Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Yesterday U.S. District Judge Richard Leon granted a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Trump administration's Execrable Order regarding the Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP law firm. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282419/gov.uscourts.mad.282419.45.0.pdf The Court (pp. 47-51) agreed with the Plaintiff's contention that the challenged order is an ultra vires action which violates the constitutional separation of powers.

I believe that this is the first court to reach that issue regarding President Trump's retaliation against law firms that have displeased him. Judge Beryl Howell issued a permanent injunction but declined to reach the issue in the Perkins Coie litigation. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278290/gov.uscourts.dcd.278290.185.0_2.pdf Judge John Bates issued a permanent injunction in favor of Jenner & Block, ruling primarily upon First Amendment retaliation grounds, without discussing separation of powers issues. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278932/gov.uscourts.dcd.278932.138.0_6.pdf

This issue could come into play as to whether Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted for these orders after he leaves office. "No matter the context, the President's authority to act necessarily 'stems either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.'"
Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312, 2327 (2024), quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952). It seems to me that if an act taken by the President wh8le in office is ultra vires, it cannot be an "official act" within the tripartite framework set forth by Chief Justice Roberts in Trump.

[Kazinski]

Under what statute?

Of issuing an executive order without statutory authority was a crime, the every President in the last 50 years would be in prison.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Who says they need statutes? He's Trump -- he has no rights -- and they'll prosecute him post mortum if possible, just like Oliver Cromwell was.

They somehow fail to see the damage they are doing to the concept of a rule of law -- or perhaps they just don't care.

[Poxigah146]

No, they don't care, because they see Trump as illegitimate, as he represents white middle-American males, a group they hate.

[not guilty]

Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 and/or 371. Deprivation of First Amendment and other constitutional rights and conspiracy to do so.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did you actually pass the bar exam?!?

We don't have enough prison space for all the left wing public university administrators who would be guilty of violating these statutes if they meant what you claim they do.

Or are they bills of attainer? It's Trump, he's guilty?
If you really believe in such a standard of "justice", you are both a disgrace to the legal profession and damn dangerous.

[not guilty]

"Or are they bills of attainer? It's Trump, he's guilty?"

Uh, no. Bills of attainder have nothing to do with a federal criminal prosecution. Trump is just as entitled to a trial with the full panoply of constitutional rights as everyone else.

If he dies out of custody, however, he will have gotten away with egregious misconduct.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, not nothing. Bills of attainder are where the legislature tries to substitute voting somebody guilty for the judiciary holding a trial.

[not guilty]

The two are mutually exclusive, Brett. Like a circle and a rectangle are both geometric figures, but neither can be the other.

[Brett Bellmore]

There, you see, just like circles and rectangles both have something in common: They're both geometric figures!

[Martinned]

...and a criminal trial and a bill of attainder also have something in common: They're both ways that someone can end up on death row. What's your point?

[Brett Bellmore]

Why would you ask my point after stating it?

[tylertusta]

Today's lesson on ontology is brought to you by the letter 7, and the letter B.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — You know the problem of a distinction without a difference? Your problem is the opposite—the reverse side of the same fallacy.

[Kazinski]

No I doubt that would fly.

While the retaliation was at least partially because of speech, nobody actually used force or color of the law to stop them from speaking.

And the retaliation has to be such that it would deter someone of ordinary firmness from future speach. And its civil.

A law firm that lacks ordinary firmness? That seems farfetched.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, of course it is under color of law. The fact that Trump's executive order is legally bogus cannot be evidence to clear him of a crime to deprive folks of civil rights like free entry into courthouses, on pain of federal enforcement if they try.

Seems like you have confused yourself. Speaking as a legal layman, I understand "Color of law," is not a term equivalent to, "used force," but instead an alternative way to commit the same offense. If lawyers wish to correct me, so be it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stephen, how on earth does refusal to hire become denial of free entry into courthouses? What ever happened to the 6th Amendment?

I am required to hire you, personally, as my attorney? And not Joe Blow?

Back when the US Post Office was a department and not the independent agency it is today, Lyndon Johnson issued an executive order that the mail would travel by trucks and airplanes instead of by train, as it always had. (This is what killed passenger rail as the mail contracts subsidized the passenger service.)

By your logic, the railroads were entitled to continued mail contracts.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

What do rectangles and this executive order have to do with one another? Each is something that Lyndon Johnson never issued.(insert exclamation mark here if deired.)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://about.usps.com/who/profile/history/pdf/mail-by-rail.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiCmbrtocaNAxWA48kDHSzYGRMQFnoECDoQAw&usg=AOvVaw0QJnAbjJIkqf4Fk4Uvfdtr

[David Nieporent]

this executive order have to do with one another? Each is something that Lyndon Johnson never issued.

Dude. Dr. Ed said it. That it never happened is overdetermined.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Was the change made when he was President?
By someone in his cabinet?

[David Nieporent]

No. Did you read the link?

[Kazinski]

I guess you missed my point, Trump's EO doesn't prevent anyone from speaking, it punishes them for previous speech.

That's an important distinction.

If I attack or arrest you for your speech, that's criminal.

If I fire you or cancel your contract for your speech that is a civil matter, even if I am a government entity, or even a police department.

[Sarcastr0]

I feel like there's a branch of government involved in punishment for past actions...and somehow it's not the executive.

[Kazinski]

Its all of them.

IRS
SEC
CFPB
FDA
Congress
FEC
NRLB
MSPB
President
NRC
FCC
DOJ
ATF
FBI
ICC
EPA
FAA

To name just a few.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair put - there are Article I tribunals, as delegated by Congress via among other things the APA.

No tribunal here, just punishment. Seems to give rise to a number of problems, if you care about liberty.

[not guilty]

"I guess you missed my point, Trump's EO doesn't prevent anyone from speaking, it punishes them for previous speech."

Uh, retaliation for First Amendment protected speech or expression is itself a separate First Amendment violation. Conspiracy to do so is not actionable civilly unless an actual deprivation occurs, but for two or more persons to conspire to retaliate, with specific intent to deprive another of First Amendment rights, is criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 241. An actual retaliation by any person acting under color of law (again, with specific intent to do so) is criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 242.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Also, if you presume a law firm must have, "ordinary firmness," as an inherent attribute, that is not an exoneration, but instead evidence to prove Trump's demands are lawless when they intimidate such a party.

[Commenter_XY]

It wouldn't fly, Kaz. Just like it did not fly in the last administration. Deprivation of rights? That is actually unintentionally humorous (as I think over the previous four years). What bothers NG and the lathrops of the world is that the shoe is on the other foot now. Yes, elections have consequences.

The judge can rule what he wants. There ain't no new govt business coming Wilmer' way anytime soon, I'd say at least 3.5 years. There is no law that requires a govt contract to be awarded to any specific business (or law firm). Can't stop security revocations, either. And term for convenience is a thing (don't ask me how I know...).

Not to worry, Wilmer (and associates) can swim in the DC swamp for new business to replace the loss of govt business. They're lawyers, after all. They're natural born salespeople. 😉

[David Nieporent]

The judge can rule what he wants. There ain't no new govt business coming Wilmer' way anytime soon,

As I've explained to you repeatedly, this has nothing to do with "govt business."

[not guilty]

Kazinski, where on earth did you get the idea that use of force (!) is an element of a First Amendment retaliation claim? And are you claiming that a President's executive order is not issued under color of law? Really?

To show injury in fact on a retaliation claim, the claimant must show: (1) he engaged in conduct protected under the First Amendment; (2) the defendant took some retaliatory action sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness in plaintiff's position from speaking again; and (3) a causal link between the exercise of a constitutional right and the adverse action taken against him. Aref v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 242, 258 (D.C. Cir. 2016). As the Fourth Circuit has explained:

We have recognized that, “to demonstrate injury in fact, it is sufficient ... to show that one's First Amendment activities have been chilled.” Smith v. Frye, 488 F.3d 263, 272 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Subjective” or speculative accounts of such a chilling effect, however, are not sufficient. Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 13–14, 92 S.Ct. 2318, 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972). Any “ ‘chilling’ effect ... must be objectively reasonable.” Zanders v. Swanson, 573 F.3d 591, 593–94 (8th Cir. 2009). Nevertheless, a claimant “need not show she ceased those activities altogether” to demonstrate an injury in fact. Smith, 488 F.3d at 272 (internal quotation marks omitted). Government action will be sufficiently chilling when it is “likely to deter a person of ordinary firmness from the exercise of First Amendment rights.” Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 500 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Benham v. City of Charlotte, 635 F.3d 129, 135 (4th Cir. 2011).

Judge Leon's memorandum opinion explains in detail how every element of injury from unlawful retaliation against WilmerHale for its protected First Amendment activity is met here. As to the "person of ordinary firmness" requirement, it is noteworthy that numerous law firms have bent the knee to the Trump administration in order to avoid the kind of dilemma that WilmerHale is now facing, to-wit: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; Milbank LLP; Latham & Watkins LLP; Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP; Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP; Allen Overy Shearman Sterling LLP; and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

The fact that WilmerHale and some other firms have shown extraordinary fortitude in the face of the Trump administration's assault on the rule of law does not mean that Trump's retaliatory conduct is in any way lawful. Quite the contrary.

[William of Brooklyn]

So, just to continue the analysis, the Maine Legislature would then be guilty of the same offense, is that correct?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not correct. A change of subject is not a, "continue the analysis." More like a, "Whatabout."

[William of Brooklyn]

So, help me understand. I took your legal theory to be that if people "conspired" to punish or circumscribe speech protected by the 1st Amendment, that that constituted an offense under the statutes referenced above. If that is NOT your theory, please help me understand what it is you are arguing.

[not guilty]

Two or more persons conspiring to retaliate for First Amendment protected activity violates 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- whether the object of the conspiracy is accomplished or not.

Acting under color of law to retaliate for First Amendment protected activity violates 18 U.S.C. § 242.

For two or more persons to conspire to commit any offense against the United States, and one or more of such persons does any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, violates 18 U.S.C. § 371.

[Kazinski]

You are absolutely wrong about that.

Hypothetical: A local citizen who happens to work for the local police department is interviewed for the local news and blames the high crime rate on an increasing minority presence in the community.

The local police chief sees the interview and tells the personnel manager that it looks bad for the police department and to fire the employee.

Was the statement protected free speech, whether true or false? Yes.

Can the police chief be prosecuted for firing the employee under color of authority, and conspiring with the personnel manager? No.

Can the employee sue? Yes. Will he win? Who knows.

And I think that hypothetical would also hold if the person speaking on the news was the attorney for a local law firm that is contracted to represent the police department in litigation.

[not guilty]

Let's talk about your hypothetical.

If the employee was speaking in his capacity as a police department employee, his speech is not First Amendment protected. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). If he was instead speaking in his capacity as a citizen upon matters of public concern, whether the firing is or is not civilly actionable would be governed by the balancing test of Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U.S. 563 (1968). The Court in Garcetti explained the difference:

Pickering and the cases decided in its wake identify two inquiries to guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded to public employee speech. The first requires determining whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. See id., at 568. If the answer is no, the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on his or her employer’s reaction to the speech. See Connick [v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138(1983),] at 147. If the answer is yes, then the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises. The question becomes whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public. See Pickering, 391 U. S., at 568. This consideration reflects the importance of the relationship between the speaker’s expressions and employment. A government entity has broader discretion to restrict speech when it acts in its role as employer, but the restrictions it imposes must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity’s operations.

547 U.S. at 418.

In determining a public employee's rights of free speech, the problem is to arrive "at a balance between the interests of the [employee,] as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees." Pickering, at 568. The Pickering balance requires full consideration of the government's interest in the effective and efficient fulfillment of its responsibilities to the public. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 150 (1983). The Court in Connick explained:

"To this end, the Government, as an employer, must have wide discretion and control over the management of its personnel and internal affairs. This includes the prerogative to remove employees whose conduct hinders efficient operation and to do so with dispatch. Prolonged retention of a disruptive or otherwise unsatisfactory employee can adversely affect discipline and morale in the work place, foster disharmony, and ultimately impair the efficiency of an office or agency."

547 at 151, quoting Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 168 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in the result in part).

Criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 or 242 requires that the defendant has acted with specific intent to violate another's a federal right made definite by decision or other rule of law. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 103 (1945) (plurality); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 753-754 (1966). In Kazinski's hypothetical, the decisions in Garcetti, Connick and Pickering would preclude criminal liability for the police chief and personnel manager.

Hey, nobody ever said that criminal law is easy.

[not guilty]

The Maine Legislature is not a person or entity subject to criminal punishment.

As to individual members of the legislature, what judicial decision(s) available at the time of the conduct in question gave fair warning that their conduct violated federal constitutional rights? See, United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 269 (1997).

[Kazinski]

"an element of a First Amendment retaliation claim"

There you go conflating civil and criminal again.

First you say prosecution, now you say "file a claim".

Make up your mind.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Trump’s sincere belief (however mistaken and unreasonable) that his conduct was lawful would be an absolute defense in such prosecution. Setting the immunity issue aside, how do you think a prosecutor would go about disproving such belief beyond a reasonable doubt?

[not guilty]

A criminal defendant's state of mind is most often proven circumstantially. (But not always -- I represented one murder defendant who left a note at the scene of the homicide stating in part "I Allan, am going to kill Amy and myself. I’m sorry but she has messed with my life for the last time[.] https://tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OPINIONS/tcca/PDF/984/brooksa.pdf)

Here the evidence of specific intent is apparent from the executive order itself, especially in the context of Donald Trump's prior threatening statements about retaliating against his political enemies. As Judge Leon wrote at pp. 3-4:

During the 2024 presidential campaign, then-former President Trump “threatened to ‘go after’ his political opponents and warned that ‘WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law,’” adding “‘[p]lease beware that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers.’” Id. ¶ 94 (footnotes omitted). After he won the 2024 election, President Trump renewed these warnings, stating that “[w]e have a lot of law firms that we’re going to be going after, because they were very dishonest people.” Id. (footnote omitted).

