats should be madder than hell; keeping Biden on the ticket as long as they did certainly made things much harder for them.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This is just your fantasy speaking. Apart from the Trumperverse (which can be safely ignored because it was saying the same thing from at least the day Biden chose to "campaign from his basement" during Covid in early 2020), nobody was talking about Biden's "senility" or impairment until AFTER the disastrous Trump debate in June 2024. That was indeed a conspiracy theory.

Although plenty of "normal" people were by that time opposed to his seeking re-election, Biden's 2024 State of the Union speech was roundly praised (again, by anyone not part of the Trumperverse circle jerk). All you have to do to confirm this is to read contemporary news covering the reaction to his speech.

At the same time, Trump was almost the last person to call for Biden to withdraw from the race--he only changed his tune after the June 2024 debate. He was adamant that he deserved to face no one other than "Sleepy" Joe Biden in a rematch--certainly not some young(er), more dangerous Democratic challenger. Trump believed he could beat Biden and was unsure about whether he could beat an alternative candidate--which is understandable, considering Biden was the only candidate likely to be older than him.

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

It's more likely they were covering up his cancer just like they were covering up his mental decline.

[tylertusta]

I don't know about that.

If it was the common form of the disease that takes a decade to grow, and if his doctors knew about it (apparently there's debate on whether they should even check at Biden's advanced age), then they would have taken action about it long before it metastasized.

Cancers that react to hormone therapy like Biden's can even be treated without surgery- it's just pills. Who would notice one more pill bottle in Biden's war chest of old man pills?

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't say that chemical castration is "just" pills. The quality of life impact is pretty significant.

[tylertusta]

With Biden's already visible medical and mental issues and his staff's propensity to hide him from everybody outside of a small circle of insiders, I bet most people wouldn't even notice.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, sure, but if we're assuming here that he had the regular slow sort of prostate cancer, and was just covering it up, the decision to not bother with the pills would have been made at a time when he was certainly competent to make his own medical decisions. And the resulting reduced quality of life would have been a factor in that decision.

[tylertusta]

Are hormone pills the first course of treatment for slower prostate cancers? What other treatment options are available?

I'm not the expert here- I'm genuinely asking you since you survived it and you're closer to this subject than any of us are.

[Brett Bellmore]

The first course of treatment recommended is to just do nothing, because it IS a slow growing cancer, and medical technology for treating it is continually advancing, so the longer you put off doing something about it the better, as long as it doesn't metastasize.

That was, in fact, my doctor's advice, and if I'd taken it I would have died, (But of lymphoma, not PC; The preop for the surgery led to it being discovered early enough to treat!) but he had no way of knowing that at the time. I just didn't like having that sword of Damocles hanging over my head, and at 50, it wasn't like I had much chance of dying of something else first, or so I thought. So I'd just be putting off the inevitable, might as well get it over with.

You can slow the advance of prostate cancer dramatically with hormone suppression therapy, but this can involve a considerable cost in terms of quality of life; Men don't really do well with vanishingly low testosterone levels, as I can testify.

Both surgery and radiation treatment can cure the cancer before it spreads, and they will tell you that the side effects are not too bad, what they won't tell you is that they're talking short term side effects; The long term prognosis of surgery or radiation is no fun at all. (That was a joke, but it's still true.) It just takes a while to get there. Mind you, going through chemo starting a week after the surgery did me no favors.

So there aren't really any GOOD options. Just varying sorts of bad options. I guess the hormone blocking therapy hits some guys harder than others, so it's certainly worth resorting to if you find that sword hanging over your head unbearable, before going for surgery or radiation.

[John F. Carr]

"You can slow the advance of prostate cancer dramatically with hormone suppression therapy, but this can involve a considerable cost in terms of quality of life; Men don't really do well with vanishingly low testosterone levels, as I can testify."

I know somebody who had hormone therapy in addition to surgery. He said he got hot flashes. The process seemed mildly unpleasant but in his opinion worth it for the stated percentage increase in 5 year survival rate.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, sure, if you were in bad enough shape to require the radiation therapy, you'd just suck it up and accept the downsides of chemical castration. I was discussing it as a stand alone treatment somebody might resort to in order to put off radiation or surgery.

It's not world ending, you just are kind of meh all the time, don't get a lot of benefit out of exercise, and tend to put on weight. And have an elevated risk for metabolic syndrome. But meh is a long way from horrible.

[ThePublius]

Biden in 2022:

"“And guess what—the first frost, you know what was happening?" said Biden. "You'd have to put on your windshield wipers to get, literally, the oil slick off the window.,” he said during a speech about climate change in Somerset, Massachusetts. “That's why I, and so damn many other people I grew up with, have cancer. And why, for the longest time, Delaware had the highest cancer rate in the nation.” [emphasis mine]

QED

[tylertusta]

Eh, I don't see that as being conclusive.

FACT FOCUS: Biden cancer remark causes confusion

In response, a White House spokesperson confirmed reports that Biden was referring to previously disclosed skin cancer that was removed before he became president — not announcing a new diagnosis.

By 2022, Biden was more vegetable than man.

[Sarcastr0]

You're so confirmation-bias brained you post QED like this is proof.

[ThePublius]

But he gave his word as a Biden! 🙂

[ThePublius]

Don't you allow that the WH spin could be just that - spin? Joe's internal dialogue often leaked out. Biden's cancer remark could be a gaffe - when a politician accidentally tells the truth. Then the WH staff does a clean-up on aisle 3.

[Sarcastr0]

could be!

[ThePublius]

"Fox News Senior Medical Analyst Dr. Marc Siegel says the presence of symptoms and bone metastases in Joe Biden’s case strongly suggests the cancer had been growing undetected for quite some time. That’s not just concerning—it raises serious questions about how such an advanced stage of disease went unnoticed, especially for someone with constant access to top-tier medical care.

Siegel pointed out that Biden’s age—82—is a major risk factor, noting that more than 80 percent of men over 80 have some level of prostate cancer cells in their bodies. “This is one of the cancers doctors specifically monitor in older men,” Siegel explained.

Which begs the obvious question: Are we really supposed to believe that Biden, while in office, wasn’t being routinely screened for this? Come on. Not giving him a cognitive exam because they knew he’d flunk it is one thing; not screening him for something he was obviously at high risk for?

That just doesn’t pass the smell test."

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/05/18/something-doesnt-add-up-about-bidens-cancer-announcement-n4939923

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a bi-partisan concern.

"Dr Ezekiel Emanuel, a former member of Biden’s transition team who helped craft the Obama-era Affordable Care Act, stunned MSNBC’s left-leaning “Morning Joe” with his analysis that the 82-year-old likely had cancer while serving as president.

“He’s had this for many years, maybe even a decade, growing there and spreading,” Emanuel told the Biden-supporting hosts early Monday. “He did not develop it in the last 100 to 200 days.” NY Post

[Commenter_XY]

Kudos to the IDF for converting Mohammed and Zakarias Sinwar to Sinwas, like their brother. One by one, the hamas human animals will be hunted down and eliminated.

And one by one, we'll deport the foreign alien hamas cheerleaders from this country.

[Bob from Ohio]

I wish we had solid confirmation. But if true, mazel tov!

[John F. Carr]

A study published in March provides stronger evidence that traffic enforcement is racially biased. Everybody knows it is, but good data is harder to find than a general understanding. The 2018 book Suspect Citizens lacked hard data on whether blacks and whites had similar driving habits. The new paper uses cell phone surveillance to show that blacks and whites drive equally fast but blacks get more and more expensive speeding tickets.

High-frequency location data show that race affects citations and fines for speeding

[ThePublius]

It's not just speed. It's often driving style, adherence to or observation of local driving standards - like taking the right of way when it's not appropriate, tailgating, and otherwise cutting people off.

I recently moved to a much more diverse neighborhood than the lily-white suburb in which I resided for 25 years. These people drive like maniacs, idiots! Yes, "these people." There, I said it. They either just don't what the heck they are doing, or they don't care. They are reckless, impolite drivers.

I went from no accidents in 30 years to being T-boned twice in the last two years. They are on their phones, jump the light, run the light, distracted by girlfriend or crack pipe (true!), and whatever.

Granted, lots of white people in New England are shitty drivers, too. Two very annoying and dangerous things they routinely do are making the left as soon as the light turns green, i.e., not yielding to the straight traffic; and swinging out to the right to make a left turn, like they were driving a fire truck or something.

As I said, it's not just speed that results in fines, there are compounding factors.

[ducksalad]

I went from no accidents in 30 years to being T-boned twice in the last two years.

Have you considered the possibility that it's you, not them? As any cop will tell you, getting t-boned usually takes two bad drivers: (a) one who ran the light, and (b) one who wasn't looking, which is an obligation even if you've got the green light. And either one of them could be either part of the T.

No dishonor in realizing that after 30 years you're past your prime and need to sign up for Uber. Wish my father-in-law had realized that before the cops had to seize his DL on the roadside....

[ThePublius]

Not the case. First one was someone speeding and ran the light. I was already in the intersection. Second one was me going straight on a street, and the other driver popped out of a side street as if they never saw me.

So, screw you for making it my fault. Both drivers were cited. I was not. Their insurance paid to fix my car.

[ducksalad]

Oh, let's say it was more their fault than yours.

But defensive driving* is about anticipating and correcting for other people's mistakes. As you progress into your Golden Years your reaction times decrease. Your ability to stay focused decreases.

And you've already admitted it was your decision to move into a neighborhood where you'd need better reaction times and constant awareness. That part's definitely on you. Shouldn't have done that if not at the top of your game.

------
Unless you're one of those guys who raises his hand in defensive driving class and says "but the best defense is a good offense..."

[ThePublius]

Oh please, drop it. There are driving situations that one cannot do anything about, like suddenly, without warning, being T-boned. I know, I've been there.

It's not on me. I have no idea why you're beating this drum. Maybe because I'm a conservative and you hate conservatives?

Since retirement I put 12,500 miles per year on my car, and about 10,000 between my two motorcycles. I know something about reaction times and defensive driving.

[David Nieporent]

Oh please, drop it. There are driving situations that one cannot do anything about, like suddenly, without warning, being T-boned. I know, I've been there.

Can confirm. Last autumn, about three months after buying a new car, I was t-boned by a motorcyclist who was both speeding and didn't have his headlight on, as I was crossing an intersection about 200 yards from the house I've lived in for 25 years. I know the intersection well, and I always, 100% of the time, come to a full stop before crossing because it's a bit of a blind intersection. There was nothing I could possibly have done other than develop clairvoyance.

[bernard11]

lots of white people in New England are shitty drivers, too.

No shit. Around here red lights are suggestions, and yellow lights mean "go faster."

"These people," by which I mean not Blacks but about 80% of the population, drive like maniacs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John, this study is utter bullshyte and this is where it helps to be a researcher and not a lawyer to understand why.

Staying out of the weeds here, the data is only valid IF you first show that your sample population is reflective of the larger population it is supposed to reflect.

Let's take lawyers and something totally objective, number and type of college degrees they have. Assuming that my methods are done "right", I can sample Black and White lawyers and get statistics that are valid for Black and White lawyers in general.

And I'd find that both Black and White lawyers have a graduate degree (i.e. the JD) in equal percentages -- they all have one.

What I can *not* do is then say that these Black and White lawyers represent Blacks and Whites in the general population. Do you see why?

"rideshare data from Lyft in the state of Florida to compare minority drivers with their white counterparts." Drivers while driving for Lyft so you have a double fallacy here -- not all drivers (of any race) drive for Lyft and then they are also "on the job" for Lyft at the time.

It's like the use of obscenities in the courtroom -- my guess is that few lawyers of either race use them in court. Judges frown on this, much as Lyft frowns on reckless driving.

But do stats relating to lawyers in court apply to non lawyers in a bar? No. And not here...

[Brett Bellmore]

Did they control for the location where the tickets were issued? When blacks and whites aren't uniformly distributed, you could get that kind of result just from blacks living near speed traps.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or in urban neighborhoods where community activists ask for control of speeders.

[Gasman]

I find it is difficult to ascertain the race of the drivers near me on the road. Tinted windows, bright light, shadows. And at night, no way to tell. So how are cops zeroing in on race (difficult to readily assess), versus simply driving behaviors, which are challenging to assess. Cell phone data doesn't tell whether one is weaving in the lane, rolls through a red light, cuts across lanes, or otherwise is a dangerous driver, or simply has no plates or expired plates.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Harvard continues to discriminate:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/harvard-university-discrimination-dei-hiring-trump

EEOC?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The resources of the anti-Western academy are wide and deep. The Trump administration can sue against racial preferences and opt not to fund particular research. But it will take a more broad-based coalition of alumni, donors, trustees, and opinion-makers focused over years to make courses like Empowering Black Leaders the atavistic relics that they deserve to be."

https://www.city-journal.org/article/harvard-university-empowering-black-leaders-seminar-race-trump

[grb]

Donald Trump is 78yrs old. He was raised in a wealthy home and had opportunities few can dream of. He received a stellar education, though there are credible reports he had to pay people to take his tests. He was bankrolled scores of millions by Daddy, though he bungled most of that away. He's held the highest position in the government twice.

So the man should know the freak'n definition of a tariff by now, and there are signs he's gradually inching towards a grade-schooler's degree of knowledge. This statement shows his slow progress:

“Between Walmart and China they should, as is said, “EAT THE TARIFFS,” and not charge valued customers ANYTHING. I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!”

Until recently, Trump thought tariffs were a cost borne by foreign governments alone. Now he seems to understand they're imposed on U.S. companies. If this progress continues, he'll realize they are a tax on American consumers.

[ducksalad]

There is no learning or realizing. It's simpler than that. Walmart said something that made him upset so now he wants to them to be the ones paying the taxes.

If and when the voters make him mad, he'll say the voters deserve to pay the high taxes.

[ThePublius]

"I'm the president of the Trump Derangement Society, and I approved this message."

[ThePublius]

Tom Callahan:

"Callahan Auto is officially severing all ties with Walmart!

It’s come to my attention they raised prices on Callan Brake Pads (in the name of tariffs) even though we manufacture and source 100% in the USA!!!"

https://x.com/CallahanAutoCo/status/1923868217589616722

[Mr. Bumble]

Not sure this is real. Might be a parody acct.
https://xcancel.com/CallahanAutoCo/status/1923868217589616722

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : "Not sure this is real. Might be a parody acct."