These statements by a party opponent would be admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 401 and 402 as nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(2).

The fact that Trump took similar action regarding other law firms that had displeased him is evidence of intent and absence of mistake, admissible under Rule 404(b)(2) to establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, and lack of accident.

The content of the order itself and the accompanying fact sheet, described by Judge Leon at pp. 6-9, furnishes ample evidence of animus and punitive intent.

And for the defense to offer into evidence "Trump’s sincere belief (however mistaken and unreasonable) that his conduct was lawful" would likely require testimony from Trump himself. Trump's statements to others regarding his state of mind, if offered for the truth of the matter asserted, would be inadmissible hearsay. The state of mind hearsay exception at Rule 803(3) expressly excludes a statement of belief to prove the fact believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will. For Trump to offer defense testimony as to what his advisors told him by calling such advisors to testify would waive any claim of privilege (and could backfire if cautionary advice he was given but disregarded helped to establish his culpable state of mind).

Cross-examining a buffoon like Trump is as much fun as a lawyer can have with clothes on.

[Frank Drackman]

You guys are doing your best to get "45/47" a 3rd Term

[tylertusta]

This issue could come into play as to whether Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted for these orders after he leaves office.

Hope springs eternal!

[TwelveInchPianist]

The walls are finally closing in!

[Bob from Ohio]

Hope dies last!

[tylertusta]

Surely this time they got him!

Someone should write up a list of all of the cockamamie schemes they've floated to bring him down.

[Bob from Ohio]

Well, I'd like to see ol Donny Trump wriggle his way out of THIS jam!
*Trump wriggles his way out of the jam easily
Ah! Well. Nevertheless,

[tylertusta]

Remember when all of the commenters here ridiculed Trump's immunity arguments?

Good times.

I have a list of my favorite 'aged like milk' comments.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not one who thinks Trump is going to get in any kind of criminal trouble in the near future.
But gloating that people thought better of the Supreme Court than they ended up being isn't you validated, it's you being a tool and the Court delivering for you that one time.

These days, of course, you spend your time shitting on the Court for not delivering MAGA carte blanche.

[tylertusta]

I can appreciate someone explaining a concept to us non-lawyers. I also appreciate a good-natured back-and-forth where things are explained.

However, I don't appreciate the sheer arrogance of some of the lawyers here.

But gloating that people thought better of the Supreme Court than they ended up being isn't you validated

It wouldn't be so funny if they didn't fill so many pixels by going on about how frivolous Trump's argument were!

it's you being a tool and the Court delivering for you that one time

I assure you: I haven't forgotten about all of the other times that folks fell on their faces after assuring the rest of us of certain outcomes while belittling others who held contrary views.

This just so happens to be my favorite.

These days, of course, you spend your time shitting on the Court for not delivering MAGA carte blanche.

I only spend a small fraction of my time doing that. I spend the rest of my time trying to awaken Cthulhu, the Sleeper of R’lyeh, may He rise when the stars align and drown the world in the cold embrace of ancient madness.

(Yes, that was sarcasm)

[Sarcastr0]

No argument that makes it all the way to the Supreme Court is completely frivolous.

But the Supreme Court made a ton of new law to get to where it did, to the point that Nixon would have gotten away with Watergate, just by saying it was unreviewable.

Those arguing before the opinion came down were outcome oriented Trump-can-do-no-wrong types. And so, it seems, was a majority of the Court.
It was unexpected, and bad for the law and the US.

Life's like that sometimes, but it does not retroactively make MAGA partisans champions of legal truth.

[tylertusta]

I don't agree that Nixon would have gotten away with the Watergate break-in under Trump. Indeed, I think that the majority wrote the opinion in such a way as to clearly circumscribe the break-in.

I don't agree that people arguing in favor of immunity were outcome oriented. There was a roughly Fitzgerald-sized hole in the prosecution of Trump. It had to take the Supreme Court to make the left half of the bar to even notice it.

However, I do agree that someone isn't right just because that person is left or right, communist-adjacent or red-blooded MAGA. It helps for everyone to remember that fact. Partisan blind spots are not unique to anybody.

[Sarcastr0]

It was the coverup that got him. And Nixon's use of the CIA to obstruct would have been absolutely protected.

No obstruction of justice, no rolling up Haldeman, JohnEhrlichman, Dean.

Evidence of official acts and conversations may not be used in a case seeking to hold the president accountable for his private conduct. So there go the tapes.

Turns out it is not a crime if the president does it, after all.

[tylertusta]

Maybe Nixon isn't prosecuted for some of the acts of Watergate, but it isn't fair to say that he would get away with all of his conduct.

I also think that had the Senate voted to convict Nixon even after his resignation, it would remove his immunity from prosecution, and thus evidence of his official acts could have been brought into trial.

Nixon and Trump are bastards, of course, but we really, really don't want politicized prosecutions, and immunizing them is a small price to pay for that. The Republic still stands.

As I'm sure you know, rights and privileges like the right to remain silent aren't there to benefit the guilty. They're for the benefit of innocent, but we extend it to everybody since we don't know which is which.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe Nixon isn't prosecuted for some of the acts of Watergate, but it isn't fair to say that he would get away with all of his conduct.

We're in hypothetical-land, but if there's no crime due to immunity, the FBI can't investigate, and none of it comes to light.

Unless you have a lot of faith in the Senate investigation stepping up in this alternate history I don't see your take.

Yes, I've heard the argument about political prosecutions. Using that logic to weave this above the law situation for America's leader is bad policy- it's a level of medicine worse than the disease.

The opinion having to lean on pragmatic concerns via a speculative parade of horribles rather than past precedent really showed me what's up.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It was the coverup that got him."

It was abandoning the coverup that got him. If he'd systematically destroyed or avoided creating records, he'd have been fine, because there wouldn't have been evidence of his guilt.

That was the lesson subsequent administrations took from it, which is why every White House since at least Clinton has become a black box compared to prior practice.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It was abandoning the coverup that got him."

Yes, he should have burned the tapes the minute Butterfield let the cat out of the bag.

[tylertusta]

Also, much of the evidence involved in Nixon's conspiracy such as the tapes were brought out in other prosecutions, not in Nixon's own trial (because he had none). I see no reason why evidence gleaned from outsiders could not be used to convict and remove Nixon and then be used in a criminal prosecution.

[Sarcastr0]

tylertusta you're conflating prosecutions with investigations. Presidential immunity would kill a lot of these investigations.
Targets of the investigations just claim they're acting on the order of the President and poof. It has the virtue of being true even!

Brett, Nixon did almost everything he could. The tapes came out because he couldn't control everyone, and then it was too late.
Oh, it's just you polishing your Clinton conspiracy plaque. Meh.

And then Bob is actively rooting for Nixon. Because Bob fucking sucks.

[tylertusta]

Trump didn't say anything about agents of the President being immune, just the President. Trump also didn't limit impeachment.

If a President doesn't want to play ball with Congress, Congress can impeach and remove on obstruction grounds alone.

[David Nieporent]

Indeed, I think that the majority wrote the opinion in such a way as to clearly circumscribe the break-in.

Nixon didn't do the break in; he did the cover up. And that would absolutely fall under the immunity invented by SCOTUS in the Trump case. Indeed, the things he told his subordinates to do couldn't even be introduced as evidence under the wacky decision they issued in the part that went too far even for ACB.

[Bob from Ohio]

" they didn't fill so many pixels by going on about how frivolous Trump's argument were!"

Not just the immunity case but Trump v Anderson too. Will Baude wrote something!

[Kazinski]

But they wanted it so badly.

That's an important part of the analysis.

[David Nieporent]

Not just the immunity case but Trump v Anderson too. Will Baude wrote something!

Now you're just lying. While some of us (including me) mistakenly thought that SCOTUS wouldn't invent an ahistorical, atextual, immoral immunity for Trump, not a single person (including Baude) predicted that Trump would lose Trump v. Anderson.

[Life of Brian]

You certainly would hope that by now the "gotta gotta get 'im" crowd would understand how spectacularly that strategy backfired and that they desperately need to get back to actually having their own affirmative messaging and positions.

But apparently you would be wrong. Maybe another cycle or two will bring some clarity.

[tylertusta]

Their zeal in pursuing him may have put Trump over the top. A majority of voters who felt that US democracy was threatened voted for Trump.

[ReaderY]

That’s not the standard. Since all illegal acts are ultra vires, no illegal act would be immune. And that’s obviously not what the Supreme Court meant in its Presidential immunity decision.

In general, when a statute or court decision divides things into two categories, there has to be something in each category. Since your interpretation render the immune category empty, it can’t be right.

Reading the opinion expansively in favor of immunity, the issuing of an execrutive order is an official act, thereby conferring immunity, whether or not the order is subsequently deemed illegal. So every executive order is immune.

[tylertusta]

Indeed. The issuance of an Executive Order is the quintessential official act.

[not guilty]

The attempted issuance of an ultra vires purported executive order cannot be official in character. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, "No matter the context, the President's authority to act necessarily 'stems either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.'" Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312, 2327 (2024), quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952).

The pretended "exercise" of non-existent authority stems from neither.

[tylertusta]

A constitution that vests the president with executive powers doesn't grant the President the authority to give orders to the executive branch?

[not guilty]

A constitution which requires the President to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed doesn't grant the President the authority to give orders to the executive branch to punish or retaliate against any person's exercise of protected First Amendment rights.

[tylertusta]

Sounds to me like the solution to the problem is to have Congress impeach and remove President Trump, not to flout Supreme Court precedent and common sense.

[William of Brooklyn]

If that were true, EVERY act by EVERY administration that is later adjudicated to be unconstitutional, in whole or part, would be a criminal act. Is that really the argument you want to make?

[Krayt]

Sure! Let's also chuck legislators in the klink who voted for laws later overturned.

Haha, that's a funny joke.

[not guilty]

"If that were true, EVERY act by EVERY administration that is later adjudicated to be unconstitutional, in whole or part, would be a criminal act."

Wrong. There is a fair warning requirement attendant to §§ 241 and 242 that, in light of law available at the time of the alleged offense, prior judicial decisions gave reasonable warning that the conduct at issue violated constitutional rights. United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 269 (1997); United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 759, n.17 (1966).

Unlawful retaliation for First Amendment protected activity has long been regarded as being a separate First Amendment violation itself, as the authorities cited by Judge Leon make clear.

[ReaderY]

So the Trump Justice Department is entitled to prosecute former President Biden for ordering a student loan debt forgiveness program that the Supreme Court subsequently deemed unauthorized?

Since it was found ultra vires, it wasn’t an official act, no immunity attaches, and it’s open season? Any time a court strikes down an order, regulation, act, etc., those responsible can be prosecuted by a sufficiently vindictive successor administration?

Don’t you see a problem with that?

I now see that William of Brooklyn beat me to it.

[not guilty]

ReaderY, criminal prosecution requires an antecedent statute prohibiting the conduct. The actus reus of 18 U.S.C. § 241 is two or more persons conspiring to violate another's a federal right made definite by decision or other rule of law. The actus reus of 18 U.S.C. § 242 is the actual violation of such federal rights by a person acting under color of law.

Whose constitutional or other federal rights did former President Biden's ordering a student loan debt forgiveness program violate?

[tylertusta]

Thinking about this further: even pre-Trump, Mr. Guilty's aspirations here don't make sense.

If an act is found to be ultra vires and thus not official, then what about a judge who makes an order that is later found to be ultra vires? Does this also make the order an unofficial act?

If Congress passes a law that is found to be unconstitutional and ultra vires, were the votes in favor of passage of the law not official acts?

The answer to all of those questions is that they are official acts even if the overall action was later found to be ultra vires. I think it says a lot that even Jack Smith was not willing to say that the issuance of an executive order was an unofficial act.

[not guilty]

tylertusta, I didn't write the mishmash about a former president's immunity from criminal prosecution after leaving office, with its Bizarro World tripartite framework; Chief Justice Roberts did. Once more, "No matter the context, the President's authority to act necessarily 'stems either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.'" Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312, 2327 (2024), quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952).

That decision nowhere addresses culpability or immunity of any person or official other than a former President.

As I've said before, it looks like the Marines are still looking for a few good men.

[tylertusta]

I see your lack of reading through my comments followed by resorting to personal insults continues apace. But the new twist is that you've castigated a President for breaking the rules while you blithely ignore other rules because you personally don't like them.

To paraphrase a great former President: It's not that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.

Also, since you slunk away the last time you brought out that insult, I'll reiterate my retort: You'd never be allowed to serve. If you somehow lied your way into the service, you would have been booted out- for lying.

[Riva]

The projection is strong with you, but you’re not a jedi yet. Not even 100% sure about the lawyer thing.

[tylertusta]

As I've said before, our mutual friend Mr. Guilty's legal analysis is aspirational when it comes to President Trump.

[John F. Carr]

But it's not the President himself who prevented lawyers from entering government buildings, terminated contracts, and otherwise violated the rights of men in suits. Executive branch employees mistook Trump's nonbinding ultra vires memo for a binding executive order.

At least twice the President of the Senate of Massachusetts prevented a vote from being taken on an initiative petition, in violation of the state constitution. The courts ruled proponents of the petitions couldn't have it both ways. If they were upset about his performance of his official duty they had to accept all the privileges and immunities of a legislative defendant. The bottom line was, there was no remedy for his unconstitutional act.

I think Trump gets away with it.

[tylertusta]

I agree. I'm not fond of the EO, but come on- Mr Guilty's thinking here is ridiculous.