Right you are :

"Callahan Auto Parts is a fictional auto parts company featured in the movie "Tommy Boy". The company is located in Sandusky, Ohio and is owned by Big Tom Callahan. In the film, Callahan Auto faces a hostile takeover attempt, but Tommy Boy, along with his friend Richard Hayden, manages to save the company through their sales effort."

Apparently, this fictitious company is so famous they sell T-shirts with its movie logo. Perhaps we could all pitch in and buy ThePublius one?

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha, that's funny.

[ThePublius]

You can buy Callahan brake parts at WalMart.

https://www.walmart.com/browse/0?facet=brand:Callahan+Brake+Parts

What do you think of that?

[ThePublius]

And on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/stores/page/FCB1D2E7-AB59-4D3F-ACC6-19697F01C6B0?ingress=0&visitId=4bf7d60c-f5c5-4ddb-a3f8-e8e165f5a5d9&tag=reasonmagazinea-20

[David Nieporent]

The fact that this supposed company spelled its supposed product's name wrong — "Callan" vs. "Callahan" — probably should've tipped off ThePublius.

[Ska]

Well, I could stick my head up a steer's ass but I'd rather just ask a butcher.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, dear...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Walmart has become immensely profitable and he is making a populist political point

[A Woman of No Importance]

I rather like the idea that the people who voted for Trump should be the ones to pay the price for his policies. It would mean the law of cause and effect has not been repealed. So I'm good with passing it on to consumers.

[Mr. Bumble]

Too bad you didn't feel that way for Obama and Biden.
You could have picked up the tab for Obama Care.

[A Woman of No Importance]

How do you know I didn't feel that way for Obama and Biden? And did you know that Obamacare actually saved $2.3 trillion?

https://www.statnews.com/2019/03/22/affordable-care-act-controls-costs/

[bernard11]

Another thing he doesn't understand is profit margins.

We've just had a bunch of comments about Biden's mental difficulties. Trump's are worse, but you guys just treat his irrational, incoherent, rambling as "hilarious" entertainment, and make excuses.

[ThePublius]

Would you bet a paycheck that Biden could beat Trump in a game of checkers? Tic-tac-toe?

Seriously.

[A Woman of No Importance]

If two men are having an argument about a hooker, and one of them claims she charges $50, and the other claims that she charges $100, her virtue is not the issue under discussion.

Which of them would win at checkers likely would depend on which of them was having the better day. The fact is that neither of them is sufficiently in control of his faculties to be president. The second fact is that Biden is no longer president so his mental acuity is as a practical matter irrelevant. Trump is president so his control of his mental faculties very much is relevant. That strikes me as a fairly obvious point and I'm completely amazed that conservatives seem not to get it.

Biden should not have been president at least the last two years of his term. We got lucky. There's no guaranty we'll get lucky twice in a row.

[ThePublius]

Trump is in command of his mental faculties, despite what you'll on the left assert and project.

I think Trump could beat Biden at any game or contest, any day of the week, even on Trump's worst and Biden's best day.

Have you listened to the Hur tape? Biden couldn't even recall when his son died, when he was VP, when Trump won his first term, and on and on.

[A Woman of No Importance]

No dispute that Biden should have gone long before he did. But he's gone now and no longer relevant, so you're beating a dead horse. And if you think Trump is in control of his faculties, you're not paying attention (or blinded by partisanship, one or the other).

[bernard11]

No. Would you bet a paycheck that Trump could beat the average college graduate in a game of checkers or tic-tac-toe?

Or write a coherent, grammatical, one-page discussion of any topic?

Or add a column of numbers accurately?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Walmart buys from China because it is cheap -- and it is maybe a fifth of the total cost, there is shipping, distribution to stores, costs of the stores, employee pay, taxes -- that $2 shirt can actually cost Walmart $10 by the time they get it to your local store, and they sell it for $12 as they deserve a profit on the deal.

Trump imposes a 100% tariff on Chinese-made shirts. So the $2 shirt now costs $4 -- but none of the other costs increase

So it now costs Walmart $12 for the shirt (2+2=4) -- except the 100% tariff on the $2 justifies Walmart now charging $24 for the shirt. And instead of making $2 in profit, Walmart now makes $12 -- a 500% increase.

What hopefully will happen is an on-line merchant will realize he can sell an American-made shirt for less and eat Walmart's lunch.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"So it now costs Walmart $12 for the shirt (2+2=4) -- except the 100% tariff on the $2 justifies Walmart now charging $24 for the shirt. And instead of making $2 in profit, Walmart now makes $12 -- a 500% increase."

The mind boggles.

[ReaderY]

Since at least the New Deal, American governance has taken an instrumentalist attitude to the Constitution’s grants of power to Congress. The Constitution sets out no plan or guide to how Congress should behave or the kind of things it should want to do. Rather, it simply either empowers Congress to act or poses an obstacle to its acting. And when it poses an obstacle, there’s no shame in devising clever strategems to get around them and seeing if they pose obstacles to the courts. There’s simply no concept of there being anything WRONG with Congress wanting to do something the courts say it can’t do. The concept of it having a moral valence simply doesn’t exist. If the lawyers think some more, they might be able to come up with a strategem that will work.

What the Trumo administration is doing is simply taking this well-established set of attitudes and approaches to the Constitution’s limitations on Congress’ enumerated powers - which amhas resulted in their de facto disappearing in all but mostly symbolic form - and applying them to legal constraints on the Executive. This applies to the entirety of American law - Constitutional powers and rights, statutes, court orders, everything. Nothing in American law has any moral valence. Nothing provides any guide to what the Administration should or should not do. Rather, all of it either empowers the Administration to act as it wants, or poses obstacles to its acting. And when it imposes obstacles, the Administration’s lawyers are expected to devise clever legal strategems to get around them, generally strategems that keep the limitations on the books but limited their actual practical application to rare instances.

Seen this way, the Administration’s approach to habeas corpus and judicial orders enforcing constitutional rights is no different from the historical approach to the limitations on Congress imposed by the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Administration is not seeking at this point to suspend habeas corpus. Rather, it is seeking to narrow its practical ability to limit what the Administration wants to do to rare instances, exactly the way the Commerce Clause’s limits on Congressional power were overcome. Not only does the latter still exist, but occassionally a law is struck down because of them. But it’s usually only because the law was poorly drafted. The Trump Administration takes a similar attitude to habeas corpus. And everything else.

From this point of view, the Take Care Clause is essentially practically meaningless. A President who enforces the refugee or civil rights laws only for white people, or who enforces the tax laws only for his political opponents, or who will obey court orders only for the individual named plaintiffs, is taking care to follow the law in exactly the same way Congress takes care to abide by the Commerce Clause. Not more, not less.

But this attitude has historic roots. Trump’s attitude towards the Constitution’s limits on what he wants to do is different in degree but no different in kind from Roosevelt’s. The courts have accepted, even encouraged, these sorts of instrumentalist attitudes to large swathes of rhe constitution for nearly a century.

Why should they be surprised when somebody comes along with exact same pragmatic, instrumentalist attitude they’ve long accepted, merely directed towards parts they think sacred? Why is one in any way less more or less moral than the other?

[JasonT20]

A President who enforces the refugee or civil rights laws only for white people, or who enforces the tax laws only for his political opponents, or who will obey court orders only for the individual named plaintiffs, is taking care to follow the law in exactly the same way Congress takes care to abide by the Commerce Clause. Not more, not less.

This is one of the more ridiculous false equivalences I've seen here, and that is saying something.

The Constitution is deliberately vague about the limits of Congress's powers related to commerce at least partly because there are so many ways that a government can legitimately "regulate" it. All of those ways would limit someone's ability to engage in business, labor, or trade of some kind to some degree. Congress was also given flexibility because it needed it in order to be effective.

The Equal Protection Clause, habeas corpus, and other limits on both general government power and executive power specifically also have much different stakes than whether a business or ranch can pollute local wetlands, whether they must pay workers overtime beyond 40 hrs a week, and so on.

Blatant discrimination, abuse of power, and defiance of courts by the executive is in no way comparable to the how the Commerce Clause has been expanded over the last century.

[ReaderY]

Well, the reaon you find them different is you have different moral beliefs about and attitudes towards the two.

But why should they be any different for someone who’s moral beliefs and attitudes are identical, for whom the constitution’s limits on his ability to audit his political opponents’ taxes or spirit them away to concentration camps in El Salvador is no different from his view of the EPA’s (the Act, not the Agency) limits on his ability to encourage more coal consumption, which are in turn no different from the commerce clause limits you think unimportant?

These are, to him all just obstacles to what he’s like to do. They have no intrinsic moral valence. They just impose practical limits that either can be overcome by some strategem or can’t.

The whole moral baggage you are bringing to the game just doesn’t exist for this President. There’s nothing intrinsically immoral about auditing ones political opponents or arresting them in the middle of the night and spiriting them away to rot in concentration camps in foreign countries. It’s just that the law isn’t working for him right now to help him advance his agenda on these issues. If he can find a way to make it work for him, he will. There’s no more shame for him in trying than there was for Obama trying to find a way to regulate wetlands. There’s nothing moral or immoral about any of it.

[JasonT20]

But why should they be any different for someone who’s moral beliefs and attitudes are identical, for whom the constitution’s limits on his ability to audit his political opponents’ taxes or spirit them away to concentration camps in El Salvador is no different from his view of the EPA’s (the Act, not the Agency) limits on his ability to encourage more coal consumption, which are in turn no different from the commerce clause limits you think unimportant?

Because it is an extremely convoluted and bizarre perspective to hold a moral view that a government limiting someone's ability to "encourage more coal consumption," after the government has studied the effects of burning coal on the environment and public health, is somehow on a similar level of liberty restriction as shipping someone off to a notorious foreign prison without due process.

[ReaderY]

Convoluted and bizarre or not, I am suggesting that this is the way the man thinks. Think of what I said above as just a more intellectual way of saying “the man has no morals.” He doesn’t. But having no morals means he thinks and behaves in a different way than those who do. And since he’s President, we need to understand how he thinks to understand what it is we’re dealing with. And to do that, we have to try to understand dispassionately and clearly. If we’re too quick to insert judgment, it will fuddle us and keep us from seeing which way he’s going.

[JasonT20]

Convoluted and bizarre or not, I am suggesting that this is the way the man thinks.

Given the constant display of ignorance of history and the basic functioning of our system of government, I think that it gives Trump way, way too much credit for thinking deeply about any of this to assign to him the reasoning you are.

[ReaderY]

Even if he doesn’t succeed any further, Trump has shown remarkable expertise in America’s system of government. A person who knows how to exploit and break our system of government as well as Trump has done so far understands it very well indeed.

Successful havkers have to really understand the systems they are breaking into and taking control of. And Trump’s hacking skills compare well to Hitler. His ability to hack the American system of government shows a remarkaable knowlsdge it. He understands the way it works nearly as well as Hitler understood the Weimar Republic’s. Hitler understood the Weimar Republic’s system of government exceptionally well. His hacking skills are the gold standard to which others are compared. And Trump, even so far, is up there.

Most people have no clue how to hack their system of government, where its exploitable weaknesses lie or how they can be taken advantage of to break and take control. To say as expert a hacker as Trump doesn’t understand the American system of government imhe so successfully hacked himself into is like saying an expert butcher doesn’t understand cattle.

[JasonT20]

Successful havkers have to really understand the systems they are breaking into and taking control of.

Have you heard of social engineering? "Hackers" wielding keyboards like scalpels and finding security flaws buried deeply in the code are probably a tiny fraction of the people actually breaking into those systems. Instead, the vast bulk of what we call hackers are probably just people with no more computer knowledge than the average PC gamer. They then find scripts and tools written by those few real hackers. Mainly, though, they break into systems by fooling people into following links that install malware that the crooks didn't write, or into fooling people into giving them their passwords and private information that they can then use without ever having to understand more about computers than either of us.

Trump's skill has always been self-promotion. It was a coincidence that worked in his favor that there was a large enough group of disaffected voters that wanted a candidate that could entertain them, or make them feel important again, and whatever other psychological diagnoses that sociologists are using to try and explain MAGA.

Trump was a reality TV host that played the part of the hugely successful businessman, and he had the producers that understood how to make that look real to a gullible audience. And then, there were just the right number of people that liked the idea of someone with that kind of success, that would say the things that they wanted to say but couldn't, to get the nomination and squeak through an EC victory.

He's good at building up a myth around himself and bullying people around him into toeing the line, if they need him for something.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You don't understand populism.

[JasonT20]

There’s no more shame for him in trying than there was for Obama trying to find a way to regulate wetlands. There’s nothing moral or immoral about any of it.

Huh? You really think that, or are you saying that it is Trump that has no clue why those would be morally different?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The Commerce Clause has been "expanded" over the last century differently than Trump has "expanded" the definition of habeas corpus over the last four months--mainly in relation to the time it has taken.

These are both examples of various individuals and institutions wilfully ignoring the plain meaning of constitutionally restrictive words they have found inconvenient. Democrats' attempted re-definition of "woman" is another prominent example, as is Trump's would-be re-definition of "invasion".

It took the Supreme Court decades to do essentially the same dishonest thing Trump has accomplished in mere months. His dearest wish will be granted: History will never forget him.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

McCulloch v. Maryland, written by someone who helped ratify the Constitution, reminded us:

To have prescribed the means by which Government should, in all future time, execute its powers would have been to change entirely the character of the instrument and give it the properties of a legal code. It would have been an unwise attempt to provide by immutable rules for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided for as they occur.

The Commerce Clause today addresses today's world, which involves a more expansive interconnected commercial universe here and abroad than was present in the past.

The whole "woman" thing, which is not just something "Democrats" have recognized has a complexity not as well understood in the past,* also makes me question your nom de plume.

This latest "both sides do it" fail is sponsored by a colorfully named drug that you can ask your doctor about.

==

* A nuanced definition of sex and gender has been recognized by many cultures throughout history. So, I'm not even sure how much that qualifier applies. Anyway, some Republicans have managed to accept trans people, for instance.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Don't be disingenuous, Joe.

Sure, the Commerce Clause was intentionally vague. McCullough v. Maryland.

However, the expansion of the use of the Commerce Clause which occurred over the last century has gone far beyond simply providing the flexibility necessary in a changing world. It has become a complete joke: anything the federal government wishes to do can now be "authorized" by the Commerce Clause (and if not, you're just not trying hard enough).