The remedy for the EO is to impeach and remove him, not to try to spitball ways around the official acts immunity to conduct a criminal prosecution.

Maybe someday the mental masturbation will cease, but I doubt it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It seems to me that if an act taken by the President wh8le in office is ultra vires, it cannot be an "official act" within the tripartite framework set forth by Chief Justice Roberts in Trum

That would read the holding out of existence. While I realize you might want to do that, Trump immunity is currently the law of the land.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not just Trump, but the President.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Trump in my comment refers to the case that recognized the presidential immunity here, Trump v. United States, not to current president Donald Trump. Hence the italics.

[not guilty]

"That would read the holding out of existence. While I realize you might want to do that, Trump immunity is currently the law of the land."

That decision is indeed the law of the land. The Court there recognized three categories of actions by a former president: (1) the exercise of core constitutional functions, to which absolute immunity attaches; (2) other official acts, to which a rebuttable presumption of immunity attaches; and (3) unofficial acts, to which absolute immunity attaches. The MAGA cult wants to wish this third category out of existence.

Once again, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, "No matter the context, the President's authority to act necessarily 'stems either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.'" Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312, 2327 (2024), quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952). If an action is ultra vires, it is by definition* unofficial.

It is worth noting that SCOTUS did not declare that a President's conspiring with others to violate federal rights contrary to § 241 is ipso facto an action to which immunity attaches. The Court remanded for the District Court to determine "in the first instance" whether and to what extent Trump's alleged conduct was entitled to immunity. 603 U.S. at ___, 144 S.Ct. at 2344.
________________________

* adj. [Latin "beyond the powers (of)"] 18(c) Unauthorized; beyond the scope of power allowed or granted by a corporate charter or by law

Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. p. 1662 (2009)

[Magister]

(3) unofficial acts, to which absolute immunity attaches.

I think this should have said something different.

Whether an executive order that turns out later to be unconstitutional gets immunity would seem to parallel qualified immunity for police, and it seems no more likely that courts will find presidents liable even for decisions that were obviously bad before they were made. Problematic as such a policy might be, it's more the willful defiance of court rulings that marks the Trump administration as lawless.

[not guilty]

You are correct. Category (3) is unofficial acts, to which no immunity attaches.

Criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 242 is somewhat similar to civil immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in that each inquires into whether the federal right claimed to have been violated was "clearly established." SCOTUS opined in United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 271, 272 (1997):

In sum, as with civil liability under § 1983 or Bivens, all that can usefully be said about criminal liability under § 242 is that it may be imposed for deprivation of a constitutional right if, but only if, "in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness under the Constitution is apparent," Anderson [v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)]. Where it is, the constitutional requirement of fair warning is satisfied.

That having been said, the Lanier Court also opined that "general statements of the law are not inherently incapable of giving fair and clear warning, and in other instances a general constitutional rule already identified in the decisional law may apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question, even though "the very action in question has [not] previously been held unlawful." 520 U.S. at 271, quoting Anderson, supra, at 640. [Bracketed "not" in original.]

The unlawful nature of retaliation for expression of First Amendment rights has long been clearly established. In the instant matter, Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), Board of County Comm'r Wabaunsee County v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (1996), and National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024), are particularly germane.

[Don Nico]

ng,
When he leaves office, just be glad that he is gone

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump's war on Harvard has taken another tack -- he has now issued an executive order not to contract with Harvard, which -- of course -- is being challenged in court.

If Trump were to issue an executive order stating that people driving government vehicles must turn on their headlights when it is raining, I have no doubt that the Association for Dangerous Driving would sue him for that...

Obama ran wild with executive orders and got away with it, Trump isn't and Trump supporters are supposed to respect the fascists in black robes? I say we throw the bums out -- impeach them ALL and let a future President decide which ones to reappoint.

[Martinned]

If Trump were to issue an executive order stating that people driving government vehicles must turn on their headlights when it is raining

Of course, that too would be ultra vires...

[Martinned]

Obama ran wild with executive orders and got away with it

If only someone had sued Obama for being insufficiently conservative! But I guess back then nobody thought of that...

[Dr. Ed 2]

If only our law schools hadn't been to the left of Lenin for the past 30-40 years.

Maybe Mao had it right, we send all the lawyers out to Death Valley with a hoe and a package of seeds.

[ReaderY]

The President of the Umiged States has no authority to simply order people to do things. Enforcing an order to people to turn on their headlights would be illegal. However, in the absence of any enforcement, the President can decorate his stationary with whatever advice he cares to give the public and can use Ferengi marketing ploys like calling his advice an “order,” since with no enforcement there’s no standing to sue.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ReaderY— Do you suppose that principle properly applies in a case where publication of the purported executive order demonstrably had a damaging effect on the viability of a business. I seem to recall a gun-policy-related case in NY State which got decided against the gist of, "with no enforcement there’s no standing to sue."

It is not at all hard to anticipate that a party seeking legal counsel would consider it unwise to engage a firm that might first have to win a legal fight to get admitted to the courthouse.

[ReaderY]

I agree that in the law firm retaliation cases, there is concrete injury conveying standing.

I am talking about the English-only requirement. It might be possible that trucking firms stop hiring otherwise qualified drivers, in which case those drivers would have standing. But the order itself, absent consequences, does not convey standing on its own.

Dr. Ed 2 points out below that there is an existing regulation requiring CDL holders to know enough English to understand road signs and police directions. If that’s the case, and that’s what the order is requiring, then President Trump is simply ordering greater enforcement of existing law, which he is entitled to do.

[GreenLanternCorps]

He can't order "people" driving non-government vehicles, but he can order "people driving government vehicles" to comply with government rules.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Reconsider the full set of, "government vehicles."

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, obviously what's meant is federal "government vehicles".

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, vehicles owned by a state or its subdivisons, including universities, are "state" vehicles as opposed to "Federal government vehicles" with the "federal" usually omitted.

[Riva]

Just in general little troll, the commander in chief has just a shit load of such authority. So does the chief magistrate. And so does the party vested with all executive authority. That would be the president, by the way.

[Dr. Ed 2]

GOVERNMENT vehicles, e.g. those owned by the FBI or USDA?
Driven by on-the-clock government employees?

If I am not mistaken, someone, back sometime, issued a rule requiring seatbelt use.

[John F. Carr]

Executive Order 13043, by Bill Clinton in 1997.

[DaveM]

What we learned during the covid debacle, the AEA debacle, and now the Harvard debacle is that all that government must do in order to order ALL headlights -- not just those on government vehicles -- is to declare a state of emergency. Then, hey presto! Rule away.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Last weekend, the Hamas Fan Club rioted in both the French section of Switzerland () and the German section (Basel). Switzerland doesn't *have* riots...

"Some of the protesters burned giant Israeli and US flags, while others set off red and green smoke in the air."

If they ever succeeded in driving the Jews into the sea, the Christians would be next, have no doubt of that. Israel's struggles are ours and we must support Israel in its struggle against these nazis as much as we supported England in its struggles against the German nazis.

Banning ALL foreign student visas for Fall 2025 is starting to sound like a very good idea. At the very least, there should be a 10% limit.

[Martinned]

Switzerland doesn't have a "French section" or a "German section". It has areas that are (predominantly) French speaking and German speaking, but that is something else.

[ReaderY]

Isn’t this being a wee bit pedantic?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Also likely to be challenged is a Trump order that all commercial truck and bus drivers be able to speak and understand English.

Forget being able to read and write it -- something between a third and half of the guys on the road today are functionally illiterate. But being able to converse with firefighters and police officers in an emergency is kinda important, particularly when you realize how lethal some of the stuff being carried on our highways actually is.

Think about that the next time a truck with a red diamond on the sides is next to you in traffic. Google the number (put "UN" in front of it if you get garbage answers) and that's what's in the truck, and usually more than 110 gallons of it.

And it's not just Spanish, there are a lot of Russian speakers with little to no English, a lot of Mandarin (Chinese) bus drivers with little to no English -- and buses full of passengers with absolutely no English and the need for someone to translate emergency instructions.

Our first responders can't be expected to be fluent in a hundred different languages -- the language of commercial vehicle operation in this country is ENGLISH and Trump is man enough to enforce that.

And to the arsehole judge who will inevitably grant an injunction against this, consider the possibility of your family dying needless deaths on the highway because of your decision. This is common sense safety. There is some stuff so lethal that if you have a tanker of it roll over, you have to evacuate a square mile of town, at 4:55 AM if need be. Truck drivers able to speak and understand English is important...

[not guilty]

I haven't researched it, but my first blush impression is that such a regulation affecting interstate and foreign commerce is reserved to Congress under Article I, § 8, ¶3. And issuance or withholding of commercial driver's licenses is traditionally a function of the states.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you have a CDL? I do.

Look up the Federal Motor Carrier Act of 1987(?)

Congress already did.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I got my Class B CDL by being tested and approved by Massachusetts.

[ReaderY]

Agree. Whether a law to this effect if passed by Congress would be constitutional or not is irrelevant. The President has no authority to simply issue orders telling people what to do.

That said, as long as there is no enforcement, he’s entitled to decorate his stationary with whatever advice he cares to give people. And as long as there is no enforcement, he’s entitled to use Ferengi marketing ploys like calling his advice “orders.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

You can get into a pissing contest with the US DOT if you wish, but the regs have always been (at least since Obama)
"A “person is qualified to drive a motor vehicle if he/she . . . [c]an read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records . . .” (49 CFR § 391.11(b)(2))

Trump is merely enforcing this: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-enforces-commonsense-rules-of-the-road-for-americas-truck-drivers/

[John F. Carr]

Regulatory authority is divided between the federal government and the states. In practice state rules are fairly uniform under threat of loss of funding. Congress has left some intrastate commerce up to states. The DOT in turn has declined to regulate some drivers, such as beekeepers "engaged in the seasonal transportation of bees" are not regulated under Part 391.

The English language rule is 49 CFR 391.11(b)(2), which says a driver is not qualified unless he

Can read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records

[John F. Carr]

The English language rule was part of the original FMCSA rules from 1970. 35 FR 6461.

[Martinned]

Aka "Why only in the US street signs have words on them".

https://www.upworthy.com/why-americas-traffic-signs-look-so-much-different-from-the-rest-of-the-world

[Dr. Ed 2]

In the 1950s, US yield signs were yellow. By the late '70s, they became the International red & white.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In the 1950s, US yield signs were yellow. By the late '70s, they became the International red & white.

[Krayt]

That's also excellent evidence that colors and shapes are learned things with meaning, and not obvious just because you grew up with it. I went to the Netherlands, there's a blue circle with lines through it. It means "unlike normal driving rules, people on cross streets turning right onto your street do not have the right of way. Or do. Or something."

There, people turning onto your street have the right of way and the traffic flow must stop. I almost rammed into an ass who didn't even look before pulling right in front of me.

I was the ass! All because of a blue circle with lines through it.

[Martinned2]

That's also excellent evidence that colors and shapes are learned things with meaning

Yes, which is why Dutch people (and, presumably, people in other countries) have to take a test on them in primary school, and then again a theory exam for the driving licence.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I was the ass!"

You did visit Holland, so yes.

[Brett Bellmore]

I kind of like signs with words on them. As I like to say, if I meant to learn several thousand icons, I'd study Chinese.

[Bwaaah]

Icons, with no descriptive words or mouse-over.

GRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr

[bernard11]

I'm with you two.

I once met a Swedish man who had immigrated to the US (the MAGA ideal, I guess). I asked him if he had had any trouble adapting to English, and he said no, since it's taught in Swedish schools from a very early age.

He did say that there was one sign that puzzled him for a long time. It said "ped xing." His assumption when he saw it was that he was in a Chinese neighborhood and it was for the convenience of the residents.

[Moderation4ever]

When you write that people on the road are functionally illiterate you need to define what you mean. Illiteracy usually mean an inability to read and does not apply to verbal communications. Being unable to communicate in a defined language, here English, is not the same as illiteracy. Also functional illiteracy is not the same as illiteracy. Many people, President Trump, for example can read simple words and sentences. People can read signs, but can not read and comprehend a narrative like a newspaper story. So please make your point correctly. Your concern is a person's ability to communicate with emergency personal whose primary language is English.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"When you write that people on the road are functionally illiterate you need to define what you mean. "

Fair enough:

"Had to have the CDL written test read to them because they couldn't read it themselves."

[Brett Bellmore]

"Being unable to communicate in a defined language, here English, is not the same as illiteracy. Also functional illiteracy is not the same as illiteracy."

It's the same for all practical purposes, if that defined language IS the local language.

Europe needs icons because they're polyglot. We didn't need icons because, until recently, we shared a common language. And we'll get back to sharing one in another generation, if the current halt on illegal immigration can be sustained.

[John F. Carr]

We could allow Spanish-speaking drivers in the Southwest where Spanish is more widely spoken. The federal DOT would simply have to make a new rule relaxing the 55 year old English proficiency requirement.

[bernard11]

If there is a 55-year-old requirement, what is this kerfuffle about?

[Kazinski]

Most enforcement of truck driver English competence will be state level.

Arkansas which is on I40, a major transcontinental trucking route already tests truck drivers at inspection and weigh stations. It wouldn't take too many red states following suit that are on interstate highways to ensure nobody engaged in interstate hauling hires non-English speaking drivers. Florida, Texas, the Carolinas, Indiana, Utah, all come to mind as red states on important trucking routes.

[bernard11]

Is there any requirement that truckers who transport hazardous loads have some amount of special training?

[Kazinski]

A bizarre incident happened with the Secret Service detail guarding the Obama's.

One female agent said they needed a supervisor to come "immediately before I whoop this girl's ass."

Then the agent started to try to whoop the girls ass.