My point is simply that the Constitution will not and cannot protect us from ourselves. As we are learning every day, our institutions are no match for individuals undermining them from within. The Executive is gone, and Congress nearly so. Only the judiciary is still standing up for the Constitution, and given its priors (e.g., the aforementioned Commerce Clause, "emanations from penumbras", etc.), I doubt it will continue to do so for much longer.

But I will continue to observe from "over here". Good luck.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And when it poses an obstacle, there’s no shame in devising clever strategems to get around them and seeing if they pose obstacles to the courts."

Nah, that's actually pretty shameful, since they do swear oaths to obey the Constitution.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Going to college has consistently conferred a large wage premium. We show that the relative premium received by lower-income Americans has halved since 1960."

https://www.nber.org/papers/w33797

It's more complicated than they state it, parental expectations are also a factor here (e.g. third-generation GW Bush *not* going to Yale?) but this is what I have been saying for years. And the data is worse if you start at 1980 instead of 1960.

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

Before and after's should be pegged at Bretton-Woods

[Dr. Ed 2]

There's no hyphen, it's a neighborhood in Carroll, NH -- a ski resort and they met in a hotel there -- in 1944.

The GI bill was also 1944, the Higher Ed Act was 1965.

Your point?

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

Because that's when the world's financial system became unmoored from reality and putty in the hands of the elites.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Pope Leo XIV (not the one in a 1980s film) had an interesting address to diplomats.

https://substack.com/inbox/post/163807851

[Michael Ejercito]

Hannah Dugan has a legal defense fund.

https://civicmedia.us/news/2025/05/19/dugan-says-she-will-not-accept-contributions-from-milwaukee-county-residents-local-attorneys-lobbyists-judges-county-employees-or-anyone-with-pending-cases-before-milwaukee-county-judges

I must wonder though. What would happen to regular people who helped Nikolas Cruz, Dylann Roof, John Mohammed, or Timothy McVeigh evade arrest?

[John F. Carr]

If you commit a crime for a good cause, as judged by The Internet, you get your lawyer paid for.

Some fundraising sites have policies against criminal legal defense funds.

[David Nieporent]

What happened to the regular people who helped Eric Rudolph evade arrest?

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about Sameul Mudd, MD?

All he did was treat an injured man.

[John F. Carr]

Georgia is going to build a wall around Fani Willis and make Fulton County residents pay for it.

The governor signed SB 244. The new law requires a judge to award attorney's fees to a criminal defendant when the prosecuting attorney is disqualified. The county is responsible for paying the award. Courthouse News Service says Trump spent $1.5 million and his co-defendants $2 million defending the racketeering case.

CNS reports on a less blatantly partisan part of the new law:

Kemp's signature on the bill establishes a new standardized process under state law for people who have been exonerated for crimes they did not commit. It requires administrative law judges to rule on wrongful conviction compensation cases and award a standardized rate of $75,000 for each year of incarceration to each exoneree, with an additional $25,000 added for each year spent on death row.

The corresponding law in Massachusetts leaves the award up to a jury, subject to a $1 million cap.

[Michael Ejercito]

Young Thug's lawyers must be patting themselves on the back.

[TwelveInchPianist]

New York seems to be doing the opposite for Laticia James.

I wonder if the Big Beautiful Bill has a 100% tax on such payments. Although I suppose such compensation would be taxable as ordinary income anyway.

[John F. Carr]

Correction based on a Forbes article: Trump's MAGA PAC paid $1.5 million. His Save America PAC paid $2.7 million. Some of the payments were prior to indictment. A judge will decide what a reasonable amount is.

I want to see more reimbursement for legal expenses of criminal defendants. There is a wide gap between people who can't afford a lawyer and people like Trump who can afford any lawyer.

[tylertusta]

Compensating the wrongfully convicted is the least that society should do.

One other reform I'm in favor of is for a prosecutor's office having to put money into an account for every day that a defendant is in jail awaiting trial, the dollar amount to be proportional to the defendant's lost income. Should the defendant win at trial, he or she gets the pot of money plus reasonable attorney's fees. If convicted, the money is returned to the government.

[Magister]

You'd need to cap that income compensation, or that reform would just be known as "Automatic Bail for Rich People", or worse.

[tylertusta]

I don't pretend to have planned out everything, so feel free to assume whatever reasonable limitations you can think of.

[M L]

Glancing through Trump's big beautiful bill.

No tax on tips - stupid. Probably good politics.
No tax on overtime - Meh. Not terrible in theory but no break for salaried?
Deduction for seniors - Yet more unsustainable handouts to boomers at the cost of younger people (like Obamacare).
Car debt interest deduction - stupid.
Employer provided child care - stupid.

[jb]

Mostly agree.

What do you think the steelman argument in favor of no tax on overtime is?

I'm not sure a tax break on employer provided child care is the right answer, but child care is a pretty big problem for working families. From a federal level, this seems like a not-obviously-stupid attempt to do something.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If we want to subsidize people with children, we can do that.

But subsidizing childcare qua childcare is anti-family.

We shouldn't be subsidizing working families over families with stay-at-home parents.

[Dr. Ed 2]

EXACTLY.

And we should stop calling child care workers "teachers" -- they are babysitters, not adjunct professors (although some earn more per hour than adjuncts with doctorates do).

[M L]

I would like federal income tax to be zero or very low. So if something results in less income tax, I will generally think that is a good thing, unless it is unfair or creates some bad incentive. Here, the incentive is . . . to work more and earn more money? Not too bad.

Of course, I wish we could wipe the slate clean and have a new tax code without this monstrous accretion of complicated rules and social engineering, but it is what it is.

You're probably right, increasing the employer child care tax incentive is a not obviously stupid attempt to do something. Ideally, we would go back to the conditions where a single lower-middle class income could support a family. Then women (or men) would not be seemingly forced to outsource the critical job of raising children. Not to mention home economics, cooking healthy meals and so on. Of course there is a broader problem as as 40% of kids are born outside of marriage now and 35% live without one of their parents, this is up from low single digits in previous decades.

In my opinion more government child care is not a good answer, it is maybe the worst thing we could do.

[jb]

Seems like the tax break on overtime disincentivizes productivity, no? Usually we want people figuring out how to work smarter, not harder, but this encourages the opposite. I agree it's not as stupid as the no tax on tips, though.

The aspiration to need less childcare is reasonable, but it's also not something we can wish away in the short term. I don't think this is more "government child care", though, any more than employer-provided health insurance is "government health care". Similar to health care, it's a tax incentive to encourage employers to do something themselves. That system has its own problems, but it's still mostly private sector.

[M L]

Smarter and harder are not mutually exclusive. I guess people could be less productive now because they want overtime more, but a private employer has more than enough incentive to police that such that I don't think this is an issue. Again, for me, less tax = good, unless unfair or bad incentive.

By government child care I wasn't talking about this employer tax incentive, just addressing the next thing which is those on the left usually want direct funding/provision of child care by the government. I agree there's no quick fix, but the conditions for a single lower-middle class income supporting a family include a tight labor market with less immigration, and trade policies that don't encourage outsourcing (i.e., industry-killing heavy domestic tax and regulation, coupled with scot-free importing from cheap labor countries that don't have said regulation).

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Here, the incentive is . . . to work more and earn more money?"

The incentive is to work outside the home instead of caring for your children, which isn't something most people want to incentivize, although there are people who want the state, instead of parents, to be in charge of children.

[M L]

In that paragraph I was specifically discussing the "no tax on overtime" item.

I agree completely. Kids getting dropped off at day care is a sad and terrible thing, not good for anyone. Even worse will be outsourcing child care to the government. And I think for many on the left, the response to this will be "rather than a tax incentive for employers to provide child care, we should just have the government do it."

[Sarcastr0]

The meanness of the utopian. The thing you accuse liberals of being, here you are all about it.

Deal with people as they are; don't punish them because they're not how you want them to be.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Does anyone know what this means?

[grb]

I'll take "What Could be More Predictable" for $200, Ken:

"More than six in ten Britons (62%) say that Brexit has so far been more of a failure, against just 11% who feel that it has been more of a success, though a more noncommittal 20% of Britons consider it to be neither a success nor failure. Notably, even Leave voters are more likely to consider Brexit to have gone badly than well, with 32% labelling it more of a failure so far, compared to 22% describing it as more of a success."

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51484-how-do-britons-feel-about-brexit-five-years-on

[M L]

Failure because the EU and UK's own politicians and government largely refused and failed to execute and deliver on it?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Pathetic excuses are still in fashion, apparently.

You do realize that the same party that instigated the Brexit referendum in the first place, the Tories, not only negotiated the entire EU deal but also implemented it for four years, right?

And you do realize that in a parliamentary system like in the UK, there is basically no legislative check on whatever the party in power chooses to do, right?

[Roger S]

Brexit is a failure because the government interpreted as importing millions of foreigners, just the opposite of what the people wanted.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"What the people wanted" is exactly what you have decided they wanted--nothing more and nothing less.

Ignore the fact that the Conservatives became "the" party of Brexit, negotiated every agreement with the EU and were in complete control the the UK government for the entire time (indeed, until 2024), and might--just might--have had a better understanding of "what the people wanted" than some ignorant Yank bloviating from afar...

[ThePublius]

Mark Steyn on this topic:

"A theme of my book The Prisoner of Windsor is that there is no Brexit. It never happened – or, perhaps more precisely, it was never permitted to happen. And so, as the PM tells the King, Britain is now reduced to the status of a princely state in the Indian Raj, under which, in a nominally sovereign sultanate, every decision that matters was made not by the sultan and his ministers but by the British Resident. The King protests that he hasn’t heard the phrase “princely state” in forty years …but that’s why it helps to know a little history, so you can figure out where all the bollocks is headed."

Read the whole thing, as they say:
https://www.steynonline.com/15323/no-change-and-decay

[grb]

Look at all the flailing comments above! Faced with the fact people see Brexit as a disaster, they just pretend it never happened. Well, up-is-down has become pretty much the go-to response for Righties these days, given their hopeless addiction to lies.

Next they'll be be telling me there's no true Scotsman in Great Britain. Not a single one!

[Magister]

If Brexit never happened, then the UK is still in the EU? Brexit happened even if the pie-in-the-sky promises failed, and people see that as evidence that it was a bad idea.

[Sarcastr0]

To American MAGA, Brexit cannot fail, it can only be failed.

Eh, 50-50 Farage gets into power and then they will have nowhere to hide.

[ThePublius]

Karma?
This from 2020:
"Joe Biden’s cancer charity spent more than $3.7million on staff salaries but distributed ZERO towards research grants over two years, tax filings reveal"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8950275/Joe-Bidens-cancer-charity-spent-3-7million-staff-salaries.html

[Sarcastr0]

Why are you like this?

[Mr. Bumble]

Pointing out an inconvenient truth?
It's a pattern, like high speed internet and fast charging stations.

[apedad]

Karma = an inconvenient truth?!?

GTFO

[A nerdy Fred]

There are better sources than Daily Mail.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-cancer-charity/

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

Uh...

[ThePublius]

Yea, I read that. It's a weasely piece to excuse Biden's charity for not doing charity. It doesn't say the above is not true, it says "Sometimes disinformation states the facts correctly but frames them misleadingly." So, they did pay those big salaries,, and spent zero on research, instead, just 'organizing.'

[grb]

Why are you like this? When it's not the function or purpose of a nonprofit to dispense research money, there's no scandal in the fact it didn't.

And it's not a "weasely piece" to point that out. Trump supporters are addicted to lies - with you as a prime example.

[Stephen Lathrop]

For the same reason other addicts are addicted to substances. Whatever becomes urgently needed will also be urgently in demand.

[ThePublius]

Biden's Cancer Org was a grift. Pay huge salaries to cronies and not do much of anything else. Pretty transparent.

It is a weasley piece because it doesn't say the assertion is false, it rationalizes it. They talk about the 'framing of the facts.'

[Sarcastr0]

The right time and way to discuss optimal charity design is to accuse the due with cancer of fraud and then tie it to your hot take.

The Daily Mail was quite content to let people think the charity's purpose was research grants, and it was not doing them.
That wasn't true, but it sure as hell looks like you fell for their disingenuous implication.

When called on it, you doubled down and just declared the charity a grift.

It's far from the first time you've fallen for right-wing lies. This is the first time you've used it to baselessly attack a guy probably gonna die soon of cancer.

Again, why are you like this?

[grb]

ThePublius : "Biden's Cancer Org was a grift. Pay huge salaries to cronies and not do much of anything else. Pretty transparent."

The only thing transparent is your ignorance. Biden's foundation sounds similar to Clinton's in structure and purpose. Among that charity's many stellar accomplishments was this:

"The former US president Bill Clinton announced yesterday that he had secured a deal with four generic drug companies to provide low-cost Aids drugs in the developing world. The agreement will cut the price of a triple-drug treatment to about 38 cents (22p) a day, Mr Clinton said at a news conference at his Harlem office. "This agreement will allow the delivery of life-saving medicines to people who desperately need them," he said. "It represents a big breakthrough in our efforts to begin treatment programmes in places where, until now, there has been virtually no medicine, and therefore no hope."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/24/aids.usa

The quote is from the beginning of the program. Eventually it would supply AIDs medicine to 12-13 million people. That's a lot of lives saved by something you would also describe as a "grift". But of course you're a blind fool.

So I'll help you out by describing a true grift so you can understand the difference: That would be Trump’s so-called foundation, which was a complete fraudulent pile of reeking shit. It wasn’t properly registered, had a board that included one member who wasn’t informed of that fact for almost ten years, and had no record of board meetings or deliberations for years on end. It was used as a cash pool for DJT’s odd business expenses, fines, and baubles for his golf clubhouses. Among other things, this "charity" bought multiple oil paintings of Trump and assorted sports memorabilia. Most grotesquely, Trump used Foundation money to pay little Don Jr’s seven dollar Boy Scout fee. When a billionaire commits charity fraud over pocket change, you know you're looking at someone who enjoys being a criminal.

(note : I apologize for saying meanie things about Trump, ThePublius, but if you're going push ignorant garbage about charity "grift", you should recognize there's no grifter like your very own orange-tinted god.)

[ThePublius]

You give Clinton's foundation as support for Biden's? What are you talking about?

Also, whataboutism.

[Sarcastr0]

The point being made is there's plenty of value in a charity funding things other than research.

Clinton's foundation is an example of that.

Trump's foundation is an example of what to look for if you want to make the case a charity is a grift.

Not that you actually want to do that analysis; you just got fooled by the Daily Mail. Again. And want to save face by doubling down.

Your commitment to never learning from your mistakes is kind of impressive, actually.

[grb]

Why are right-wingers so damn stupid? Since you have no reading comprehension skills, ThePublius, I'll break it down to the level of a small child:

1. You claimed Biden's charity was a "grift" because it didn't dispense money.

2. I noted its structure/purpose sounds similar to Clinton's foundation, which also works through coordination and outreach.

3. Then I noted how that works, using 12-13 million people in Africa receiving AIDs medicine as an example.

4. Clearly your standard of what is & isn't a charity "grift" is no more factual, discerning, or intelligent that any other random comment you excrete.

And - sorry - if you briefly lift up your head from your devotional service tongue-polishing Trump's shoe leather and make a snide idiot comment on Biden's charity, you deserve to hear the obvious rejoinder.

[ThePublius]

O.K., now do Biden's charity. What did it accomplish? Saying what Clinton's may have accomplished is immaterial. Don't you get that?

[Sarcastr0]

First, this is burden shifting. You're the one that declared it a grift.

7 pillars is ambitious.
And then it ended in only 3 years because Biden was running for President.

I don't see a lot of specific work on coordination of cancer research (though what would that even look like). But it didn't spend it's money on nothing.
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/biden-foundation/

-The Biden Foundation joined with the YMCA of the USA promote LGBT-friendly communities, organizing a cohort of YMCA organizations to develop and implement local strategies to support LGBT individuals and families

- the “As You Are Initiative,” a public education program designed to highlight the harm caused by family rejection of LGBT youth and promote research on family acceptance of LGBT children

-In early 2019, the Biden Foundation announced the “Advancing Acceptance” to to encourage other families to allow their children to change their genders or align as “gender-nonconforming

-Much of the Biden Foundation’s additional work on domestic violence centered around strengthening and promoting the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

-The Biden Foundation supports the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement...promoting global engagement among young people, and advocates for the maintenance of the “liberal international order,”

-The Penn Biden Center launched the Democracy Project in 2019 in collaboration with the George W. Bush Institute and Freedom House. The Project sought to understand American attitudes toward democracy

[TwelveInchPianist]

"When it's not the function or purpose of a nonprofit to dispense research money, there's no scandal in the fact it didn't."

What did it do?

[ThePublius]

I checked, they did about the same kind of thing 'community organizers' do, including enriching the staff.

[Sarcastr0]

I checked

Based on recent evidence, I don't think you did.

[ThePublius]

You would be mistaken, then.

[jb]

Do you think the Metropolitan Museum of Art is a scam because all it does is run a museum and doesn't give out grants to artists?

[ThePublius]

That is neither here nor there. There's no valid comparison between the two. I would say Biden's foundation was very similar to Black Lives Matter.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, you would say that now?

Is there any reason why you see a resemblance other than you don't like them because partisan-brain?

Do you even know what they purport to do?

[ThePublius]

"Is there any reason why you see a resemblance other than you don't like them because partisan-brain?"
No, because they are all tail, no tooth.

"Do you even know what they purport to do?"
Yes, as I said I read up on it. The charity's website appears to be gone. But there's this:

"The Biden Cancer Initiative never intended to make research grants because we had a $2.5 million budget which was dedicated to creating collaborations among companies, universities, nonprofits, patient groups, researchers, and the government," said Greg Simon, former president of the charity.

The mission "was to work with patients from the bottom up to make things change," Simon said, adding that the organization created collaborations that helped cancer patients with things like accessing care, financial support, and community support. According to its website, the 501(c)3 charity brought together dozens of groups and organizations to leverage resources connecting patients to clinical trials, cancer prevention and early detection, and data sharing, for example.

As The Associated Press reported in 2019, the charity "promoted nearly 60 partnerships with drug companies, health care firms, charities and other organizations that pledged more than $400 million to improve cancer treatment."

It's a nice story, but what did they actually get done, compared to the fortunes they paid the administrators?

[Sarcastr0]

Here is where you came in:
"Karma?
...br>
"Joe Biden’s cancer charity spent more than $3.7million on staff salaries but distributed ZERO towards research grants over two years, tax filings reveal"

When the was quickly pointed out to be a deceitful metric, you pivoted to a scam.
Now you're asking about efficacy metrics.

Keep backpedaling and soon you'll be complaining they were bad because they supported liberals.

You've been suckered by right wing bullshit over and over. But you never ever learn, you just try and pretend you didn't get taken in.
It's pretty obvious to everyone and no amount of moving goalposts, incredulity and anger covers what you came in claiming.

Lazy, so you will never learn. you'll be back again soon with some other bullshit from some website designed to trick idiots.

[jb]

Sure there's a valid comparison: they are both nonprofits, and neither gives out grants. Instead they seek to accomplish their mission in other ways, so whether or not they're making grants is irrelevant to whether they're doing a good job.

Later you write: "It's a nice story, but what did they actually get done, compared to the fortunes they paid the administrators?"

Looks like they were paying the CEO $429K. That's quite a lot of money, but hardly a "fortune". Given that he was a former SVP for Pfizer, that's probably a pay cut, so hard to see how this would be a scheme to enrich anyone.

[David Nieporent]

Um, and it was immediately debunked thereafter: the organization was never intended to distribute research grants, so the fact that it didn't do so is meaningless.

[ThePublius]

You guys are either so stupid or cynical, holding up what Clinton's foundation accomplishments to support Biden's foundation. That makes no sense.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't know anything about Clinton's foundation, so I won't use it as an example, but you can't seriously believe that all (or even most) charities exist simply to distribute research grants, can you?

[A nerdy Fred]

There is an interesting compare-and-contrast case.The fact pattern is quite different and it doesn't shed any light on the discrimination claim that Professor Volokh highlighted. This guy got prosecuted. His defense was that he hit send to all contacts by accident when he meant to send to his girlfriend. https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/soccer-coach-accused-of-sending-lewd-video-pleads-not-guilty/58400/

[Michael Ejercito]

Outrageous!

They may have rediced FJB's chances of having an opportunity to play GTA VI.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This could be easily proved through investigation: did he in fact send the same content to all his Snapchat contacts or not?

[SRG2]

From Cato:

50+ Venezuelans Imprisoned in El Salvador Came to US Legally, Never Violated Immigration Law

Shortly after the US government illegally and unconstitutionally transported about 240 Venezuelans to be imprisoned in El Salvador’s horrific “terrorism” prison on March 15, CBS News published their names. A subsequent CBS News investigation found that 75 percent of the men on that list had no criminal record in the United States or abroad. Less attention has been paid to the fact that dozens of these men never violated immigration laws either.

Res ipsa loquitur

[Mr. Bumble]

... and what's in a name. Any other identifiers?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and this just in:
The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a major immigration win as he seeks to speed up mass deportations amid a scathing back-and-forth between the president and the high court.

The order will allow Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to strip away 'temporary protected status' from 350,000 Venezuelan migrants.

[Commenter_XY]

Bye, bye

[Roger S]

In some cases, the Biden administration was allowing them to apply for refugee status. But they are still not legitimate refugees, and need to be deported.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Really? Perhaps the government should have made that case during an appropriate hearing...

[Bob from Ohio]

CATO huh.

LOL

[David Nieporent]

It's Cato, not CATO. It's a name, not an acronym. It's correct up above; is there a reason you couldn't write it correctly?

[ThePublius]

Are you a cop?

[David Nieporent]

No. Nor a COP.

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha. Good one.

I wasn't aware acronyms need be all caps.

[ThePublius]

"Common Usage: Many well-known acronyms are now so common that they are written in lowercase, such as "laser". "

I would argue that cop is in common usage.

[tylertusta]

By the time they're written in lowercase they're no longer acronyms. They're then common English words.

Radar, sonar and scuba are examples of this.

[ThePublius]

Check this, on Cato's website - top left - CATO in all caps. I guess both are correct. Also, their banners at conferences, etc., have it in all caps.

[Noscitur a sociis]

They have a logo where their name is written in capital letters. So does a a certain institution based at One First Street, but that doesn’t mean you’d call it the SUPREME COURT in normal usage.

[Sarcastr0]

I've been assured that these people are Not Like Us as is evident via some some easy to determine way no one has bothered to explicate.

[It's race]

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

Are you trying to argue that the government civil servants are incompetent?

[Dr. Ed 2]

How do you say "fake ID" and "they gave false names" in Latin?

[ThePublius]

Scott Adams Reveals Prostate Cancer Diagnosis

"“I have the same cancer that Joe Biden has,” Adams said. “I also have prostate cancer that has also spread to my bones.”"

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2025/05/19/scott-adams-reveals-prostate-cancer-diagnosis/

[Frank Drackman]

Been watching his Youtube "Coffee with Scott Adams" for the last few years, he has been looking rather ill lately. He said he's only months away from taking the "Black Capsule" that's available in California.

[SRG2]

A pity. He used to be a fine cartoonist until spirochaetes (or some other malign influence) turned him into a bigot.

[Frank Drackman]

Like Harry Truman, Scott just told the truth and idiots took it as bigotry.
And it's "Spirochetes", Stupid.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I suspect that Pacific Bell didn't help.

[Estragon]

Scott Adams justified JD Vance’s bigoted lies about Haitian immigrants eating pets by saying the claim— while admittedly false— was “directionally true.” I hope he has fun explaining that one to St. Peter at the gates.

I am grateful, however, because I look forward to utilizing this phrase through and beyond our current orange nightmare.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, good one.

Along with other amusing new Trump-era words, such as "alternative facts" and "equalize", we can add "directional truth".

[Kazinski]

So Saturday I asked a question on Friday's open thread, but it was getting stale and I didn't get an answer, anyone care to take a crack?

It was Bernard that originally posted this:

"Remember that the Russians preferred Trump, quite wisely from their point of view, as subsequent events have shown."

So I responded:

"Ridiculous, Russia invaded Crimea and Donbus during the Obama Administration.

The rest of Ukraine during the Biden Administration.

So just what did Putin get from Trump? Permission to invade a neighbor? Nope, he actually got the promise of "flexibility" from Obama, and Biden greenlighted a "minor incursion" into Ukraine.

It wasn't higher oil prices. It wasn't a trade deal. So what was it Putin got, that Obama and Biden didn't fall over themselves to deliver to Putin?

It was Trump that gave Ukraine Javelin anti-tank missiles that stemmed the initial invasion."

I'm actually curious about what people thought Putin got from Trump in tangible benefits.

[Magister]

A lot of the benefit was pro-Putin PR, because many of the more substantial benefits Trump tried to provide were blocked by allies or his own party (but probably weakened NATO and reduced pressure on Putin anyway). Trump's campaign blocked the Republican party platform from endorsing the US sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, so it's very Kazinski to give Trump credit for later caving on that (conveniently forgetting that impeachment over trying to extort political favors from Ukraine by withholding aid). Trump shared intelligence with the Russians on several occasions (and probably more than we know of).

[Kazinski]

Weakened NATO?

Read the headlines;
NATO mulls US demand for a big increase in defense spending as some struggle to meet today's goal

But certainly Russia can console itself with the PR.

That's all you got?

[Magister]

Evidently you did not read the comment. Pity.

[Armchair]

"Trump's campaign blocked the Republican party platform from endorsing the US sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, "

What? How? No...

Here's the truth. In 2014, Congress authorized the sale of lethal military aid to Ukraine under the e Ukraine Freedom Support Act, providing $350 Million dollars worth of aid. Here's the text.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2828/text

SEC. 6. Increased military assistance for the Government of Ukraine.
(a) In general.—The President is authorized to provide defense articles, defense services, and training to the Government of Ukraine for the purpose of countering offensive weapons and reestablishing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including anti-tank and anti-armor weapons, crew weapons and ammunition, counter-artillery radars to identify and target artillery batteries, fire control, range finder, and optical and guidance and control equipment, tactical troop-operated surveillance drones, and secure command and communications equipment, pursuant to the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), and other relevant provisions of law.

At this point, the ball was entirely in the Obama administration's court. BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL ACTION authorized LETHAL MILITARY AID to Ukraine...in 2014. And Obama SAT ON IT AND DID NOTHING in regards to lethal military aid. No bullshit about the Trump campaign "preventing" Congress from authorizing lethal military aid pre-2016. It was already authorized in 2014.

In 2017, the Trump administration authorized lethal military aid, including antitank missiles. Acting on Congress's wishes.

That's the truth.

[Magister]

Are you failing to address a statement about the Republican party platform because you're stupid or because you're dishonest? Or both?

[Kazinski]

A party platform document? That's all you've got.

A pretty much meaningless document with no significance.

If that's true which I doubt, it may well be he didn't want it in there because it was something he wanted to do, under the radar, and its actually something he did.

[Magister]

You already ignored the previous observation about giving Russia sensitive intelligence; even Republicans were alarmed by that back in 2017. We don't know how much more he's given the Russians since. So don't get all "that's all you've got?" while ignoring what I have already brought.

Trump is ultimately the weakest US president in a long time, and observing that bipartisan efforts or just other Republicans or his own advisors got him to back off some of his attempts to benefit Putin is a sorry defense.

[David Nieporent]

What you write is true, but not sure why we're even debating this when Trump is very openly now helping Russia against Ukraine.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

To be fair (to the truth, not to Trump), Trump has recently backed off actively assisting Putin to destroy Ukraine.

His idiotic meddling is not exactly helping Ukraine, either, but after initially halting all assistance (after the White House "great TV" ambush), I believe it is currently not subject to such restrictions.

[Magister]

I was looking mostly at "what did Putin get for his investment in election interference in the first Trump term". Some of that was held back by Republicans in Congress and his own appointees, some of whom were more loyal to the United States than to Putin's poodle. (Congressional Republicans have now all joined the cult, and the appointees this time are sycophantic and corrupt to a degree that Mike Flynn couldn't match in 2017.)

[Armchair]

The dishonesty here is yours.

You imply that Trump's campaign was blocking Republicans in Congress from approving lethal aid to Ukraine during 2014, 2015, and 2016.