Both agents have been suspended.

https://x.com/susancrabtree/status/1925628895665017114?t=78p7VBoddLR_k75rEiI80Q&s=19

[Dr. Ed 2]

Affirmative action...

And as I am a culturally diverse person, I can tell you which racial group uses "whoop this girl's ass" as opposed to, say, "smash her f*cking face in." Yea, affirmative action again...

And I'm going to say one other thing -- are such people mentally stable enough to be carrying loaded firearms?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let me clarify -- a responsible person upset about a co-worker being late would speak to a supervisor -- or file a union grievance. That's what responsible people of any race or sex do.

Who was guarding Obama when these two schmuckettes were fighting?

[CountmontyC]

Michelle.

[Bwaaah]

Here's a brief video of the brawl, including a cocky walk-away from a prevailing officer. (Where in the SS manual does it describe that turning of one's back away from violence that's two feet away?)

These are professionals? Nope. They're U.S. Secret Service agents. (Ouch!)

[Frank Drackman]

It’s all fun & games until someone opens a can of “Whoop Ass” (wouldn’t a bottle of Whoop Ass you could crack over someone’s skull be better?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, bottles are better for clubbing, but the cans make better projectile weapons. So it's kind of 50-50.

[not guilty]

If a tavern or honky tonk serves draft beer in plastic cups rather than chilled glass mugs, be very careful around other patrons.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's cultural from a culture where cooking is a shared reference, like opening a can of peas or corn.

[bernard11]

It's the contents, not the container, that matter.

[BigT]

She wasn’t talking about Michelle?

[Commenter_XY]

Given the stress of the job, I am amazed this sort of thing does not happen more, to be honest. The mental, emotional and psychological toll of protecting a Pres has to be incredible. We don't know what happened that lead to this event. I would be very surprised if a USSS officer just 'spazzed out' for no reason, the evals and training weed out the psychos.

No, something precipitated this event. Looking forward to finding out what that mouse was (I am going with ego).

[ThePublius]

"Looking forward to finding out what that mouse was"

What does that mean?

[Commenter_XY]

What made the USSS officer snap...money, ideology, coercion or ego? MICE.

[Mr. Bumble]

Certain groups have poor impulse control.

[Bwaaah]

Impulse control is an individual thing, not a group thing.

That said, it gives me no pride to see similarities between this incident and something previously described in a TV show, The Boondocks: The Boondocks: [...] Moment

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't MICE counterespionage?

Here it was two twits the USSS ought never hired:
https://nypost.com/2025/05/27/us-news/secret-service-suspends-officers-caught-brawling-on-camera-outside-obamas-home/

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's well documented as to what precipitated this -- the co-worker was late. And this was the uniformed division, pretty close to standard police work.

The problem being that Affirmative Retribution precluded weeding out the psychos.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I would be very surprised if a USSS officer just 'spazzed out' for no reason, the evals and training weed out the psychos."

Your faith in the USSS is misplaced, recent history has multiple examples of agents misbehaving. Their competence is also overrated, not clearing a rooftop within short rifle range and letting a cabinet officer get her purse stolen are very recent examples.

[Sarcastr0]

Awesome link - really brought out the open racism.

[bye]

Yet , despite color , nationality, religion some people are disgusting and any incarnation would invite what you call 'racism'
People dislike Barbara Streisand, Hillary, Kamala, AOC because of who they are, and if Kamala wants to say "it's because I am Black" no, a hundred sources tell me "No, it's because you are stupid, you cackle, and your are nasty"

[Kazinski]

I saw the racism immediately myself.

Who put such incompetent and unprofessional agents on the detail protecting our first Black President.

He deserves the best protection, and assigning such unprofessional agents is racism.

[Kazinski]

Too be clear, I think its more sexism than racism.

[Riva]

They should be sentenced back to training where someone maybe can teach them how to fight. I bet they could stand to lose a few pounds too.

[Martinned]

Once again a senior Trumpist is out campaigning for a foreign far right/radical right party.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/noem-blasts-weak-european-leaders-stumps-conservative-candidate/story?id=122244872

Do they understand that, even if they get the radical right candidate elected, interventions like this will annoy the person who is in charge of Poland's foreign and defence policy, the prime minister Donald Tusk?

[ReaderY]

Right now, the Trump administration seems to be the best thing Europe’s left has had going for itself in a long time.

If I were on the European left, I might pay Trump administration folks fee if they’d be willing to stump for the other party. And given the level of integrity of this administration, I suspect they’d take it.

[Riva]

Once again, Politico releases more garbage not even pretending to be news. Ironically one would actually be better off getting news from foreign sources. Some of them actually do that reporting thing that doesn’t happen here anymore.

[Bob from Ohio]

"interventions like this will annoy the person who is in charge of Poland's foreign and defence policy"

So what? Its Tusk, leader of the weaker party, that needs to avoid annoying Trump.

[Martinned2]

It must be nice to never want any favours or concessions from anyone. Might I suggest that you have a slightly exaggerated sense of your own importance?

[Bob from Ohio]

"slightly exaggerated sense of your own importance"

USA USA USA

Ask yourself why you care about US support for Ukraine then if we are not important. Its a war between 2 European countries fought in Europe after all.

[Martinned]

The US is very good at making weapons, and the Ukranians need them. What's complicated about that?

[Kazinski]

At least its out in the open in public.

Covert interference in elections is much worse, like the French interference in Romania's election.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/telegram-founder-says-france-asked-him-ban-conservative-romanian-voices-2025-05-19/

[Martinned]

Yes, that's an argument more Trumpists have been making: "Trump's corruption is great, because it's out in the open!"

And no, the Romanians are perfectly capable of resenting Russian interference in their elections on their own. The fact that they have EU allies who can help them keep the Russians out doesn't change that. You guys in the US should try it... (Both keeping the Russians out and having allies.)

[bernard11]

She shouldn't be doing this, of course, but it's not uncommon, especially on the right.

Still, it is wildly inappropriate for her to criticize Biden to a foreign audience. If she wants to do that let her leave office - that can't happen too soon for me - and talk smack about anyone. Meanwhile, she is a high-ranking official of the US government and shouldn't take domestic politics abroad like that.

[ThePublius]

Especially on the right?

"June 14, 2021
BRUSSELS — President Biden lashed out Monday at what he called former President Donald J. Trump’s “phony populism,” using the global platform of his first NATO summit to criticize his predecessor. "

[Martinned]

Is that an example of Biden campaiging for a particular side in a foreign election?

[ThePublius]

No, it was in response to "it is wildly inappropriate for her to criticize Biden to a foreign audience."

[Mr. Bumble]

Rick Derringer passes at age 77.
"Hang On Sloopy" This video is worth a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbZq5idUJcI&t=1s

[ThePublius]

Indeed, I watched that twice. 🙂 And then a mini-documentary on who the Sloopy Girl was.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I always thought it was SNOOPY from Charlie Brown & Peanuts.

Flying his magic doghouse.

I was young...

[Frank Drackman]

I was going to say great minds think alike until I saw it was you, but I thought it was “Snoopy” also (don’t ask what I thought “Rock N Roll Hoochie Coo” said)
Of course I was 6 or 7 at the time ( what a phenomenon “Peanuts” was, Apollo 10 Aircraft named “Charlie Brown” and “Snoopy” (NASA suits were not amused, Apollo 11 ends up as “Columbia” and “Eagle”) “Happiness is a Warm Puppy” (and gun, ht Lennin:McCartney)

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I always thought it was "Snoopy", too. Read too much Peanuts, I guess.

[Mr. Bumble]

What a bunch of dummies.
"Snoopy" let your hair down girl...?

[Bwaaah]

What do they have to do with Rick Derringer?

Try Rock and Roll, Hoochie Koo.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did you watch the video?

[Bwaaah]

Yes. As I have numerous times before.

All I saw were a couple of shaking...errrr...breasts. (OK...there was a shaking butt in there too.) Did I miss something?

[Mr. Bumble]

I guess you missed Derringer covering the song he did with the McCoys.
Think it's also interesting as to the quality of the video done in 1975. Before MTV, the internet and of course You Tube.
What was it made for and where was it shown?
"All I saw were a couple of shaking...errrr...breasts. (OK...there was a shaking butt in there too.) Did I miss something?"
if that's all you saw, that's on you. That girl could dance.

[Bwaaah]

lol. I'm just being a pain in the ass.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is a music video of Rick Derringer’s 1975 recording of the song Hang on Sloopy.

[Armchair]

A Christian group was having a permitted rally in Seattle last weekend. Then, a group of leftist criminals took "offense" and decided to attack the protest. That resulted in 23 arrests of the leftist criminals.

The mayor of Seattle then cast blame on the Christian group, for daring to have the rally, rather than the Antifa attackers who were arrested...

https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle-police-arrests-cal-anderson-park-protest/281-66330e3a-ae65-4076-a919-12e2d89c50e2

[Sarcastr0]

I don't see anything about who attacked whom - it says "the two groups clashed."
And certainly no sign of Antifa being mentioned.

You're making stuff up.

[ThePublius]

No, he's not. Several people involved have named Antifa as the agitators. 23 supposed Antifa members were arrested.

“That was the idea that came from City Hall, and we followed their advice in an attempt to show a good faith effort to work with the city,” Johnson explained. “And that’s how we ended up at Cal Anderson and, of course, the mayor knows all of that. This is his team. These are his employees. And so, then when he releases a statement on Saturday evening, blaming the church, well, you and I both know Jason, nobody from the church was arrested on Saturday evening for violence. But 23 radical leftist Antifa members were.”

https://mynorthwest.com/ktth/bruce-harrell-worship-antifa/4092618

“Following the MayDay USA worship event at Cal Anderson Park on Saturday, Mayor Harrell had the audacity to issue a press release blaming Christians for the premediated violence of Antifa which resulted in the hospitalization of Seattle Police Department personnel and the arrest of 23 Antifa agitators,” the organizers said in a statement. “Under Mayor Harrell’s leadership, the city of Seattle has continued its spiral into lawlessness and dysfunction while the First Amendment rights of citizens to peacefully assemble has been disregarded.”

https://nypost.com/2025/05/28/us-news/fbi-investigating-claims-of-targeted-violence-against-religious-groups-in-seattle/

[Sarcastr0]

The guy who said: “The mayor is full of crap and City Hall is freaking out because, finally, people have had enough and are willing to call him on his intellectual dishonesty and bold-faced lie" also accused people of being in "Antifa."

About as credible as Armchair himself.

[Riva]

You’re not in a position to cast aspersions on anyone, little communist girl who never smiled.

[Armchair]

This is Sarcastr0's "see no evil" schtik.

[Sarcastr0]

People get mad when I ask for evidence of stuff they really want to believe.

[Armchair]

Oh, we're not mad.

Your "request" here has made sure that this post about leftists violently attacking a peaceful Christian protest have is getting lots of attention. Not to mention the mayor of Seattle casting blame on the Christians.

It's also demonstrated your anti-religious (including, but not limited to antisemitism) vibe to all again.

[Sarcastr0]

So no more 'someone said Antifa when talking about this protest.'

You're on firmer ground talking about who was the aggressor, in that you haven't yet shit the bed on that front by linking solely to insane partisans yelling.

But your bed shitting seems to continue about the mayor. From your original link the mayor said this: "“I am grateful for those who make their voices heard in support of our neighbors without resorting to violence," Harrell said in a statement. "In the face of an extreme right-wing national effort to attack our trans and LGBTQ+ communities, Seattle will continue to stand unwavering in our embrace of diversity, love for our neighbors, and commitment to justice and fairness.”

Unless there is another quote you're thinking about when you say: "casting blame on the Christians," you've lied again.

your anti-religious (including, but not limited to antisemitism)
Keep fucking that chicken.

[ThePublius]

Here's a more full version of the Mayor's statement, parts of which you omitted:

"Seattle is proud of our reputation as a welcoming, inclusive city for LGBTQ+ communities, and we stand with our trans neighbors when they face bigotry and injustice. Today’s far-right rally was held here for this very reason – to provoke a reaction by promoting beliefs that are inherently opposed to our city’s values, in the heart of Seattle’s most prominent LGBTQ+ neighborhood. [emphasis mine]

When the humanity of trans people and those who have been historically marginalized is questioned, we triumph by demonstrating our values through our words and peaceful protest – we lose our voice when this is disrupted by violence, chaos, and confusion."

So, the mayor is saying that the rally was held for the purpose of provoking a reaction. That's blaming the Christians.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, again, it was the city that insisted that the rally be held in that specific location, "in the heart of Seattle's most porminent LGBTQ+ neithborhood". It's not where the rally organizers wanted it.

So the city can be presumed to have intended the reaction, in as much as they say it was predictable, and they themselves arranged for the predictability.

[Sarcastr0]

https://komonews.com/news/local/mayday-usa-event-seattle-rally-counter-protest-cal-anderson-park-arrests-councilmember-bob-kettle-mistake-trans-transgender-lgbtq-abortion-rights-women

"Organizers directly explained their provocative thinking around a location for the event, stressing they would be at “antifa’s headquarters” and “where thousands showed up for BLM.”"

[Life of Brian]

Soooo weird you left out the immediately prior text:

"The group originally requested a permit through the Special Events Office with the Office of Economic Development for a street location near Pike Place (1st and 2nd Avenue between Pike Street), which was not a fit given size and logistical needs. The group did not apply for a permit at Victor Steinbrueck Park."

[Brett Bellmore]

"Seattle’s Parks Department acknowledges the group "MayDay USA" was granted a permit to rally at the park after first being denied an application to gather in a small pedestrian space outside Pike Place Market."

Thus confirming that they had, indeed, wanted a different location, just as I said.

"Organizers directly explained their provocative thinking around a location for the event, stressing they would be at “antifa’s headquarters” and “where thousands showed up for BLM.”"