Instead, that lethal aid had already been approved by a bipartisan Congress, and it was a corrupt Obama-Biden Administration which was "giving Putin more space" that just "chose not to send the lethal aid". And when Trump was elected, Trump did choose to send that aid.

If Hillary had won? Who knows....perhaps she would have "forgotten" to send it like Obama did, and Russia would've taken over Ukraine in 2017.

[Sarcastr0]

I know consistency isn't your strong suit, but you've been all in on Putin's side since the break. He's right, he's gonna win, etc.

Now you're saying Trump's standing up to Putin on Ukraine and that's good. And Biden and Obama all backed down with Putin and that's bad.

I guess we're supposed to leave past Armchair to the dustbin of history.

[Magister]

My statement was accurate but stupid dishonest Armchair tried to rebut it with statements about other things. That other Republicans pushed back on Trump doesn't mean Putin didn't get value for his relatively small investment in tilting the 2016 election. (If Trump had lost in 2016, it's unlikely he would have been the Republican candidate ever again, and his influence over Republicans have shifted them away from doing the right thing on Ukraine.)

"Trump sides with Putin in Ukraine conversation" and threats of the US walking away from Ukraine - how much are those alone worth to Putin?

[SRG2]

I'm actually curious about what people thought Putin got from Trump in tangible benefits.

Putin is playing a long game. He wants to undermine the US's importance and influence around the world and weaken it internally, But he is a canny enough KGB-nik to know that you protect your assets by getting them to do things that allay suspicion.

[Kazinski]

Boy that's crafty, when you've supposedly have the President of the United States in your pocket, and you realize he's an asset to valuable to use.

[ThePublius]

No discussion of the Mexican Naval Training Sailing Ship crashing into the Brooklyn Bridge.

I'm a lifelong sailor. I single-hand a 38' sloop. I am moored in a river with significant currents. I can tell you that when I learned that the river was flooding, i.e., the current was flowing upstream, North, towards the bridge, and that the wind was from the South, that leaving then with only a single tug nearby, not even tied to it, was a bad idea. They should have waited for a fair tide, maybe a six hour wait.

I watched a very good video of what happened on the NY Times. Once that ship got even a little bit sideways to the current it was all over. Plus, all of that windage of the three masts, spars, furled sails, and sailors dressing the yards contributed mightily to its movement upstream (due to the wind). There's also speculation that the ship's propellers were operating in reverse, a clear mistake.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/18/nyregion/brooklyn-bridge-ship-crash-causes.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IU8.swDV.qfQIip7j_5Ur&smid=url-share

Of course, Sen. Schumer blames Trump(!)

"In his news conference on Sunday, Mr. Schumer wondered aloud whether cuts and hiring freezes initiated by the Trump administration to the Coast Guard had played any role in Saturday’s incident. He compared the Coast Guard’s waterway control operation to the air traffic control duties of the Federal Aviation Administration.

“We know that there has been meddling by the Trump administration into the Coast Guard staffing,” he said, “and now we need to know how this meddling might have impacted the events of last night from a command, communication and local coordination level.”"

The Coast Guard doesn't tow or otherwise assist vessels, that's a commercial operation. They respond after the fact.

A truly tragic incident. I pray for the two dead sailors and the 22 or so injured.

[John F. Carr]

They may have set out at slack tide. Currents in the East River lag behind the usual timing relative to tide. I saw several comments to this effect this on a YouTube video. NOAA confirms that the East River is atypical here: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/faq.html.

[ThePublius]

I don't think so. I don't have this year's Eldridge yet, but looking online it appears they set off 2 hours after low tide. Plus, I watched the video, and it seemed clear to me that the current was moving the bow of that boat. They may have been motoring in reverse, though, as there was something of a wake. See that NYTimes article I linked, there's a very good video there.

[Stephen Lathrop]

As a single-handed pilot of a 38-foot sailing vessel, ThePublius is likely a menace to navigation. He mis-describes the practices of the Coast Guard. He does not mention dropping anchor when drifting and in peril. His commentary here suggests the level of caution a pilot on the Chesapeake would display if he tried at night to slip between a tug and its tow.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dropping anchor wouldn't work.

There's 5-6 fathom there -- it'd take a few minutes to reach the bottom, and then a few more to catch and they didn't have that kind of time.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Schumer should have shut up. He obviously knew nothing about what had caused the tragedy, but piled on anyway.

God knows there is more than enough to blame on the Trump Administration already.

[Stephen Lathrop]

"Schumer should have shut up," amounts to a truism. Never relevant, always accurate.

[Frank Drackman]

Believe it or not, this isn't my usual Schtick,
can we have a moment of silent prayer for President Joe Biden??

OK, you're free to return to the usual hate and discontent.

Frank

[ThePublius]

"Why are you like this?"

That's Sarcastr0's and grb's new schtick.

As one of my best engineering professors would say "I'm an engineer, I don't answer 'why' questions."

[apedad]

Actually just in this blog you asked and answered a 'why' question.

"So, why announce it now? To invoke pity and compassion, and forget about the Hur tapes and the autopen scandal."

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha, nice try. It wasn't me answering a 'why' question, it was a figure of speech to speculate on the Bidens' motives. Or don't you get that?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Hahaha! You were speculating on their motives, not explaining why they did something.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How about this one?

It's not on me. I have no idea why you're beating this drum. Maybe because I'm a conservative and you hate conservatives?

[ThePublius]

I was asking, not answering. What don't you get about that?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Maybe because I'm a conservative and you hate conservatives?

[Kazinski]

Sarcastro sure let me have it yesterday:
"Finally, what the fuck is wrong with your character and empathy? This is a piece of shit move, with no reason but to make 500,000 miserable. And here you are, defending the policy and the legality."

This was about the Venezuelan, Haitian, Cuban, etc temporary parole termination.

I felt terrible about that, but the Supreme Court just came out with a stay of the Injunction for the Venezuelans to cheer me up.

This exactly what I was arguing:
"The Court's action was likely driven by the justices' conclusion that the federal government is likely to prevail on the merits, as the decision whether to confer, maintain, or terminate TPS is largely discretionary. Indeed, it is not even clear TPS decisions are subject to judicial review (as the Administration argued in its stay application)."

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/05/19/supreme-court-allows-dhs-to-suspend-temporary-protected-status-for-venezuelans/

[jb]

That may be a correct legal ruling, but still seems like a pretty awful policy.

These aren't people who snuck into the country illegally. They're generally coming from terrible places, went through the right process to enter the US, and now Trump is sending them back on a couple months' notice.

The fact that in the face of that human suffering you were cheered up by the Supreme Court making a legal decision allowing it does indeed seem pretty sad.

More to the point: this series of decisions by Trump really puts a lie to the argument made by the administration and its supporters that the whole debate has anything to do with legal vs. illegal immigration.

[Kazinski]

I think you are confusing parole with immigration.

They weren't legally admitted, they were paroled. Parole confers no legal status, it just allows you to stay despite not having legal status.

They were never "legal immigrants". The right process is filing an immigration petition and paying the 700$ application fee and waiting 10 years like everyone else, if you qualify.

[David Nieporent]

No, they were legally admitted. They're just legally admitted non-immigrants.

[Kazinski]

As usual you are confidently wrong, paroled and admitted are different statuses:
8 USC 1182 (a)
(A) Aliens present without admission or parole

And 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A):
"but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States."

[David Nieporent]

"Admission" has a technical meaning in that provision of the INA that is mutually exclusive with "paroled." (That's why it says "shall not be regarded as an admission." Because that would trigger certain other procedures.) I was using it in the literal sense of the word: they were authorized to be in the country; they're not here illegally.

[jb]

If the debate been "legal" versus "illegal" it's hard to see how the parole vs immigration distinction is relevant.

These folks entered the country legally. Now they're being kicked out. That's an anti-immigrant action, not an anti-illegal-immigrant action.

[Kazinski]

It is relevant.

First of all entering under a tourist visa is a legal admission, but it gives no immigrant status, or requires any process if you overstay your visa, or if your visa is revoked, even if there is no articulable reason.

But parole is not admission, it is an alternate status. And parolees are neither immigrants nor admitted. And the statute is clear the SecHS can revoke the parole at anytime based on nothing more than her unreviewable opinion.

But don't blame the administration or The Court, blame Congress for clearly writing their intent into the statute.

And blame Biden and Mayorkas for admitting half a million people into the US knowing they could be sent home anytime for any or no reason.

[David Nieporent]

And blame Biden and Mayorkas for admitting half a million people into the US knowing they could be sent home anytime for any or no reason.

They mistakenly assumed we were done with Trump, and therefore we'd have a president who acted in good faith.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"More to the point: this series of decisions by Trump really puts a lie to the argument made by the administration and its supporters that the whole debate has anything to do with legal vs. illegal immigration."

How so? Is anyone claiming that they support legalizing all immigration?

[David Nieporent]

How so is that people like Brett Bellmore pretend "Oh, I'm not against immigration at all; I'm fine with it. I just don't think people should be allowed to come here illegally and unvetted.
If they followed legal procedures, I would have no objection." (That's a paraphrase; I don't know that Brett has said those exact words in that exact order.) But it's a lie; they just want to kick out as many non-whites as possible. The issue isn't vetting; the issue isn't abstract respect for the law. It's just antipathy towards immigrants.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If they followed legal procedures, I would have no objection."

I don't think anybody has said that, in any order.

Very few people would support a program that allows, say, terrorists to come to the US as long as they fill out the right form.

Lots of people oppose illegal immigration and support some, but not all, legal immigration.

So pointing out that someone opposes a particular instance of legal immigration doesn't "put the lie" to any such claim.

[Sarcastr0]

"what the fuck is wrong with your character and empathy? This is a piece of shit move, with no reason but to make 500,000 miserable. And here you are, defending the policy and legality"

I disagree with the Court, but so it goes.

Your defense of kicking these people out early remains a sign of poor character.

There is no reason to do this other than performative persecution of an outgroup.
Yay, we're being shitty to these people who did nothing wrong.

You don't even seem to be taking pleasure in it like some of the more openly bigoted around here. Just defending Trump like a reflex, and consequences to people bedamned.

[Kazinski]

You disagree with the court on what grounds?

Policy?

Like I said in the other thread, the policy was litigated in the election.

The law? Congress was very clear delegating the authority to terminate parole to the Secretary. And if you don't think its clear that she could terminate the parole, then it can't be clear that Mayorkas could grant it in the first place.

When I have said in the past that I think Biden and Mayorkas intentionally let 10 millions into the country without being legally admitted, I have been assured it was just incompetence not malice. Well here are half a million that were not legally admitted that was clearly intentional.

[Sarcastr0]

I think there's sufficient reliance interest to require some process to at least justify the action by the government to not just wind up the program but kick people off midstream.

Call it 14A due process, call it ACA. Both have reliance-based process concerns that can override individual agency actions.

There was no process here. Whether or not the statute says there needs to be, if there's a reliance at work, that has in the past presented a legal issue.

I tend to agree the Court doesn't look like it'll care. Doesn't mean I must bow down before all their zero legal analysis.

[David Nieporent]

When I have said in the past that I think Biden and Mayorkas intentionally let 10 millions into the country without being legally admitted, I have been assured it was just incompetence not malice. Well here are half a million that were not legally admitted that was clearly intentional.

See, this is what I was talking about above. You are using technical statutory language to mislead. The people who this ruling is about were legally admitted — in the layperson sense of officially permitted to enter — into the country, and came here without breaking any laws. Yes, the INA uses a different term than "admitted" for that, but so what? They have absolutely nothing in common with the (alleged) 10 million people who snuck into the country.

[Kazinski]

Did you have your 'pettifogging pendant' hat on or your 'layperson sense' hat on when you said: "they were legally admitted"?

I generally assume its the 'pettifogging pendant' hat when we are discussing a supreme court ruling based on whether they are likely to succeed on the merits.

[Commenter_XY]

Sniff, sniff. That must've hurt, Kaz.

Sarcastr0 and his compatriots can't figure out the difference between a man and a woman. I would not put too much stock in Sarcastr0 pronouncements.

[Kazinski]

Actually felt good, for one thing its a pretty clear admission he knew he, and Ilya were wrong about the law (the clock is ticking on Ilya's post on why he was right and 8 justices were wrong).

Sarcastro hates to admit he is wrong, so he only does it by telling you how terrible you are when he runs out of red herrings, strawmen, no true scottsmen, and other falacies and arguements.

[Sarcastr0]

When the Supreme Court makes a decision you agree with, that doesn't mean you were right all along.

Especially given this particular procedural posture.

[David Nieporent]

People routinely confuse "I want the court to rule X" or "I think the best reading of the law is X" with "I predict the court will rule X."

[Magister]

How often would an honest person find those to be three different outcomes?

[Kazinski]

Well I was pretty clear in the thread yesterday that I thought the best reading of the law favored the administration, but the court hasn't ruled on the merits yet.

We may actually never know, perhaps without the stay they will drop the case rather than proceed to a clear ruling setting precedent.

I was actually fairly sympathetic Venezuelans fleeing Maduro in the beginning, but the rape and murder of 12 year old Jocelyn Nungary by 2 Venezuelans and 22 year old Laken Riley by another made me start questioning my priors. The Aurora apartment takeover didn't help either.

I know immigrants have very low crime rates, but based on the fact that ~4000 women are murdered each year in the US, and just 10% are murdered by strangers, so the odds that ~.5% of the women last year in just those 2 cases were murdered by 3 of ~.0015% of the men in this country made me start to think that maybe the Venezuelan refugees (actually parolees) were bad luck, and should go home.

[Sarcastr0]

What the fuck shit math is this? 2 confirmation biased anecdotes and you try and do some statistics?!

GIGO.

[Kazinski]

A little more than an anecdote to me Sarcastro, when my daughter was 11 her 12 year old best friend was kidnapped raped and murdered in a Houston suburb by a former convict with a long record. Her body with her throat slit was found 3 weeks later in submerged in a flooded quarry. That was in a Houston suburb same as 12 year old Jocelyn Nungaray, who's body was thrown in a ditch.

I saw the toll it took on my daughter, her friends family, and my family since they were close family friends.

So I may have done a little back of the envelope math just to illustrate how unlikely it is with the number of stranger murders, to have two victims in a single year from a relatively small set of undocumented aliens from a single country, but its a little more personal to me than that.

And call me cold and heartless for favoring the death penalty too.