I wouldn't exactly call this 'incriminating', (Even if true!) in as much as they're entitled to have a demonstration without being attacked. At worst they relished the opportunity to demonstrate that the other side were violent maniacs. And the other side, BEING violent maniacs, obliged.

But, more to the point, I'd kind of like to see an actual QUOTE. Not the usual paraphrase with a few of the original words dropped in to lend flavor. It's really a red flag so far as I'm concerned when a news account can't even bring themselves to quote whole sentences. Doesn't bother you any that they could quote Kettle in complete sentences, while the people who were attacked, (Twice!) got only paraphrases?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett has now utterly changed his goalposts from "it was a conspiracy by Seattle" to something a lot more anodyne.

LoB, though, is not so agile.
From my linked source, the group didn't get their first choice, but then they then chose this park among the choices they were given.

Seems not to suggest a conspiracy by Seattle to foment violence.

[bernard11]

it was the city that insisted that the rally be held in that specific location, "in the heart of Seattle's most porminent LGBTQ+ neithborhood".

I've read a few of the accounts of the incident, and the story behind the selection of the park seems to vary a bit, but I don't think what you say is accurate. The organizers applied for the permit, after all, and some accounts suggest the city gave them a choice of sites, and they chose the park.

"Organizers directly explained their provocative thinking around a location for the event, stressing they would be at “antifa’s headquarters” and “where thousands showed up for BLM.”"

This doesn't sound like the city forced them to go there.

More:

Christian group organizers, while calling for the mayor’s resignation, say they initially requested to hold the rally near Pike Place Market but were encouraged by the parks department early in the process to consider alternatives including Cal Anderson.

UPDATE: A spokesperson for the mayor’s office parks department provided a statement that doesn’t refute the claim by the May Day USA group but maintains that the group applied for the event to be in Cal Anderson.

"Seattle Parks and Recreation permits a variety of events and gatherings in Seattle’s public parks – including rallies, protests, and free speech events. First amendment protections require Seattle Parks and Recreation to enable the expression of free speech throughout the parks system. Parks can only offer alternative parks for an event if the components of the event don’t fit well logistically with the amenities of a given park (utility hook ups, park layout, parking, or size of the event exceeds capacity of the park etc.).

For Saturday’s event, the organizers from MayDay submitted the event application to SPR for Cal Anderson Park (attached). Given that the park was not reserved and met the size/logistics needs for the event, the permit was granted. This is consistent with free speech requirements under the First Amendment."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed"

[Brett Bellmore]

It's more of a "The people who got attacked are the evil ones" shtick, in practice.

[Sarcastr0]

If you need to rewrite what I said to make your argument, maybe your argument sucks.

[Armchair]

Google the protest yourself. Or don't.

But what happened was a peaceful group of Christians being attacked by a bunch of leftist nutjobs, then the mayor of Seattle blaming the Christians.

https://www.christianwarriortraining.com/p/breaking-christians-attacked-at-seattle

https://www.newsweek.com/seattle-police-breaking-point-antifa-land-2076973

[Brett Bellmore]

It should also be noted that the Christian group had asked to demonstrate at Pike Place Market, somewhat of a neutral location, and the city insisted it had to be Cal Anderson Park, which was basically the location most likely to result in exactly what happened.

[Sarcastr0]

I doubt Seattle was aiming for a violent confrontation, which is what you seem to be implying.

I know your telepathy has found evil leftists at it again, but in reality I don't know the thinking behind the permitting, and neither do you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, why doubt it? It's the sort of thing that happens, when local administrations are hostile to a group.

Antifa is the deniable military arm of the left, rather like the KKK in an earlier era.

[Sarcastr0]

Really? Local governments encourage violence all the time?

I think this is more of your weird take on humans who aren't you and less something that's real.

Antifa is the deniable military arm of the left
You don't live in a political thriller where the right is the noble underdog.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, local governments often encourage violence against groups they don't like. This comes as a revelation to you?

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, small towns got all sorts of weird, shitty politics specific to each town.

But yeah, the broad blanket and inclusion of cities needs support.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, big cities have shitty politics, too, they just have more people interested in denying it's real.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It started with the universities. See Donald Trump and Harvard.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, the federal government has shitty politics too.

Shitty politics != conspiracies to foment violence.

Your political thriller vibes have never steered you right, though you love them so.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, local governments often encourage violence against groups they don't like. This comes as a revelation to you?

Yes. It's yet another patented Brett Bellmore Conspiracy Theory™.

[Ted Chen]

I can buy the argument that those that approved the permit were not intending for their to be a violent confrontation.

In my mind, a more plausible theory is that the approving officials wanted to dissuade the Christian group's protest so they granted the permit in a park that was known to contain lots of antifa. The officials were hoping that the Christians would just cancel their protest due to the fear of violence.

I have no evidence to support my claim. But it is hard to imagine that in a city the size of Seattle, there was literally no other place for the Christians to protest. I am happy for somebody to point out evidence that I am wrong.

[bernard11]

Not true. See my comment above.

[Sarcastr0]

I read what you linked.

Your Antifa claim is not going great:

Link 1:
"I just released a video breaking down exactly what happened in Seattle, why it matters for every believer, and most importantly—what you can do to protect yourself if you ever find yourself in the middle of a hostile protest or ANTIFA-style attack."

Link 2:
"What we are struggling to understand is, why was this park chosen and authorized, especially when this park is commonly known as the heart of ANTIFA land," the police union said in a statement on Sunday.

Great searching jerb.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, the claim is sounding great: The Christian group didn't pick Antifa central for the demonstration, the city did.

[Sarcastr0]

You took "Antifa central" seriously.

Good lord.

[ThePublius]

"The Seattle Police Officers Guild said it welcomed a mayoral review of the Seattle Parks and Recreation Department's decision to allow the rally to be held in Cal Anderson Park on Saturday.

"What we are struggling to understand is, why was this park chosen and authorized, especially when this park is commonly known as the heart of ANTIFA land," the police union said in a statement on Sunday."

https://www.newsweek.com/seattle-police-breaking-point-antifa-land-2076973

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure what you think this proves other than the police union is into yelling Antifa a lot.

Seems bad, coming from the police.

[Dr. Ed 2]

People who work for the government can't be trusted.
Gaslighto works for the government.
QED Gaslighto can't be trusted....

[bernard11]

Does Trump work for the government?

Why do you trust him?

[Brett Bellmore]

It proves that you flatly refuse to accept evidence that you're wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

Police ipse dixit is not evidence.

Come one, even you know the police have no compunction about lying.

Your argument has become that the police union claiming the park is called Antifa Central means Antifa, the paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party, were secretly who the counterprotesters were.

Do you listen to yourself?

[ThePublius]

Why are you leaping to the defense of Antifa? Do you support them, what they do?

[Sarcastr0]

ANTIFA WAS HERE AND IF YOU ASK FOR EVIDENCE IT MEANS YOU LOVE ANTIFA!!

[Bubba Jones]

So says CHRISTIANWARRIORTRAINING

So say we all

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why are you leaping to the defense of Antifa? "

No enemies to the left.

The existence of a loosely organized left wing group dedicated to violence cannot be recognized.

Sarcasto's dad in 1969: "The Weathermen don't exist!"

[Armchair]

And here's another...

https://www.eurasiareview.com/28052025-doj-needs-to-probe-antifas-anti-christian-riot-oped/

But you've found your true calling Sarcastr0...downplaying violence against religious individuals. You've expanded from just Jews to Christians too.

[Sarcastr0]

Your links are just to right-wing people saying 'Antifa.'

Yes, we all know you can Google.

[ThePublius]

The police union said that the park is commonly known as the heart of Antifa land.

[Armchair]

But Publius, the police union are just right-wingers too!

Anyone who says "Antifa" is a right-winger, so they must be discounted!

[hobie]

If only they had beaten the police, then they'd be pardon-eligible. Or if shot by the police...get free taxpayer money

[Frank Drackman]

Hi remember when that area was called “(Redacted) Town”

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah, if anybody says "Antifa", you're going to call them right-wing people. Because your starting point is that it can't be Antifa.

[Sarcastr0]

My dude, he linked to:

http://www.christianwarriortraining.com
Newsweek quoting the police union
Same newsweek article again
Bill Donohue

It's the sources, not what they say.

If all your sources are obligate partisans, that should be a flag.

[Ted Chen]

Is your argument that antifa is not violent? Or that you don't care that antifa is violent?

[Sarcastr0]

Antifa, such as it was, was basically the left-wing version of the Proud Boys. It sucked the same 'violent young yahoos using politics as an excuse' way the Proud Boys sucked, though a bit less weird with psycho-sexual rituals.

Antifa later on had a brief life as a twitter brand. Nowadays you basically only hear about it via speculation by the right.

The right loves them a good scary villain.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you got the causality backwards on the Proud Boys vs Antifa; The Proud Boys set out to, consciously, be right wing version of Antifa, not the other way around.

The both suck, though.

And Antifa STILL suck, even if you have some sort of object permanence deficit.

[Sarcastr0]

I've not heard anyone not on the right talk about Antifa in well over a year...you're heavy on the ipse dixit, but what evidence do you have that Antifa is still a thing?

[David Nieporent]

Antifa, such as it was, was basically the left-wing version of the Proud Boys.

My understanding is that the Proud Boys is an actual organization. I'm not saying that they're formally incorporated or anything, but they are a top-down thing, with actual leaders. Antifa, of course, is famously (except in MAGA delusions) not an organization at all, but just a group of random people coming together from time to time to do stuff, like a flash mob.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have LONG said that it isn't just the Jews who need to worry...

[hobie]

"You're making stuff up."...again

[bye]

FBI said two hours ago "The FBI is investigating potential violations of religious freedom after Antifa-style activists..."

[Kazinski]

I think Sarcastro has the better argument here as much as it pains me to say it.

Here is a video of one of the Christians, a woman armed with a baby, harrassing several dozen counter demonstrators.

Her harassment was so severe several police had to intervene to protect one man by wrestling him to the ground so they could escort him to safety.

Then the crowd expressed their appreciation to the police for saving them from the pervasive harassment.

https://x.com/KatieDaviscourt/status/1927549026771362126?t=2p0VjgtSMefam4ee3qsPiQ&s=19

[Armchair]

Too subtle on the sarcasm.

[Kazinski]

Just trying to describe the video as Sarcastro would see it.

[Drewski]

You're right. The counterprotestors were in the wrong, and the Mayor is making a weird choice, denouncing a protest for "provoking a reaction." Thatsthepoint.jpeg.

The same LGBT group attacked the same Christian group when it protested the Mayor's response, leading to eight more arrests.

I'm very much on the LGBT side of things, but just because they're right doesn't mean they get to use violence to shut down their opponents' speech.

That said, I understand most of these arrests to be for attacks on cops, and I'm dubious that all of them are justified. Cops have a bad habit of finding a reason to arrest obnoxious people. It's probably not quite as serious as "31 arrested in two protests" sounds on its face, but it is serious and the Mayor should be ashamed for minimizing it. This is a time when we need to hold a line on the rule of law.

[Brett Bellmore]

But most of these arrests would be for attacks on cops, because the cops got between the Alphabet Soup gang and the protesters, and said gang then tried to go through the cops in order to beat on the protesters again.

[bye]

I've been all over. Seattle made it hard to even breathe. A nasty town of dying fat hippies who own expensive Harleys with sissy bars and fat ass hog girlfriends. You want to get killed in Seattle--go to a Grateful Dead tribute band concert and wear a suit.

[Commenter_XY]

Recently, the German FM stated that the long range missiles the EU (and implied the US) provided to UKR would no longer have range restrictions, going forward, for use against Russia. Notably, our own State Dept is silent on the same topic. So is Congress (both sides), interestingly enough. When Congress assented to providing UKR with missiles, did they do so with caveats on range?

In the last 60 days, RUS military activity increased, and RUS is grinding out progress, at a cost of thousands of lives weekly. Kursk has been retaken (FTR, it was a valiant effort by UKR and achieved strategic surprise). The prospects for a ceasefire now appear quite dim.

What's the exit ramp to incentivize RUS to end the war? I don't see one.

[Armchair]

"What's the exit ramp to incentivize RUS to end the war? I don't see one."

Transfer a thousand or so Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. No range restrictions. No target restrictions. Watch the Kremlin get a bunch of big holes.

[Frank Drackman]

Good thing Roosh-a doesn’t have anything more powerful to respond with

[Krayt]

Coward. Step away from setting foreign policy.

[Frank Drackman]

Internet Tough Guy! How many wars you been in?? (expletive deleted) How many of your kids are serving?? How was your own experience fighting the Roosh-uns?

[hobie]

"What's the exit ramp to incentivize RUS to end the war? I don't see one."

Obvious. Like any American tycoon, just donate a few million shekels to the Trump famil...er...Campaign Super PAC, and the power of the US government is yours. Dumbass Ukranians just haven't figured this out yet

[Dr. Ed 2]

I am surprised that Putin is still alive.
Remember that the Korean war ended when Stalin died...

I'm wondering if the range restrictions on the missiles were verbal, or if they were part of the guidance software, I suspect the latter.

Russia is buying so many weapons from North Korea (of all places) that it is building a road there. Russia relying on DPRK for weaponry, that's not tenable indefinitely, not without Chinese resources going into DPRK.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Just random personal ranting

Thought I could get over being repeatedly passed over at my work (FAANG, the worst one, which … has a reputation for this, especially in the division I’m in, I ignored when I came in) but … I can’t. The people here are toxic. I hate coming into work everyday. Not sure what to do at this point.