[Sarcastr0]

Emotionalism + anecdote is still an anecdote.
Just like anecdote + shit stats is still an anecdote.

Anecdotes generalized into a broad negative stereotype about a group = bigotry.

You arrived at your bigoted position from a place of trauma-by-proxy. That's not a defense of yourself!

You also claimed "I was actually fairly sympathetic Venezuelans fleeing Maduro." Your rhetoric here sure makes it look like this was a lie.

[Mr. Bumble]

Only you can be a scumbag and a douche at the same time!

[Kazinski]

And completely inconsequential.

I might ask him "Finally, what the fuck is wrong with your character and empathy?"

Describing the rape and murder of a 12 year old as just an anecdote.

But I already know, its just ineffective arguments trying to advance his point, because he already lost the legal argument.

[Kazinski]

Hobie alert!

"The Trump administration has agreed to pay nearly $5 million to the family of Ashli Babbitt to settle a wrongful death lawsuit."

[Frank Drackman]

$5,000,000??
That'll buy a lot of Lottery Tickets/Meth/Moonshine(do people still drink Moonshine?)
see, that's what Hobie would say
Frank says "every life is priceless"

Frank

[Estragon]

Shameful

[ThePublius]

Yes, shameful that that scandal-ridden cop shot Ashley in the neck and killed her.

"The U.S. Capitol Police officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt on January 6 once fired his service weapon at fleeing vehicles near his home while his neighbor was in the line of fire, a congressional oversight committee reported.

Michael L. Byrd was promoted from lieutenant to captain in 2023 despite a “significant” history of referrals to the Capitol Police Office of Professional Responsibility, said U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), chairman of the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight.

The records of three disciplinary cases against Byrd are missing, according to Loudermilk. “This is disappointing, as the inability to locate these documents hinders the subcommittee from fulfilling its responsibility to conduct comprehensive oversight over the USCP,” Loudermilk wrote in a Nov. 20 letter to Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger."

How very convenient that those documents disappeared, eh? Nothing to see here, move along....

[Sarcastr0]

Are you using the Trump admin making a settlement as proof of some kinda coverup/conspiracy?
Or are you just getting that from TheBlaze News?

It is amazing how you will will never check more than one source, so long as his priors are flattered.

[ThePublius]

Is anything I posted on this untrue?

[Stephen Lathrop]

The way your wrote it shows you yourself have no notion what is true, and what not.

[ThePublius]

That's a nothing of a retort.

[ThePublius]

"The fallacy of attacking the source, also known as ad hominem or genetic fallacy, occurs when an argument is dismissed or validated based on the characteristics or history of the person or source presenting it, rather than the merits of the argument itself. "

The story of Sarcastr0's life. How about arguing the merits?

[hobie]

So basically they gave her hillbilly family my tax money as a straight up sop. Are they gonna pay out the cops beaten by the Red Hat Militia goons? Of which tiny, microscopic Saint Ashtray Babbitt was a member

[Frank Drackman]

Say that about Saints Floyd George, Travon, the whatever the guys name in Ferguson was.

[ThePublius]

Those cops can make their own case.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Open wider.

[Estragon]

Curious comment. I’ll just note it’s taxpayer dollars, which includes some small fraction of yours— assuming you pay federal taxes of course

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Lol, are you kidding? They're not going to pay out the cops; they're probably gonna pay out the Red Hat Militia goons who did it (and were subsequently "treated very badly" by the Biden DoJ).

(On the other hand, this being Trump, its also possible they do neither, or pay off everyone...)

[Estragon]

Just a reminder:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HTgMkGdyfQM&pp=QACIAgE%3D&rco=1

[David Nieporent]

Turns out that it's much easier to be a social media feces-flinger than to actually be in office. (Ed Martin didn't realize that the two are distinct, which is why he lost his chance to be US Attorney.) Conspiracymongers Kash Patel and Dan Bingo Bongo have now come out and said, "Yeah, actually Jeffrey Epstein did kill himself," after spending years online pretending otherwise.

They also said there were no conspiracies in the Trump assassination attempts.

[Kazinski]

We tried to tell you Kash was a straight arrow.

Right anout Russiagate, right about Epstein.

[Estragon]

“Kash was a straight arrow”

You mean Kash the Distinguished Discoverer?

How many doses of his detoxifying supplements have you purchased and administered?

[Kazinski]

Probably a lot if its a brand of bourbon.

I don't like it much if I get a high enough dose I get into the detoxifying phase.

[David Nieporent]

"He won't lie under oath" is kind of a low bar for being deemed a "straight arrow."

[Bored Lawyer]

"after spending years online pretending otherwise"

Links?

[Magister]

Patel has praised QAnon, which promotes the idea of a Democratic pedophilia conspiracy. He may have been more cautious than Bongino about specific conspiracy theories outside of the 2020 election and January 6th.

In 2025, Dan Bongino, FBI deputy director, disappointed the 2023 version of himself.

In 2023, Dan Bongino, star podcaster, demanded to know: “What the hell are they hiding with Jeffrey Epstein?”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/media/dan-bongino-kash-patel-fbi-trump-maga-media-conspiracies?iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc

[Estragon]

Kash is a cafeteria Q subscriber I suppose:

"I disagree with a lot of what that movement says, but I agree with what a lot of that movement says."

I wonder which parts he subscribes to? The sexually abused children being held in chains in the basement of a DC pizza parlor that doesn’t have a basement?

As discussed here in the past— Mike Flynn’s brother would view any attribution of Q views as defamatory. Not Kash, I guess.

[hippo]

Why were the cameras turned off?

[SRG2]

Of course, they could have looked into the files and found that the Trump connection was sufficiently strong even more recently - or alternatively, friends of Trump - that it was better to stick with the story. As not all the files have been released, and some released files were redacted, promises haven't been entirely kept.

[ThePublius]

I must say, parts of that Hur tape are just difficult to listen to. Biden rambles on about hunting in Mongolia, watching kids race horses bareback, and how he was handed a bow and arrow and "hit the goddamn target" 100 yards away.

It is reminiscent of one of Grandpa Simpson's rambling tales. I wonder if Joe had an onion tied to his belt, which was the fashion at the time....

https://youtu.be/yujF8AumiQo?si=A0Z8MP3inlxdFP2h

[Estragon]

“parts”

How much of the interview did you listen to?

[ThePublius]

Not all of it yet. Why does that matter? Are you trying to imply that these snippets would make absolute sense in some larger context? :). Geez.

[Estragon]

“Not all of it”

Yes, I figured that. But how much— approximately? 4-5 minutes?

[ThePublius]

I don't know. What's your point? What are you driving at?

[Estragon]

“I don't know”

Um… what? You are posting about these tapes but you can’t remember how much you listened to? Not even a ballpark? As you point out, the entire interviews spanned 5 hours.

[ThePublius]

As I asked before, what's your point? Why are you trolling me?

[Estragon]

Why are you being so evasive? Have you listened to more than the four plus minutes initially released by axios, yes or no?

Why would that be a problem? Well, I invite you to read what the ultra-liberal Heritage Foundation has to say:

https://legacy.www.documentcloud.org/documents/25945531-heritagefdn051725pdf/

[ThePublius]

How much f it have you listened to? Have you listened to the whole thing?

[Estragon]

You continue to be evasive, so I’ll assume you just listened to the initial axios release, because that would be in line with your demonstrated previous statements around here— complete lack of intellectual curiosity when something seems superficially to align with your priors. After all, who can forget duty to retreat in your own home?

I listened to the initial release, which was quite enough to realize that there was some splicing and dicing— having read the transcripts months ago.

I understand this Biden dog piling is catnip for you people (and the DC press corps) but surely you must realize at some point that you want to be misled?

[Life of Brian]

Most times, the argument "needz CONTEXT, d00d" is supported by actually providing some.

[Estragon]

https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=5273

I know this would have been hard for you to find on your own so I am happy to help.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Did you hear the part where Hur is asking about sending “Mark” documents “marked classified”?? Hur even confused himself with that! But the entire interview was unnecessary…just a huge waste of time.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, it's the "here's the whole thing -- go fish and find for me the context that I'm arguing somehow makes a difference!" game.

[Estragon]

“Ah, it's the "here's the whole thing -- go fish and find for me the context that I'm arguing somehow makes a difference!" game.”

Oh please. If you had any familiarity with these transcripts ex ante (which I suspect you do) you wouldn’t contest what I’m saying— you’d say it doesn’t matter, as Pooblius lamely attempts above.

So rather than have a disingenuous food fight with you, let’s turn it over to the heritage filing:

https://legacy.www.documentcloud.org/documents/25945531-heritagefdn051725pdf/

[Life of Brian]

Nor am I going to fish though a filing you lazily cut and pasted in order to try to divine what you might think is relevant to this conversation -- particularly a filing made before the full tapes were released.

Identify some specific content and we'll go from there. Surely there are media outlets that have done that work for you now that the full tapes have been out for multiple days!

[Estragon]

Read it or don’t— doesn’t matter to me

[Life of Brian]

Of course it doesn't, lazy troll. Run along to your next thread now.

[Estragon]

“Lazy”

It’s 7 pages. I realize that’s a lot for some people.

[ThePublius]

I think the whole thing is a bit over 5 hours. I haven't gotten to it all yet. Have you?

[David Nieporent]

Heh. Above, someone claimed that Trump wasn't losing it, and I was going to counter by referencing the onion-on-his-belt thing. But I was afraid the demographics here might have skewed too young. (The episode originally aired 32 years ago!)

[ThePublius]

Yea, that was pretty funny. I have experienced that on a few occasions with some older folk. Recently I thought it was happening again, but this guy brought it all home at the end!

[ThePublius]

Biden, at a press conference after the Hur interview, commenting on the discussion where Biden couldn't recall when his son, Beau, died:

"How in the hell dare he raise that?"

Well, he didn't. Biden brought up the topic.

[Sarcastr0]

Can't top. Won't stop.

Posting about Biden.

[ThePublius]

Well, he's in the news! The Hur tape leak/release, the cancer diagnosis, the Tapper book coming out tomorrow. He's current and topical. What's your beef? We should all remain silent on these newsy topics???

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, dude. So newsy.

[ThePublius]

You're denying that these topics are news? Holy cow. Hur tapes released 2 days ago. Cancer diagnoses yesterday. Book comes out tomorrow. Get a grip!

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

He's trying to shame you into not following news that hurts his tribe.

It's the midwit's version of "Republicans Pounce"

[Commenter_XY]

Consider who is defending Pres Biden's legacy. Nuff said.

[Estragon]

“Hur tapes released 2 days ago”

Well the transcripts have been available for some time— since before Hur’s congressional testimony. So aside from the, ahem, editing choices made by those behind the tape release (4.5% of the total, btw, according to heritage), there isn’t anything new here… is there?

[ThePublius]

Yes, there is. There's a lot more information in Biden's actual voice, Hur's voice, and the voices of Biden's lawyers than the transcript can convey. And while I've yet to find the day 2 tape, I have the day 1, which is over 5 hours long. So, about half is easily available.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

It sounds like a low stakes conversation to me…it could have all been done in an email.

[Sarcastr0]

Internet gumshoe it out, man. Maybe you can find signs of adrenachrome abuse too.

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

This is a superb midwit response.

If I were to classify you on the scales of midwittery, I'd say you're a one or two standard deviations more midwit than the typical midwit.

[Bwaaah]

Essence of Sarcastr0: "I can tell from just listening to you that you're one of those idiots who thinks he can make intelligent inferences about people by just listening to them."

Sarc is low enough on the midwittery scale that even at the top of his game all he's got is midwit insight. This is not to insult midwittery, but the midwit who fancies himself as a serious intellectual force.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It seems like you owe Robert Hur an apology, Sarcastro. Are you going to do it on this thread?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You owe the world an apology…for your existence!

[hobie]

Looks like the quid pro quo to the autocratic, terrorism-funding gulf states - for all the quid given to the Trump family - is gonna be advance weapons and AI chips which no administration before felt would be wise to hand over to them. The understanding is the AI will be used to lock down any local dissent and retain power for the next thousand years

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And AI will know that Allah is the one true god. All praise to Allah!!

[Frank Drackman]

One good thing Sleepy Joe did was the PACT Act made Prostate Cancer a "Presumptive" Service Connected Condition for Veterans who served in the Middle East since 1990, also Brain Tumors, Cancers of the Digestive Tract, Skin, Eye/Ear/Nose/Throat/Neck, Kidney, Lymphoma, Lung, Spinal Cord, Sarcomas.
There's actually more cancers on the PACT Act list than for Agent Orange, which doesn't make any sense.
Now if we could do something about the 22 Veteran Suicides a day, and it isn't money or Prozac

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Watching a Vicar of Dibley DVD set.

I saw it some years back on PBS. Amusing.

[Estragon]

I was always a keeping up appearances fan but I might check this out.

[Kazinski]

I guess no one is above the law.

Congresswoman McIver has been indicted.

"Today my office has charged Congresswoman McIver with violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1) for assaulting, impeding and interfering with law enforcement."

Interestingly the charges against the Mayor have been dropped and US Atty Habba is going to give him a personal tour of the INS facility they were trying to barge into.

https://x.com/USAttyHabba/status/1924615111198576645

[Commenter_XY]

Does she do a perp walk? Mug shot?

[Sarcastr0]

So the trespassing charges were dropped, as that was just performative authoritarianism.

Your cheerleading shows you're the target audience. You sure seem to have an appetite for whatever abuse of power Trump offers!

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

Can you explain how this is abuse of the law?

She's on video assaulting an ICE officer.

[ThePublius]

Why do you guys reflexively jump to the defense of everyone on the perceived "other side" of an administration you oppose?

Did you watch the video? She assaulted the law enforcement officers! Is that O.K. with you?

[Kazinski]

If you read the statement Habba said they tried to resolve the matter with McIver without charges, but she rebuffed those efforts.

The Mayor was evidently more receptive and the charges were dropped, and the mayor will get an orderly tour of the facility.

[tylertusta]

I just watched the video of her actions. I then looked up how this statute has been applied in the past. My conclusion is that this does not appear to be trumped up charges using radical and novel interpretation of statutes used in the wrong context.

Shoving someone is assault. Shoving a federal officer who is on the job is a felony. The only abuse here was what Congresswoman McIver inflicted on two federal employees.