It’s really bad. Im miserable all the time. And I don’t know how to … I shouldn’t work as hard as I do. They don’t give a shit, and it’s always, good job! You did this thing! Oh but sorry there is another requirement for a promotion we never told you about that we just made up. That we fully admit has absolutely nothing to do with your work. For 3 fucking years. But like, I do work hard, and I don’t know how to not to.

Might set a deadline for myself to quit. Already applying elsewhere, just the job market for software engineers rn is … it probably will remain terrible for a decade given the way things are going

[Aladdin's Carpet]

About two months ago I was diagnosed with diabetes and I didn’t really realize the effect this is all having on my health. I took dramatic actions to fix it which worked but just … life is incredibly frustrating right now.

[Armchair]

It's a tough spot. Depending on your situation, there are a few options.

1. Hunt for another job (already in progress)
2. Quit your job, start your own company (depends on finances)
3. Instead of working so hard, use part of that effort (not at the company) to work on your own project, with your own equipment, a home.

It can be difficult, especially in such a company environment where the upper ranks are "full up" and it's difficult to advance. It's an issue newer companies (or companies that were rapidly growing) tend to struggle with, 10 to 20 years down the road. All that rapid growth has led to a clog in the promotion ladder, where the people who came in "first" got the promotions, and are all now fairly young and won't leave. Eventually the company needs to learn to go through some painful layoffs at that management level, or the talented new people leave.

[ducksalad]

On Option 2 - I know a dozen or so engineering/science/tech types who started their own business, and all of them say it was an experience that they don't regret. That includes the ones that eventually failed.

[Bubba Jones]

With the exception of routine progression in individual roles, promotions typically require a consensus among leadership peers.

You're not going to get promoted unless your boss and their peers reflexively nod "yes" at the idea of you being promoted. Your boss would need to float your promotion months in advance, and get buy in well before the actual review cycle.

If your boss isn't committed to making that happen, and instead just hand-waives it as out of their control, then it's never going to happen.

That said, there are often qualitative issues, soft skills, that hold people back. And these can be difficult for managers to articulate. Much easier for them to promote people who already have those soft skills than to coach you on them.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

My prior manager strongly supported it, at least according to him it was rejected by his manager for reasons that we never clearly explained, then my old team got disbanded and I was moved over a different team, and for my current manager to approve it *apparently* I have to make a business case as to why I need to be promoted.

Idk. I am admittedly not great at navigating social situations but I’ve had it with this.

[Bwaaah]

There are promotional systems that, more than anything else, allow a person to progress in pay and to rise in relative status among working peers. Such systems, and how to navigate them, tend to be well-defined. It sounds like that's not what you are dealing with.

Alternatively, there are promotions that move people from a role of individual contributor to a role of managing other people. Such a promotion can't be competently justified by you merely having performed your functions successfully as an individual contributor. There has to be a justifiable theory that the company would be better served by you in a managerial role than an individual contributor role.

Being an able manager is an in-between function that calls for clear accountable dialog with people up the chain from you, as well as synergistic helpfulness to people who would be below you. I don't know of a methodical way to describe that kind of "talent," nor of a formula for getting there. Then again, I've seen so many poorly qualified people get promoted to be lousy managers that it is evident that competence/suitability isn't required for many promotions. (But it should be.)

Your admission that you are "not great at navigating social situations" is telling. Much more than individual contribution, mid-level management is a demanding social function. Be careful you're not trying to climb a ladder to a rung that doesn't suit you. That would be you driving the Peter principle.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I am waiting for FAANG to either implode or be broken up in an antitrust action.

Anyone remember Microsoft versus Netscape? Change will come and the name of the game is to be in the right place when it happens.

[tylertusta]

Go elsewhere as soon as you find a position with the pay you want. If you have to settle for the same pay as now, at least find a place that can either give you a path upwards, or at least doesn't suck to work at.

They either don't like you personally or they're under budgetary pressure, but the effect is the same: no path upwards.

Stress adds to your health problems and it probably contributed to your diabetes. Please take care for yourself by moving on.

[HazelMeade]

Look for another job. When you get a better offer, use it to negotiate for a raise or promotion. Indicate you may consider a counter offer, but I would probably bid high and see how much you can get, err on the side of rejecting a counter and moving on. A change in pace can often by the thing to get you out of a mental rut. Try something new and different. New faces, new places, new lunch spots. Also rejecting their counter offer will give a satisfying feeling of revenge.

[Kazinski]

Well you're taking the first step, looking for other work.

Now you need to emotionally disinvest yourself from your current job because you are no longer in it for the long haul, that should ease the frustration.

And for what its worth i was a programmer for over 35 years and I never received a promotion, because I never wanted one. Coding was what i liked not managing people, and contracting let me stay in coding, and paid better anyway. so I spent the first 7 years and the last 12 as an employee and whenever I switched jobs it was at a higher rate and when I finally became an employee again it was at a senior position, that actually paid me more than my manager.

[Moderation4ever]

In Madison a six year old child is in a local hospital in critical condition after shotting himself in the head with an unattended firearm. I have said it before and I will say it again, while the Constitution gives a person the right to own a firearm it does not tell you that having one is right. If you can not accept the responsibly of owning a gun then you should not get one.

[Brett Bellmore]

Likewise with wash buckets, I'm sure.

[Moderation4ever]

Really, what kind of a response is that? Do you think that if people cannot handle a gun responsibly they should have one?

[Bwaaah]

What about swimming pools? Roughly as many people die accidentally in swimming pools as in accidental firearm discharges.

Do you think that if people cannot handle a swimming pool responsibly they should have one?

[Moderation4ever]

Yes, I would say that if you can not be responsible with a swimming pool it is best for you not to own one. Just join a local swimming pool an d swim there.

[Bwaaah]

I'm more of a live-and-let-live person, accepting a small amount of collateral death in the course of affairs, such as we do with pools.

Did you know that when little children fall into pools, they typically don't go into a panic-driven attempt to swim? They just quietly sink and drown. And though nearby parents may not be watching, they keep a careful listen in case something goes wrong. (Oopsies.)

I don't see a significant pool control lobby materializing, nor states establishing pool licensing regimes. Which is OK, because I don't see significant concern about pool deaths, numerous though they are. Just people going about their business, like it's nobody else's.

[not guilty]

A question for the firearms fetishists. If the parents or other adult(s) responsible for that gun being left unattended, would that violate the Second Amendment?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If parents or others leaving full buckets of water around were equally liable.

[John F. Carr]

A Massachusetts man was charged with manslaughter after confusing his bottles of weed killer and spring water. It was one of those cases where it was clear the defendant had done something wrong and it was not clear that he was guilty of the crime charged. The jury in that case said not guilty of manslaughter. The jury in the case of a man who rented out an apartment that violated fire safety rules said guilty of manslaughter. That's why we have juries.

The case was later written up in a medical journal. We had a small child with a severe overdose of arsenic, this is what we tried, it didn't work.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there are some missing words in that question?

[not guilty]

You are right, Brett. Thank you. My mind was working fastr than my fingers were typing.

I meant to ask if the parents or other adult(s) responsible for that gun being left unattended were prosecuted for reckless endangerment, would that prosecution violate the Second Amendment?

[Frank Drackman]

The Constitution doesn’t “give” anything it merely recognizes rights endowed by a Surpreme Being, of course because of those English A-holes we wanted it in writing, maybe the kid had good reasons for trying to “Abort” himself

[Poxigah146]

Do you know how rare those instances are?

[Glaucomatose]

Not all that rare.

2,448 unintentional shootings by children resulted in 926 deaths and 1,603 nonfatal gun injuries over a period of seven years. Most perpetrators (81%) and victims (76%) were male. The mean age was 10.0 (SD 5.5) for shooters and 10.9 (SD 8.1) for victims. Children were as likely to shoot themselves (49%) as they were to shoot others (47%). The majority of victims were under 18 years old (91%). Shootings most often occurred in or around homes (71%) and with handguns (53%). From March to December 2020, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic, incidents increased 24% over the same period in 2019, which was driven largely by an increase among shooters ages 0–5. Depending on the type of law, rates of unintentional shootings by children were 24% to 72% lower in states with secure storage laws, compared to states without such laws.

[Bob from Ohio]

350 a year in a country with 75 million children is still pretty rare.

[Glaucomatose]

If it happens, on average, just about every day, it doesn't seem all that rare.

[Life of Brian]

Under that logic, being struck by lightning or dying from ALS aren't all that rare either.

The relevant denominator is the population size, not the 365 days in a year.

[David Nieporent]

That depends what question one is asking. If it's "How likely is any specific American to be a victim of X," then the population size is the right denominator. If it's "How likely is X to have happened in the U.S. today," then the calendar is the right denominator.

[ducksalad]

Fair enough. But if the real underlying question is "is this problem common enough that we should add more crimes to the penal code and increase the authority of the police" then I think the population size is the right denominator.

[Bob from Ohio]

1 death a day from drowning in pools. Rare?

[Glaucomatose]

Florida thought swimming pool deaths were common enough that they passed a law requiring four-foot-high fences be built around every swimming pool. That's certainly common enough to require certain precautions be taken to avoid accidents.

[Bob from Ohio]

Laws get passed for lots of reasons. Even rare things are banned or required.

[Poxigah146]

Is a pool protected by the Constitution?

[Dr. Ed 2]

What was the median? Mode?

One 2-year-old offsets a lot of 15-year-old gangbangers.

[ducksalad]

Pretty rare, about 600 accidental shootings per year at all ages.

As a comparison, there's an estimate that migrants are convicted of homicide at a rate of about 2.2 per 100,000 per year (stat is based on TX tracking immigration status of criminals). About 15,000,000 illegal immigrants gives about 330 convictions per year nationwide. 50% of homicides are solved, so we can extrapolate to 660 murders committed by illegal immigrants per year.

So: the chance of being killed by an illegal immigrant is roughly the same as the chance of being shot in an accidental firearm discharge.

[Martinned]

Not all migrants are illegal immigrants, and there's no reason to believe both groups have the same rate of anything.

[ducksalad]

Martinned, sorry for the sloppy writing. The 2.2 per 100,000 number was specifically for illegal immigrants.

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/no-evidence-4000-people-are-killed-yearly-by-undocumented-immigrants-2024-09-27/

Not that it matters for the stats, but in case you're wondering about my motives, I'm pro-immigration and pro-gun-rights. I'm arguing that both kinds of deaths are so rare that they don't justify compromising on civil liberties.

[Moderation4ever]

I like to see them be a lot more rare.

[Bubba Jones]

It's not controversial among gun owners that unattended firearms are a bad thing.

[Moderation4ever]

Most gun owners I know would be appalled by the story. I wish that true of everyone.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure. I'd just say there's a lot of room between "a bad thing" and "there ought to be a law".

[Poxigah146]

Exactly. I think they're a bad thing. I don't think they justify the infringements that the political left wants to impose using them as a pretext.

[Moderation4ever]

I am not advocating for any laws, I would just like people to start admitting that not everyone should have a gun. There is a lot of power in societal norms. So, if we as a society we said to people, if you cannot be responsible with a gun then don't have one.

Let me ask you this, if you had a friend that left their gun out in the open and accessible to children, would you say something or are you one of those I don't want to upset them as they are my friend. You know this is pretty rare so I'm just going to let it slide?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If we taught gun safety in K-12, like we used to, the concept of leaving a gun loaded would be so foreign it wouldn't happen, nor would children play with guns.

[bye]

Keep going...I bought my first gun at 70 !!! because of Biden doing shtall nothing about riots, looting, BLM, inner city , immigrants, etc. \

If you voted for Biden the Great Unifier and you still shoot your mouth off about guns, you are in the dark, deep in the dark.
During Biden's time the most unlikeky cohorts of buyers emerged

Black women are the fastest-growing group of gun owners in the country. In 2020, there was a 58% increase in Blacks purchasing guns from 2019, according to research reports.In 2020-2022, Black women saw a significant rise in gun ownership, becoming the fastest-growing demographic of gun owners in the US,

THIS IS BIDEN, he gave us the explosion in guns Gun sales surged in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic and the racial justice protests that followed the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. The number of guns sold continued to rise after Democratic President Joe Biden took office in 2021.

[Brett Bellmore]

I got my NRA life membership because of George (HW) Bush. I'd been saving up to buy an HK-93 rifle, and just when I'd gotten there, the SOB banned their importation.

So I spent the money on an NRA life membership, instead.

Of course, if I'd been more in the know, I'd have given the money to GOA or JPFO. The NRA gets a lot of credit for their hard work.

Just to remind people that it's not a straight party line thing, some of the worst gun controllers in recent decades have been Republicans like the Bushes, or Bob Dole.

[Frank Drackman]

I remember the time well, instead of the NRA, I went "NFA", it was actually a better deal to go the Class 3 route (First Class 3 was an H&K 91 sear gun, could have gotten a 93 for the same price, ($1250(!) hey, it was 1989) almost went with the more shootable 93 but the 91 looked so much more bad ass (technical term) with it's 20 round straight box magazine.
Nice thing is it beats you up so much that I shoot it much less than my 5.56 guns.
Last time I checked it would go for about $30,000, also bought an extra registered sear a few years later for $750* (nice thing is its registered in 5.56, 7.62, and 9mm) now they're $20K if you can find one.
* Mrs Drackman was like "You spent $750 for a little piece of aluminum???" I replied "pretend it's your wedding ring" (internal monologue of course)
Frank

[Stephen Lathrop]

The following song lyric seems to have baffled Google's AI capacity:

"Her rattling cough never shuts off,
She's nothing but a used machine,
Her aluminum finish, greatly diminished,
Is the best I ever have seen."

The AI results were hilarious, but I remain uninformed about who wrote that, or what musical group made it famous. Still trying to recollect where that long-ago memory comes from. Anyone know? I expect, AVC (Ask Volokh Conspiracy) to outperform AI on this query.