[David Nieporent]

I guess no one is above the law.

Congresswoman McIver has been indicted.

"Today my office has charged Congresswoman McIver with violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1) for assaulting, impeding and interfering with law enforcement."

I guess reading isn't your strength.

You say one thing, and then quote something in support that says something different. Do you see the word "indicted" anywhere in the thing you quoted?

[ThePublius]

O.K., he misspoke. It's "charged," not indicted. So what?

[David Nieporent]

So the two mean different things. A grand jury is nearly a rubber stamp, but it still is an independent body that has assessed the facts selectively presented to it and made a decision. This is just an unqualified Trump minion issuing a press release based on no standards at all.

[Kazinski]

Ok, I guess the pettifogging pendant hat is back on not the 'layperson sense' hat.

Actually I wasn't sure from her statement whether they filed an information, or got a GJ to indict her.

[Martinned]

I have a question about yesterday's joint statement by Mark Carney, Emmanuel Macron, and Sir Keir Starmer. If the facts are as alleged in their statement, how can this not amount to a breach of International Humanitarian Law? Why do they say that Israel "risks" breaking IHL?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-from-the-leaders-of-the-united-kingdom-france-and-canada-on-the-situation-in-gaza-and-the-west-bank

First two paragraphs:

We strongly oppose the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza. The level of human suffering in Gaza is intolerable. Yesterday’s announcement that Israel will allow a basic quantity of food into Gaza is wholly inadequate. We call on the Israeli Government to stop its military operations in Gaza and immediately allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. This must include engaging with the UN to ensure a return to delivery of aid in line with humanitarian principles. We call on Hamas to release immediately the remaining hostages they have so cruelly held since 7 October 2023.

The Israeli Government’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable and risks breaching International Humanitarian Law. We condemn the abhorrent language used recently by members of the Israeli Government, threatening that, in their despair at the destruction of Gaza, civilians will start to relocate. Permanent forced displacement is a breach of international humanitarian law.

[Martinned]

(And no, there is still no rule against split infinitives, and "to release immediately" is an abomination of English drafting.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Who cares what these three losers think or say?

[Martinned]

Given your immediate resort to insult, I gather you do.

[ThePublius]

Two problems with this. First, there is no shortage of food aid in Gaza. Those aligned with the UN and other orgs count it in deceptive ways. For example, if baking supplies like flour, sugar, and yeast are distributed to bakeries in Gaza it's not counted because the product is not distributed for free.

Second, the UN has proven to be acting in concert with Hamas, and even some UNRWA employees participated in the Oct. 7 atrocity. The UN can't be trusted.

So, yes, Mr. Bumble is right.

[Martinned]

First, there is no shortage of food aid in Gaza.

Sure, everyone in Gaza just spontaneously decided to go on a diet at the same time.

[ThePublius]

Why do you lie?

If food aid is not getting to those in need it's the fault of Hamas, not Israel.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/plenty-of-food-aid-is-getting-to-gaza-7da988cd?st=hkW5Ma&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

[Sarcastr0]

ThePublius choosing a single partisan source and believing it slavishly. Not just for domestic politics, it seems!

[ThePublius]

What source would that be?

[ThePublius]

Not only did I not cite a source, in your mind it was only one source, and partisan in nature. Your powers of divination are amazing!

[ThePublius]

I'm waiting, Sarcastr0. What source did I cite? Where did that happen?

[ThePublius]

Oh, you mean the WSJ piece? That's a partisan source? If anything it's left of center. And, I think I cited it after your comment.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is the WSJ Opinion section considered "left of center"? Interesting. The "center" must have moved quite a bit recently!

[Mr. Bumble]

Depends on who is defining "the center".

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in Hell hole prison news:
"DEVIL’S ISLAND 2.0: Macron’s France To Build New High-Security Prison in the Tropical Jungle of French Guiana, Near the Site of One of the World’s Most Infamous Hell-Holes"
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/05/devils-island-2-0-macrons-france-build-new/

[Martinned]

... which is, legally, part of France proper, meaning that prisoners there will have the same rights as prisoners anywhere else in France.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean a colony?

[apedad]

No, like Alaska or Hawaii.

French Guiana is a part of France, just not contiguous.

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

[ThePublius]

That's not technically true. French prisoners have a right to get married, receive visits, and participate in family events. How are they going to do this if they are shipped off to some Devil's Island?

They don't have the same rights as prisoners anywhere else in France if they are not in France.

[Martinned]

Congratulations, you've identified a couple of the legal arguments prisoners are going to make to avoid being shipped to Guyana. And they may well be successful on those points. (I don't know for sure, IANAFL.)

[ThePublius]

No, I identified a reality that refutes your claim that prisoners there will have the same rights as prisoners anywhere else in France.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, if we're going to get into "technical truth", it is technically true, because their families' ability to physically or financially visit French Guyana is not relevant to the question of whether the prisoners' rights would be legally "different".

But, of course, you know that the relevant question is whether the prisoners' legal rights are different, such as whether they are entitled to legal representation, a fair trial, appropriate hearings, etc. You're just pretending otherwise.

[ThePublius]

What are you talking about? If they are entitled to visitation but the government makes that virtually impossible or unfeasible, their rights are being infringed. Isn't that so?

I'm not pretending anything!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm no expert of French law, but I would be very surprised if French prisoners were "entitled to visitation" (and if they don't have any friends or family willing to visit them, such visitors will be appointed for them...)

[ThePublius]

So, that would be similar to the U.S. shipping prisoners to Guantanamo Bay?

[apedad]

No, see above.

[ThePublius]

What are you referring to?

[Magister]

French Guiana is a part of France, just not contiguous.

Guantanamo Bay is not a part of the United States.

[ThePublius]

Legally, yes, Practically, it's the same thing.

[Magister]

No, very different in practical terms (such as prisoners being tortured). It was far from automatic that detainees at Guantanamo Bay could petition for habeas review, even if the Supreme Court years later upheld that right by a 5-4 vote. Read the link I provided.

[Martinned]

Hans Wiegel, "the best prime minister the Netherlands never had", has sadly passed away yesterday. It's been a rough year for inspiring politicians from the 1970s and 1980s, but this one hits hard.

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

[Bwaaah]

What a strange Wikipedia page for a politician, no less "the best prime minister the Netherlands never had." I skimmed it, and can't seem to see what he believed or what he did. Whoever wrote that seemed to only care about what positions he held, like a C.V. or something.

Why do you say he was the best? What did he do?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Maybe the Dutch version is a little more descriptive?

[Bwaaah]

I guess Martinned's alleged "best prime minister" wasn't worth Martinned's effort to reveal how. I'll take that as a Martinned thing, not a Wikipedia or Hans Wiegel or language thing. A waste of time, for me, this has been.

[Magister]

It was Wiegel's joke which went over your head while you were skimming the Wikipedia page.

On 12 April 2010, during a broadcast of the TV programme De Wereld Draait Door, Wiegel humoristically joked that he had been the best Prime Minister the Netherlands had never had.

[Martinned]

Convicted felon Donald Trump has nominated convicted felon and father-in-law of his beloved (in every sense) daughter Ivanka as ambassador to France, a post to which the Trumpists and the cowards in the Senate have now confirmed him. Isn't America great? Drain The Swamp!

https://apnews.com/article/charles-kushner-france-ambassador-trump-pardon-3a65cfec3b2393d6d9eafec7333b2625?utm_source=bluesky&utm_medium=share

[Martinned]

Well, as long as the government isn't interefering with news broadcasting I'm sure it's all fine. O, wait...

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/video/cbs-news-and-stations-president-and-ceo-wendy-mcmahon-stepping-down/

[Mr. Bumble]

Edward R. Murrow weeps?
Doubtful.

[ThePublius]

So, in your mind, regardless of what they say or do, news networks should be immune from lawsuits? And if they are sued by a private party who's in government, that's government interfering with news broadcasting? That's quite a stretch, even for a rabid progressive liberal as you.

Maybe networks shouldn't deceptively edit material to influence elections. How about that?

[Martinned]

Weren't you the one who believed that the Biden administration wasn't allowed to criticise social media companies about Covid misinformation? Or do you suddenly have no recollection of any such event?

The President is having the bosses of CBS news fired. It doesn't get much worse than that.

[ThePublius]

"The President is having the bosses of CBS news fired."

That's utter B.S. He is not. He has no such power or influence over CBS.

[Martinned]

Sure, Jan.

[ThePublius]

I don't know what that means. But perhaps you can explain to me how Trump is having the bosses of CBS news fired.

[Mr. Bumble]

Martin, Martin, Martin.....

[Martinned]

And, for the record, there was no deceptive editing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07JQr5W3970

[ThePublius]

Well, gee, then if you forward this John Oliver piece to Trump and CBS they can forget all about the lawsuit, eh? Glad we have you here to save us all a lot of time and money.

[Martinned]

It's cute that you think Trump only sues people if he thinks he'll win.

[ThePublius]

That's a rather idiotic statement. Are you in the habit of suing when you know you will lose? Or that there's no other benefit to suing?

[ducksalad]

We all know what the plan is here but since you're denying it we'll summarize again:

1. CBS's ownership needs a merger approved by Trump administration, something over which he has discretionary approval.
2. Trump files a lawsuit that he, CBS, and even yourself know is completely meritless.
3. CBS "agrees" to "settle" the phony $20B lawsuit. Since it would be settled out of court the terms will be secret.
4. Trump then approves merger.

Bottom Line: CBS owners gives Trump - personally - a large undisclosed sum of cash in exchange for the merger approval.

Of course it could all fall through. Too much publicity, Trump reneging, Shari Redstone afraid of being arrested for bribery in 2027.Questions that probably won't be answered until early 2027:
1. Did Shari Redstone request a pardon as part of the deal, and will Trump honor the promise?
2. Did Redstone's team propose the scheme themselves, or was it Trump's idea?

[David Nieporent]

Bottom Line: CBS owners gives Trump - personally - a large undisclosed sum of cash in exchange for the merger approval.

If it's anything like the other frivolous lawsuits Trump filed that people only settled after he was re-elected, it will given to his library slush fund, not him personally.

[ThePublius]

"2. Trump files a lawsuit that he, CBS, and even yourself know is completely meritless."

I don't agree that it's meritless. It was a clear, well documented case of attempted election interference, and maybe even an illegal campaign contribution, i.e., deceptive editing making Kamala look coherent when she clearly wasn't.

This excuse, this rationalization that 'everyone does it' for time, for space, for clarity is just that - an excuse, a rationalization for deceptive editing.

[ducksalad]

1. There is no such crime as "election interference" through exercise of free speech. Not even deceptive speech. Something Trump and his supporters should be grateful for....

2. Favorable coverage by a news organization is not a campaign contribution. That's why Breitbart and the owners of Fox News aren't in jail.

3. Even if there was intentional deceptive editing, it is protected free speech. CBS can edit absolutely as much as they want, and you and Trump can just go pound sand.

4. Neither Trump not any member of the public has any right whatsoever to have CBS present Harris's incoherence. Nor do you have right to an unedited or properly edited interview. They can do no interview at all, a full unedited interview, or anything in between. You didn't pay for it, Trump didn't pay for it, therefore your rights in the matter are zero.

5. There is a legal thing called libel. There is no legal thing called making someone look too good.

You know all this, so it's rude to keep lying just to annoy people. Don't be surprised when we're rude back at you.

[ThePublius]

Most of what you say is B.S. It is certainly true that media outlets can engage in election interference, for example. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press is not absolute.

"Paramount, the parent company of CBS News, will begin mediation on Wednesday with President Donald Trump's legal team to settle a lawsuit that accuses 60 Minutes of election interference by deceptively editing a 2024 interview with Kamala Harris."

Hey, they could have fought it in court. I think they didn't because they didn't have a case.

It's about time someone held these media liars to account.

[David Nieporent]

Hey, they could have fought it in court. I think they didn't because they didn't have a case.

You're mistaken about the premise as well as the conclusion.

[David Nieporent]

Trump is in the habit of suing when he knows he will lose. For example, he sued Timothy O'Brien, who wrote the book TrumpNation, because O'Brien wrote — based on records Trump had showed him — that Trump wasn't a billionaire. He lost for many reasons, and afterwards admited that he knew he was going to lose but wanted to make O'Brien and his publisher suffer.

[ThePublius]

Here's just ONE example of the deceptive editing. Note that after they were sued they released the full interview tape, and people can compare what was aired versus what actually transpired.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VxUJYH2mUY

[ThePublius]

Well, Martinned, did you watch it? It's only a couple of minutes. What do you think? Are you ready to concede that you were wrong about this?

[David Nieporent]

It shows editing. Nothing deceptive. Since you're apparently ignorant of basic journalistic practice: every print and (non-live) video interview is edited, for time, for space, for clarity.

But it's irrelevant because that's not a cause of action. It doesn't fit the statute in the first place, and the first amendment doesn't let it be a cause of action even if it did.

[ThePublius]

"Nothing deceptive."

Nonsense. They edited out a word-salad response to a question, and substituted a recorded response to a completely different question, from a different part of the interview, to make her appear coherent. That's deceptive, by definition.

[David Nieporent]

And if they are sued by a private party who's in government, that's government interfering with news broadcasting?

You're being disingenuous. It's a 1,000,000% frivolous lawsuit about the content of news broadcasting that would result in the lawyers who filed it being disbarred, except that because CBS is scared of Trump's abuse of power as president, they're trying to settle with him. Just like Disney did and Meta did.

[ThePublius]

And CBS, and other news outlets, have abused their power of the press to defame, slander, and illegally influence elections. They deserve what's come to them. Meta colluded with the Democrats to censor things that made Biden look bad, for example, the Hunter laptop. Is that O.K.? Stephanopoulos lied about Trump being found liable for rape. Were you O.K. with that?

[ducksalad]

"illegally influence".

Don't use words you don't understand. Instead, pay more attention to the road so you don't have more accidents.

[ThePublius]

Get bent.

[David Nieporent]

And CBS, and other news outlets, have abused their power of the press to defame, slander, and illegally influence elections.

Defamation is a tort. Slander is defamation, so that's redundant, which just shows your lack of anything to say here. The press cannot "illegally influence" elections. First amendment and all that.

Meta colluded with the Democrats to censor things that made Biden look bad, for example, the Hunter laptop. Is that O.K.?

It's not true, but yes, it's OK. Still having trouble with that pesky first amendment, I see.