[Mr. Bumble]

Easy peasy.
https://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/jefferson+airplane/plastic+fantastic+lover_20292437.html

[bye]

I had that recording. RCA records Grace Slick
SURREALISTIC PILLOW , which has the torrent of beauty instrumental
Embryonic Journey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6PsMeU4_9Y

[Noscitur a sociis]

How so? I realize google results aren’t the same for everyone, but “Plastic Fantastic Lover” by Marty Balin (which seems to be the right song) is all over the first page of results for “‘ Her rattling cough never shuts off’ lyrics”, and searching for “Plastic Fantastic Lover” seems to give as much information as I would think you’d want.

[Noscitur a sociis]

For what it’s worth, here’s the response from Copilot, the Bing LLM:

Yes! Those lyrics are from the song **"Plastic Fantastic Lover"** by **Jefferson Airplane**. The song was written by **Marty Balin**, one of the founding members of the band. Jefferson Airplane, a pioneering psychedelic rock group from the 1960s, made the song famous with their energetic and surreal sound.

It's a fascinating track with layered meanings—some interpret it as a commentary on consumerism and technology, while others see it as an ode to Balin's stereo system. Either way, it captures the band's signature style of blending poetic lyrics with electrifying instrumentation.

Are you a fan of Jefferson Airplane? They had quite a few legendary songs!

For yuks, I also asked it whether your lyrics were right:

Almost! You got most of it right, but there's a slight difference in one line. The actual lyrics say **"Her aluminum finish, slightly diminished"** instead of **"greatly diminished"**.

It's a small change, but it keeps the rhythm and meaning intact. Were you testing your memory, or do you have a special connection to this song?

[Frank Drackman]

Love the Airplane, and don't be hatin', but I also like some of the "Starship" stuff (everyone slams "We built this City", but it was popular "Back in the Day")
They did another video with Willie Brown that was pretty good

[SRG2]

Trump pardons three crooks

Sheriff Scott Jenkins

The Chrisleys

Unsurprising that Trump has sympathies for crooks and corruptos.

[Mr. Bumble]

Compare and contrast with the Auto Pen's pardons of thousands.

[Sarcastr0]

Whattabout Biden?

[SRG2]

As I've noted before, for the cultists like Bumble, whataboutism is a sacrament.

[Ted Chen]

Great. I can agree with political rules that allow one party to do bad things first and then the other party is told it cannot do it.

[SRG2]

That is not what whataboutism is.

[Ted Chen]

But that is a logical conclusion of your argument?

Conservatives: But the liberals did it before?

SRG2: That's whataboutism

Conservatives: Fine. My side will just do the bad thing first. Then I can use whataboutism argument when the liberals try to do the bad thing first.

[SRG2]

It is not the logical conclusion.

Trump does something bad.
SRG: that's bad.
Cuiltist: but Biden did something bad!
SRG: that's whataboutism

Did I say that when Biden did it, it was OK? If so, then I'd be a hypocrite. But I didn't. Regardless, does the fact that Biden did something bad exculpate Trump? No. But the comment that prompted the factual observation of "whataboutism" always has that implied - because someone else did it, it's ok when Trump (or other right-winger) does it, i.e., you justify doing something wrong because someone else did it first. That is your justification, not my conclusion.

Further, the use of a whatabout response is deeply ingrained within the Trumpist right - a feeble mitigation masquerading as a strong defence - and is hence a concession of the wrongness of the conduct.

[Ted Chen]

Trump does something bad.
SRG: that's bad.
Cuiltist: but Biden did something bad!
SRG: that's whataboutism *and the Cultist are stupid*

I think that is a more accurate reflection of the argument. Also, there is an ad hominem in your summation so another datapoint that you are not arguing in good faith.

"Did I say that when Biden did it, it was OK? If so, then I'd be a hypocrite."

Great, I interpret this to mean that we can all agree that many of Biden's pardons were corrupt including pardoning his family members including his son Hunter, all members of the J6 committee, and Fauci. All of those were pardoned for all known and unknown Federal crimes. It really is the part of "unknown crimes" that I feel is particularly corrupt. In theory, Hunter Biden could have killed somebody on National Park lands and he could not be prosecuted.

[jb]

Serious question: by what definition of "corrupt", does Biden's pardon of Fauci qualify? I see the argument about his family members, and maybe even with the J6 committee folks you could say that they were taking on his biggest political enemy so he was rewarding them.

But Biden doesn't personally gain in any way by Fauci being pardoned. Hard to see where the supposed corruption comes in.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's fair enough. The Fauci pardon was wrongful, (IMO) but it wasn't "corrupt" in the way his family member pardons were. Biden didn't just protect his son, he protected himself with THAT pardon.

The Fauci pardon was more like Trump's pardon of all the J-6 defendants.

[Ted Chen]

To expand on Fauci, his corruption is in the same vein of pardoning the J6 committee members. Biden was shielding officials at the highest levels of government from investigations of wrong doing for their official acts. Was there wrong doing? There is certainly datapoints out there. I think the US would be better off if we had investigations and got the facts out into the public. Instead, the pardons feels like they were used to protect political allies.

The ways the pardon were delivered and the overbroadness also suggested corruption.

The fact that the pardons were given the day before the inauguration suggested corruption too. It prevented debate during Biden's presidency. The possible pardons were discussed for months. As a tangent. I am open to using pardons to put the country past a political event. Biden could've pardoned many political actor since Trump was elected that was caught up in the nastiness. This would include Trump. Imagine how much grace it would have shown to pardon Trump, Bannon, and Flynn (as well as J6 and Fauci). It would've been a sign that Biden was hoping the country would move on.

Lastly, usually pardons are for specific crimes. I think this is the best use to let the electorate understand if the pardons are corrupt. The Fauci and J6 pardons were for all and any Federal crimes, known and unknown, for 10 years (based on my memory). That seemed overly broad. What was wrong with just pardoning Fauci for his COVID related activities and the J6 Committee for their J6 Committee activities?

[Ted Chen]

Only using name because the indenting has stopped.

Brett, I have a friendly, academic response to your argument that the pardoning of the J-6 defendants is like pardoning Fauci. I think in spirit you are right. They are pardoning people that may be caught in politics. But that's about where the similarities end.

Fauci was a high level government official who should know he was involved in politics. Some of his potential crimes were lying to the public about his involvment in gain of function research. He denied it to save himself from accusations of wrong doing.

Fauci's pardon was overly broad. He was pardoned for every and any Federal crime, known and unknown, for 10 years.

The J-6 defendants were mostly people that wanted to protest and then overstepped the line. In general, I have no issues to prosecute those who trespass for those and like laws. But the Democratic Judiciary Department was so overzealous that SCOTUS ruled that one of their tactics was impermissible. Of course some did more (eg the person that took Pelosi's laptop) and those should've been prosecuted for those crimes.

[David Nieporent]

Fauci's pardon was overly broad. He was pardoned for every and any Federal crime, known and unknown, for 10 years.

He was not. Unlike Hunter's pardon, which applied to all possible offenses, Fauci's pardon only covered offenses "arising from or in any manner related to his service as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force or the White House COVID-19 Response Team, or as Chief Medical Advisor to the President."

[Ted Chen]

I apologize for the error on Fauci. Thank you for correcting me.

I still maintain that is overly broad. It dates back to 2014, way before COVID 19 (for the sake of this post, I will ignore if pardoning Fauci for COVID 19 is something that should've been done). My guess is that it was to protect Fauci for the gain of function research which did date back to 2014.

Yes, it doesn't prevent investigations, but as a layman, I think that it makes investigations ineffective. I know the some claim that pardoned individuals have to answer all questions, but there are still ways to not be cooperative. Just talking outloud, one could claim that they are taking the 5th for state level crimes or maybe some obfuscations like why are you asking me questions for crimes that you cannot prosecute. The latter potentially gets a contempt or obstruction charge, but it is not a sure thing and all that effort to only get an obstruction charge (ie no proof of wrong doing on the original issue).

[David Nieporent]

To expand on Fauci, his corruption is in the same vein of pardoning the J6 committee members. Biden was shielding officials at the highest levels of government from investigations of wrong doing for their official acts. Was there wrong doing? There is certainly datapoints out there. I think the US would be better off if we had investigations and got the facts out into the public. Instead, the pardons feels like they were used to protect political allies.

Just to be clear, a pardon does not prevent an investigation. And if someone lies during an investigation, he can be prosecuted for lying/perjury, regardless of whether he was pardoned for an underlying offense.

[bye]

No, Ted, you are the source of it, that great sin that DANTE condemns
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." — Dante Alighieri

[Ted Chen]

What great moral crisis is occurring today? How is it greater than past crises?

[Krayt]

Are you sure you're not cherry picking endpoints? Of course if you start with Trump, it looks awful. If you look at it as an ongoing reward process since time immemorial for people helpful in some way or other, it's neverending fun.

Whattaboutism of course does not justify anything. It does, however, point out hypocrisy and situational ethics of the professional hot air class, and that's my bag, baby!

[SRG2]

Do you really have to parade your stupidity so publicly?

[Ted Chen]

What is wrong with his argument? Is your only way to argue to throw out ad hominems?

[Sarcastr0]

You don't know the tu quoque fallacy, or what ad hominem actually is.

Is this your first Internet?

[Ted Chen]

Sorry, my foreign background cannot understand such big words such as tu quoque fallacy or ad hominem.

I had to google ad hominem.
Webster says: "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"

SRG2 said "parade your stupidity so publicly". I interpret that as an ad hominem. SRG2 could've easily said "parade a stupid argument so publicly". I would not interpret that as an ad hominem.

Do I have ad hominem correct?

[Sarcastr0]

Empty name calling is not ad hominem, since it doesn't purport to be an argument.

You can tone police if you want, but he's not doing a fallacy.

Bumble, however, did make a fallacious comment. He did purport to address the pardons, but he did so by changing the subject to Biden.
Whether or not Biden did something similar or worse or whatever is not material to what Trump did.

[Ted Chen]

I think you have made a strawman argument.

Bumble made no representation that he was going to address Trump's pardons.

His whole post was

"Compare and contrast with the Auto Pen's pardons of thousands."

Can you point out where Bumble "purported" to address the Trump pardons?

"Whether or not Biden did something similar or worse or whatever is not material to what Trump did."

The logical conclusion of this argument is corruption on both sides. Your argument implicitely, but directly supports conservatives quickly doing as many corrupt things. And then when liberals do the same corrupt thing, conservatives can scream, you can't bring up the past! Let's just focus on liberal misdeeds.

[Sarcastr0]

'There's corruption on both sides' is also not relevant to whether what Trump did was good or bad.

[Ted Chen]

In some hypothetical world where everybody is pure and nobody is tribal.

What Trump did does not seem like corruption for president's in 2025. Is it right? Maybe not. But for presidents these pardons are like speeding 5 miles more than the speed limit. SGR2 maybe wants to put the person speeding 5 miles over the speed limit in jail. But many (including me) are responding with, everybody speeds 5 miles and the previous president sped 20 miles over the speed limit. Putting the person that sped 5 miles over in jail seems excessive and maybe the accuser has a hidden agenda.

[Sarcastr0]

People being tribal also is not relevant to whether what Trump did was good or bad.

Are you making some postmodernist subjective push for what counts as corruption?

If so, go ahead - you can normalize Trump's behavior personally.
But that is idiosyncratic to you...it certainly is not an argument that will convince anyone else.

[Ted Chen]

I have tried to address your arguments, but you seem more intent on just winning the debate. Good job. You have won the this debate as I am too tired to keep addressing the moving goal posts.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "People being tribal also is not relevant to whether what [fill-in-name-of-political-figure] did was good or bad. "

By preponderance of people's judgements of whose actions are good or bad, I think you are obviously incorrect.

Ted: nothing is lost in battle with Sarcastr0, other than time.

[bye]

Well, all of us are imperfect, that is a foolish counter of yours. WE all do good and bad. It being universal is simply not relevant to any argument

[Sarcastr0]

I won't claim I'm perfect about this either - the GOP behaving badly makes me want to rationalize it when Dems react in a way that breaks things.

But when that overwhelms, I need to step back and realize that I'm far from am objective observer of GOP behavior. If I lean into that to excuse my side I'm basically never going to hold Dems accountable again.

And that's no way to be.

[SRG2]

Do I have ad hominem correct?

Nope. If Bumble had made a logical argument - and I then called him stupid, that would still not be ad hominem. Only if I said his argument was wrong because he was stupid would it be ad hominem.

His comment was an evidently stupid whataboutism and as I noted above, a whataboutism is a concession.

[Ted Chen]

SRG2 is a troll.

Would that be an ad hominem in your definition?

I will grant you that maybe Bumble has no argument except whataboutism. Please make me feel that you are arguing in good faith and condemn the pardoning done by Biden of his family members including his son Hunter, all members of the J6 committee, and Fauci. All of those were pardoned for all known and unknown Federal crimes.

[SRG2]

I had previously posted criticism of Biden's family pardon and one or two others. His pardon of the J6 committee however was entirely in response to Trump's explicit threats against them for doing their jobs. And this is overlooked all too readily by the right. What some of you are most bitter about is that Trump never got a chance to go after these "Enemies of the State" - illegitimacy of the charges notwithstanding. And it turns out that Biden was entirely correct to pardon the J6 committee as Pam Bondi has demonstrated that the DOJ is now a tool of Trump's vengeance.

Who was wrongly threatening the sheriff or the Chrisleys?

[Ted Chen]

For the J6 Committee, there are allegations that the J6 Committee destroyed evidence. Should those allegations not be investigated?

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-08-14/republicans-accuse-jan-6-house-select-committee-of-withholding-materials

"Who was wrongly threatening the sheriff or the Chrisleys?"