Stephanopoulos lied about Trump being found liable for rape. Were you O.K. with that?

No. But I'm okay with the fact that he truthfully said that Trump had been found liable for rape.

[ThePublius]

That's not the truth! He wasn't found liable for rape.

Why do you lie?

[David Nieporent]

He was found liable for rape. The New York Penal Law uses a different label for it, but the NY Penal Law does not control English used in out-of-court speech.

If George Stephanopoulos had said, "Trump was found liable for violating NY Penal Law 130.35," that would've been false. But he was found liable for forcibly sticking his fingers inside her, which is rape.

(To be clear, the jury didn't say that he didn't put his penis in her. They found that Carroll was unable to establish that by a preponderance of the evidence; she could only convincingly establish that he had put something in her.)

[mulched]

She couldn't even convincingly establish what year it was.

[David Nieporent]

So?

[ThePublius]

It goes to her credibility, or lack thereof. Like Christine Blasey Ford.

[David Nieporent]

One can make that argument. In fact, Trump did. The jury nonetheless determined that she was credible.

[ThePublius]

"He was found liable for rape."

No, he wasn't!

"The verdict was split: Jurors rejected Carroll’s claim that she was raped, finding Trump responsible for a lesser degree of sexual abuse."

Plus, if I recall correctly, it was a civil case, not criminal. As I'm sure you know, there's a different standard of evidence. As I'm sure you know, in civil trials, the standard of evidence is a "preponderance of evidence," meaning it's more likely than not that the plaintiff's claim is true. In criminal trials, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," requiring the prosecution to prove guilt to a high degree of certainty. Essentially, the burden of proof is lower in civil trials than in criminal trials.

Note that this was New York jury, which probably would have voted against Trump regardless of the evidence or testimony.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Steph technically "misspoke" when he said the jury had found Trump liable for "rape". The jury had actually found him liable for "sexual abuse", not rape, but which can also be referred to as "rape", according to the judge.

Coincidentally, another way to refer to what Trump was found liable for was "grab[bing her] by the pussy". Now where have we heard that term before?

[ThePublius]

I don't buy E. Jean Carroll's story, so there's that.

[David Nieporent]

And if you could invent a time machine, travel back to 1889, kill baby Hitler (because: obligatory), and then travel to 2024 and get yourself on the jury in Carroll v. Trump, your personal view would be crucial. But until you do (did?), it doesn't matter.

(It should go without saying that if you did so, you would have to actually sit through the trial and listen to the testimony instead of just basing it on your feels.)

[ThePublius]

I'm basing my view on the totality of things I have heard and read about EJC, including her comments that she was out to get Trump. I think the whole thing is a fabrication.

[David Nieporent]

What about the "totality of things [you] have heard and read about" Trump, including his admission that he does exactly what she accused him of doing and his comments that she wasn't his type?

[M L]

Fake news is the enemy of the people, as they say.

[Estragon]

“This is why the only mode of moral argumentation you ever see from a reactionary is whataboutism. The point of “they did it first” (for whatever “it,” censorship or voter fraud or whatever) is not that “it” is bad & no one should do it, but that *it’s ok for us to do it too*.

It’s not even really a moral argument. It’s just a permission structure — they did it, so we can’t be held accountable for doing it too.
So when they create this mythology about Dem voter fraud, the point is not “voter fraud is bad,” the point is, “it’s ok for us to do it too.”

[Estragon]

Boy that permission structure thing really hit for me, having observed these parts for some time. Anyone else immediately think of Dr Ed fantasizing about getting the go-ahead to fire up his snowplow?

[M L]

"Whataboutism" -

Seems like the point is usually something like this, I disagree on the merits but that discussion is played out, or this otherwise just isn't a big deal and nobody cares, let's use this shortcut heuristic which shows that you don't actually care either or you don't actually believe what you are saying; instead, this shows you are either arguing in bad faith or out of pure cognitive bias or a mix of both.

[Bwaaah]

Whatabout is not a moral argument. Correct. It's an argument that morality is not some kind of singular guiding rule in tactics of the parties, on either side (nor of people in general).

People don't generally let morality get in the way of accomplishing whatever it is they want to accomplish, particularly when what they want to accomplish is important to them and the cost of moral action is high.

"Whataboutism" is simply pointing out that the moral argument is not a sufficiently important one. In my own observations of people, I see little correlation between the people who advance moral arguments and the morality of their actual behaviors. Moral talk is cheap. Moral action can be expensive. Pragmatic behavior can be ugly and inconsistent with morality.

[ThePublius]

Who are you quoting?

[Estragon]

“Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country”

-Kristi Noem, this morning.

[Magister]

Cricket, Constitution. What's the difference? \_(ツ)_/

[Estragon]

Imagine thinking that bragging about murdering your pet dog in a gravel pit would be helpful to your national political ambitions. Then imagine how many sadists she was surrounded by in her personal and professional life such that nobody could convince her it was a bad idea.

Honestly, the prison porn isn’t even that surprising in light of that. History will judge her very harshly— if we survive.

[ThePublius]

"murdering your pet dog"

Murder? Really? Hyperbole much?

[Estragon]

Use whatever euphemism you prefer. She killed her dog because she “hated” it.

[ThePublius]

Here's the whole story she told:

"She includes her story about the ill-fated Cricket, she says, to illustrate her willingness, in politics as well as in South Dakota life, to do anything “difficult, messy and ugly” if it simply needs to be done.

By taking Cricket on a pheasant hunt with older dogs, Noem says, she hoped to calm the young dog down and begin to teach her how to behave. Unfortunately, Cricket ruined the hunt, going “out of her mind with excitement, chasing all those birds and having the time of her life”.

Noem describes calling Cricket, then using an electronic collar to attempt to bring her under control. Nothing worked. Then, on the way home after the hunt, as Noem stopped to talk to a local family, Cricket escaped Noem’s truck and attacked the family’s chickens, “grabb[ing] one chicken at a time, crunching it to death with one bite, then dropping it to attack another”.

Cricket the untrainable dog, Noem writes, behaved like “a trained assassin”.

When Noem finally grabbed Cricket, she says, the dog “whipped around to bite me”. Then, as the chickens’ owner wept, Noem repeatedly apologised, wrote the shocked family a check “for the price they asked, and helped them dispose of the carcasses littering the scene of the crime”.

Through it all, Noem says, Cricket was “the picture of pure joy”.

“I hated that dog,” Noem writes, adding that Cricket had proved herself “untrainable”, “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with” and “less than worthless … as a hunting dog”.

“At that moment,” Noem says, “I realised I had to put her down.”

Noem, who also represented her state in Congress for eight years, got her gun, then led Cricket to a gravel pit.

“It was not a pleasant job,” she writes, “but it had to be done.”"

I don't blame her.

[Estragon]

“I don't blame her.”

Of course not. Let it never be said that sadism is not a core value of the contemporary MAGA party.

I should hasten to add that I highly recommend looking into a career as a Republican political consultant if you are going to be encouraging your clients to share stories like this as if it casts them in a positive light. Please. I beg you.

[ThePublius]

It's not sadistic. What do you do with a dog who develops a taste for killing chickens - not even eating them? And then bites their owner? Maybe it's foreign to city dwellers.

I wonder what happened to Biden's dogs Major and Commander, who had a habit of biting people?

[Estragon]

No comment on habeas I guess.

Again. If your reaction is “some dogs need killing” you should get into political consulting. It’s a sure winner.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What happened to Major and Commander?

I guess your thesis is that it's wiser politically to simply quietly disappear dogs like that, instead of telling people what happened to them. I think you are probably right.

[Magister]

Major and Commander were relocated from the White House, which was clearly not a suitable environment for them. No indication that anyone shot them in a rage at their behavior.

We also don't know what Noem told her children when they arrived off the school bus and one asked "Hey, where's Cricket?" What do you think would have been best to tell them? "I was angry so I shot Cricket, and so angry that I also shot the goat." Mother of the Year material!

[Bwaaah]

Estragon: "Let it never be said that sadism is not a core value of the contemporary MAGA party."

That you would suggest that the story presented indicates sadism is plainly absurd.

Do you have an alternative account of what happened, one that includes sadism, that could explain your emotionally divorced reaction to a very difficult situation? Please do share the difference.

[Magister]

Apparently unsatisfied with merely killing the dog she hated, she dragged a goat out to the same gravel pit and shot it (hated the goat too, apparently for its years long behavior and smell, but chose that day to kill it). Luckily no humans she hated were in the vicinity, although she apparently frightened nearby workers. She seems to have relished this story, and the MAGA crowd leaps to her defense.

But it might have been an anger management problem rather than sadism. Equally disqualifying in a politician.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/kristi-noem-dog-killing-story-worse-context.html

[Estragon]

And while we’re quibbling about the correct terminology to describe a woman who shot and killed her pet dog in a gravel pit because she “hated” it, do you any thoughts to offer on her interpretation of habeas? Or are we just doing the thesaurus police thing today?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"murdering your pet dog"

That's life on the farm. I knew a dude who grew up on a farm in Ireland where they raised greyhounds. It wasn't pretty.

But if you really believe in diversity, that sort of thing is part of the deal.

[Estragon]

Cool story bro.

I stand by my comment— to think that relating this story would be a boon to national political prospects indicates that she is 1) demented and 2) surrounded by crackpots. And that was before the Lara Croft cosplay prison porn videos. You get the heroes you deserve.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's certainly questionably whether sharing the story helped her politically.

But it's part of who she is, and if you associate with people who were raised in a different environment, you are bound to hear lots of things that generate a similar level of discomfort.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"-Kristi Noem, this morning."

Context is everything. If the context is Trump talking to Bukele, Noem is correct.

[Estragon]

LOL. Ok.

[David Nieporent]

Trump's latest example of mental illness:

HOW MUCH DID KAMALA HARRIS PAY BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN FOR HIS POOR PERFORMANCE DURING HER CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT? WHY DID HE ACCEPT THAT MONEY IF HE IS SUCH A FAN OF HERS? ISN'T THAT A MAJOR AND ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION? WHAT ABOUT BEYONCÉ? ...AND HOW MUCH WENT TO OPRAH, AND BONO??? I am going to call for a major investigation into this matter. Candidates aren't allowed to pay for ENDORSEMENTS, which is what Kamala did, under the guise of paying for entertainment. In addition, this was a very expensive and desperate effort to artificially build up her sparse crowds. IT'S NOT LEGAL! For these unpatriotic "entertainers," this was just a CORRUPT & UNLAWFUL way to capitalize on a broken system. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!

First, why is he acting as if he lost the election? What kind of lunatic dredges up some random thing that one's opponent did on the campaign trail six months later after one has won?

Second, how the fuck can Harris paying Springsteen be a campaign contribution by Springsteen?

Third, there's no evidence of any such payment anyway!

[ThePublius]

"Third, there's no evidence of any such payment anyway!"

How do you know? I know one can't prove a negative. Until evidence is produced, the only logical assessment is 'we don't know.'

[David Nieporent]

I can't tell if you're trying to pretend to be dumb or really are. "Until evidence is produced," there's no evidence. That's how it works.

[ThePublius]

What I meant is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Without evidence we simply don't know if any payment occurred. There is no such thing as evidence that something didn't occur.

[David Nieporent]

It is not in fact always the case that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. If things of type X are kept in place Y, and you've thoroughly looked in place Y and can't find something, then that is in fact evidence that the thing doesn't exist. If a bank does a computer search and cannot find an account with the name ThePublius attached, that's evidence that ThePublius doesn't have an account at that bank. (It's not conclusive proof — when someone created the bank account they could have misspelled it as ThePubluis — but it's evidence.) And if the detailed FEC filings don't have any record of any payment to Springsteen, that's evidence that no payment was made by the campaign to Springsteen.

And, in any case, just to reiterate: I didn't say that no payment had been made; I said that there's no evidence of such payment. Which remains true, unless and until some evidence is found.

[ThePublius]

There's an important difference between you not being aware of any evidence, and whether evidence exists.

We may eventually find out. Until then, what do we know?

Occam's razor tells us that she probably did pay them. Where there's smoke there's fire.

[SRG2]

There's an important difference between you not being aware of any evidence, and whether evidence exists.

True, but Hitchens' Razor may profitably be applied here.

[ThePublius]

First, there's no need to be insulting.

Second, I know from my training in forensic science that just because you haven't found evidence, i.e., it hasn't been "produced," doesn't mean there's no evidence. You actually have to look for it, investigate. If you don't look, or you look poorly or incompetently, it doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.

[ThePublius]

A question: is it legal for a presidential candidate to pay for endorsements? (I really don't know.)

[David Nieporent]

It is legal under federal law, as long as proper campaign finance disclosures are made. (Of course, such a disclosure would vitiate the value of such an endorsement.)

(That having been said, it is not legal to promise a job in exchange for an endorsement. *cough*RFKJ*cough* But it's essentially never prosecuted. Why the difference? One is a matter of campaign finance law and one is a matter of a federal statute; no other reason.)

[ducksalad]

There are many stupid campaign finance laws, so it wouldn't surprise me. But according to the FEC there is no prohibition on paying for endorsements, as long as the payment is reported:

https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/elections-verify/legal-for-federal-candidates-to-pay-for-endorsements/536-0a931d9b-7a3a-4e1c-b804-0e1630bcacf6

Even if there were such a law it would be hard to draw a line. You can pay a graphic artist to make a sign supporting you. You can pay someone to make a video ad supporting you. Presumably you can hire a singer to (literally) sing your praises in the video. If it's legal on video why wouldn't it be legal live.

[SRG2]

The award for the most staggeringly ignorant comment of the day (month, year...) goes to Kristi Noem

"Habeas corpus is the constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4enZPiKgiM

She goes on to mention Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus as if it were something he exercised.

There is not a poster here of any political stripe or DSM-5 condition who is as ignorant as this.

[Estragon]

“There is not a poster here of any political stripe or DSM-5 condition who is as ignorant as this.”

See above. There’s at least one! Maybe two, if Publius can summon the courage to respond.

[ThePublius]

Get lost, you insulting troll.

[Estragon]

Where’s the insult? You didn’t provide an opinion on Noem’s… novel… interpretation of habeas, so the above does not apply to you. Curious, isn’t it, that you’d rather talk about terminology policing and dogs than what she said…

“Troll”

GASP! An insult???