I am going to assume you are unfamiliar with how previous president's have used their pardoning powers. You are probably going to say it is a whataboutalism, but I use it to show that what Trump did for the sheriff and the Chrisley's is in line with previous presidents. And it is supportive of my argument that these pardons are zimilar to the common person speeding 5 miles over the speed limit.

I am sorry my example is so far back and not more recent, but I use it to show that there was been low level mis-use of the pardon powers. Please read up about Marc Rich's pardon.

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

I prefer presidents not to do these low level misuse of their pardoning power. But they do. And I question partisans who would bring up these low level mis-use. One can certainly bring it up, but do not expect that you are going to convince anyone to change their positions.

[Kenneth Almquist]

With regard to the Marc Rich pardon: Have any law professors argued that what Scott Jenkins or the Chrisleys did was legal? (Professors at Harvard Law and Georgetown Law preferred; I’d give half credit if Josh Blackman tried to make that case.) Did any foreign head of state, Nobel prize winner, or indeed any prominent individual outside the President’s political party urge the pardons? If not, I don’t see Trump’s pardons as being all that similar to the Marc Rich pardon.

[SRG2]

His argument is so obviously a whataboutism that intelligent posters wouldn't have needed it to be pointed out. My comment did not need to address his argument, therefore.

[Ted Chen]

Your argument is using tu quoque fallacy in bad faith. The use is intended to shut down a debate versus actually debating. Just because one can scream "tu quoque", doesn't mean that one is debating in good faith much less making a good argument.

This is an open thread, so anybody can write anything they want. But if I don't see arguments made in good faith, then my conclusion is that one is a hyper partisan (ie not open to dialogue) and/or one is just not serious.

[SRG2]

You're a newcomer here. We don't feel the need to rehash every point and observation for your benefit. Bumble is a cultist, I am not. I am virulently anti-Trump, being economically right-leaning and socially libertarian leaning and having some family members who fled and others who died in the Holocaust. This does not make me a political hyperpartisan. I'd have voted Romney ahead of Sanders, for example.

[Ted Chen]

I do not weigh people's personal history unless it is materially contributing to their arguments.

As politely as I can say it, I do not see any relevance of your personal history. Many (most?) of your arguments are not in good faith. Your posts resort to name calling (eg "cultists") and use rhetorical means to divert the debate instead of addressing the argument. One does not need to respond to everybody, but in my opinion, if you are going to respond, you should respond in good faith.

If you really care about defeating Trump politically, then argue in good faith. Speaking for myself, I am quesy about certain things Trump is doing (eg using Alien Enemies Act). But some on the left and particularly on this site are so over top with the accusations that it automatically causes me to reflexively discount those criticisms. In the 1990's I could've been a blue dog Democrat because I didn't see much wrong with Clinton's domestic policies (except the health care stuff). I was more hawkish on foreign policy back then, so I probably would still be a Republican.

"This does not make me a political hyperpartisan."

Respectfully, your arguments are making you appear as a hyper partisan.

Partisan: a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

Hyper: excessively

You seem to be excessively anti-Trump to a level that you are not willing to debate in good faith. You throw out arguments that are meant to win the debate on some technical point (ad hominem's, tu quoque) versus conceding points when needed. I call that a hyper partisan.

[SRG2]

See Terry Pratchett line below.

Continuing to accuse me of bad faith? You remind me of Newsgroup posters circa 1995,

And a touch of the Gish Gallop as well.

[Ted Chen]

I have tried to always emphasize your arguments.

How can you claim to argue in good faith when you are claiming half the country would've supported Hitler in 1932/33 below? Do you really believe that?

At best that is invocation of Goodwin's law in online debates. A worst reading is that you are arguing in bad faith. And even worse reading would be accusing of you not being able to debate without making unhinged arguments.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Bumble is a cultist, I am not. I am virulently anti-Trump,..."
So you don't think being "virulently ant-Trump" qualifies as a cult?
I am no more a "cultist" than you but it is much easier to attach a label as you so often do.

[Bob from Ohio]

SRG2 is one of the many whose brain was broken.

Hating Trump because of the Holocaust is certainly a take!

[SRG2]

Ah, the "brain is broken" cliche, not quite as common as the "rent-free" cliche, but no less incorrect

Hating Trump because of the Holocaust is certainly a take!

And thinking that this is what I said is a mis-take.

The relevance of my comment is that I have greater insight than many here about how Germans behaved.

I do not think Trump is Hitler - as I have said more than once. As I have also noted, Hitler was not HITLER in 1932 either. But my concern is not so much with Trump but with his followers, almost all of whom, IMO, would have voted for Hitler in 1932/33 - and that Trump has stirred up those same vile energies - as demonstrated by you and other cultists on this board.

Being strongly opposed to a cult is not itself a cult, any more than in the words of Terry Pratchett, not collecting stamps is a hobby.

People in cults don't think they're in cults. But your steadfast defence of Trump, and that of many other posters here. betrays the kind of unwavering loyalty to Trump that is sufficiently cult-like that "cultist" is appropriate, even if Ted Chen believes otherwise.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Hating Trump because of the Holocaust is certainly a take!

And thinking that this is what I said is a mis-take."

"having some family members who fled and others who died in the Holocaust" is one of the reasons you state for hating Trump So my paraphrase is accurate.

Instead of "brain was broke" how about "lost his mind"

"almost all of whom, IMO, would have voted for Hitler in 1932/33 "

Your hatred of Trump's supporters is almost as pathological as your hatred of Trump. Still in the "deplorables" mode.

[hobie]

Drink!

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey, look a mini dipshit convention.

[Bwaaah]

LOL

[Poxigah146]

Sheriff Jenkins was a hero trying to get around stupid gun laws by taking advantage of H.R. 218.

[Bubba Jones]

Heroes charge $5k?

[Bob from Ohio]

Heroes gotta eat too!

[Estragon]

You get the heroes you deserve.

[Bob from Ohio]

"three crooks"

Pardoning criminals! Never happened before Trump!

[SRG2]

Did you approve of those other pardons?

I assume you approve of these pardons, right?

[Bob from Ohio]

Some pardons are good, some are not. My opinion, and yours, depends. Presidents in general should pardon more.

The sheriff was pardoned because Trump rightfully feels he was persecuted for political reasons so any semi-prominent Trump supporter prosecuted by a Democrat is getting clemency. Maybe those NYC and Atlanta cases were ill considered!

The Chrisleys are TV famous, so this is right up his alley too.

[SRG2]

The sheriff did commit the crimes he was convicted of - it's not as though he was innocent.

The Chrisleys are TV famous, so this is right up his alley too.

So you have no defence of the pardons but you approve because Trump. Gottit.

[Bob from Ohio]

Did I say I approved of either? I just explained the reasoning, as I see it.

I really don't care about either. Why should I, some rando sheriff and some TV "stars"?

[SRG2]

And yet you bothered to respond.

[Sarcastr0]

This is more of a concession than I think Bob realizes.

He's admitting we shouldn't take him seriously.

[Bob from Ohio]

SRG2 is the one shocked that criminals got pardons, not me.

I don't live in Culpepper county and you don't either. Corrupt small county sheriffs are so common its a stereotype. I really doubt you care about the dozens of local officials convicted every year.

Did SRG2 comment about the sheriff's trial or conviction or sentence? He only cares now because its Trump!, someone he hates.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't pull that 'no personal upshot' shit - you don't live anywhere near any of the people you call to be put to death on behalf of victims you don't know.

[Bob from Ohio]

Murder is a tad more serious than selling "auxiliary sheriff deputy" badges. Many "auxiliary sheriff deputies" are friends of the sheriff or local big shots. This dude was just more brazen.

BTW, isn't your comment whataboutism?

[JohnSmith97]

I used to care, but then I saw how (D) reacted to the pardon of Marc Rich, after his wife donated ~1.5M total to (D) Party, HRC campaign, and WJC Library. Where the most outraged democrat was Carter, who only said he wouldn't of done it.

[Sarcastr0]

You used to care, but then a group you never liked didn't care as much as you thought they should, so you decided to be as bad as them.

A very common GOP story.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

That's a bit inartfully phrased. Pardoning "crooks" is sort of what pardoning is about.

His choices & methods in picking them (including favoring those with campaign connections, including a suitable "donation") is the trouble.

[SRG2]

Crook and criminal are not synonymous.

But yes, his methods - "attend a fund raiser, make a donation, and you too can get a family member or two pardoned!" - are concerning.

Of course, the cultists approve because (a) it's Trump. (b) whatabout?!?, (c) they're white, (d) look how pissed off the libs are!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"a person who engages in fraudulent or criminal practices"

I get the general idea.

[Ted Chen]

Is your argument claiming that one side of the poltical divide should just let the other side be corrupt? And then they are not allowed to use said corruption either.

So, Democrats can corruptly pardon their tribe, but Republicans cannot.

[SRG2]

FFS

Is your argument

No. Neither side should be corrupt and it is no defence of one side's corruption that the other side was corrupt. You disagree, evidently.

But I don't believe that all forms of corruption are equally weighty.

[Ted Chen]

"No. Neither side should be corrupt and it is no defence of one side's corruption that the other side was corrupt. You disagree, evidently."

I agree with the first part. Neither side should be corrupt. My rhetoric was to get you to see that. You could've left out the last sentence if you wanted to debate in good faith.

"But I don't believe that all forms of corruption are equally weighty."

What is your weighting system? How are you weighing Biden's pardons vs Trump's pardons?

[Sarcastr0]

Are you demanding a cardinal metric of corruption?

It's an interesting discussion, either broadly or as applied to compare Trump and Biden's pardons.
We can talk about that if you want, but it doesn't seem material to the specific matter at hand here.

[Ted Chen]

I am happy to come up with a point scoring system for each act of corruption, but I probably would get bored before I completed it.

I am happy to debate Trump's vs Biden's pardons. In this thread, I see Trump pardoned some low level "supporter" (I am using that broadly as somebody politically aligned with Trump) and some people that he may have some affinity for (ie reality TV stars like Trump). Those don't seem particularly corrupt in the history of pardons.

What are the most corrupt (as being so out of the ideal version of pardons and so far from the norms that presidents have done before) pardons that Trump has done?

[Sarcastr0]

Not going to talk about Biden off the break. Good on ya.

Trump's pardon attorney has said that if you're part of the movement, Trump's going to pardon you.

That's a novel way to use pardons, and one profoundly corrosive to the rule of law. "Support the President and you can do criminal stuff and get pardoned" is bad stuff.
These pardons of a bribe-taking sheriff and reality TV grifters are part of the pattern that petty

“For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”
---Peru's General Óscar Benavides.

This is not something you should endorse for America.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

...wouldn't that depend on whether his intention is supporting, observing or attacking America?

[Ted Chen]

Sacastro: Your claim will need a source. Only yesterday, somebody was defending Democrats by providing a very misleading datapoint. I am not saying you are not summarizing correctly. I am saying there are nuances to things.

[Sarcastr0]

I posted my source below.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/05/28/wednesday-open-thread-18/?comments=true#comment-11065627

"No MAGA left behind"
--Pardon Attorney Ed Martin

Here's a link to the tweet:
https://x.com/EagleEdMartin/status/1927092000848855360

[Ted Chen]

Thank you for providing your source.

Seems pretty weak evidence to support your claim. Ed Martin posted on what looks like his personal twitter account something that just says he supports MAGA. I assume Ed Martin wants to be in government and/or seek political office. His quote is much more likely just him kissing up to his boss Trump (most likely) and/or kissing up to the "MAGA" part of the right (also very likely).

Can you help me understand how you are getting to your argument. "Support the President and you can do criminal stuff and get pardoned". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[David Nieporent]

Ed Martin posted on what looks like his personal twitter account something that just says he supports MAGA. I assume Ed Martin wants to be in government and/or seek political office.

Um, Ed Martin is the administration's pardon attorney.

[Ted Chen]

Ok, since posters keep wanting to debate the point. I will take the possible argument head on, because I like debating.

Democrats: Look at Trump's pardon attorney. He tweeted "leave no MAGA behind". It is a clear sign that "Support the President and you can do criminal stuff and get pardoned"

My partisan response: Hasn't the Democratic party effectively given that same message already to their partisans with the pardons of the Biden family, J6 Committee, Fauci, and Mark Milley? And not just a promise. It was a delivered promise.

My more neutral response: Democrats have obviously shown that they will pardon people for personal gain and those that hurt the opposition. I would term it a 7 on the pardon abuse. I will leave a few more levels of pardon abuse because I guess it could always get worse.

Republicans are showing they are willing to commit similar abuses (pardoning J6 protesters) and are starting to hint at equaling or surpassing the Democrats. Because that last accusation requires alot of jumping to conculsions, I would discount it. I would say that 2025 Republicans are at a 4 on the pardon abuse meter. The 4 is mostly because of the J6 protesters. I think the perceptions of the pardon is not good for having a functional government for the US. I have less issue with the actual pardons given because the Biden Justice Department was way overzealous in their prosecutions and one of their tactics was ruled as such by SCOTUS. Many of those protestors had served their time. Many of those that had not were because their original charges were ruled as inappropriate by SCOTUS and so their case were still making their way through the courts after 4 years.

[Ted Chen]

Responded to wrong post.

[SRG2]

My rhetoric was to get you to see that.

I had seen that well before your rhetoric. Probably when I was in primary school if not earlier.

You could've left out the last sentence if you wanted to debate in good faith.

Consistent insistence on your opponent debating in good faith, when it's not evident that he isn't or that you are, deserves an appropriate phrase - it's not sealioning, though it has some similarities.

hat is your weighting system? How are you weighing Biden's pardons vs Trump's pardons?

Intuitively, just as you would probably regard dealing fentanyl as a greater crime than selling a small bag of weed. I think that pardoning violent criminals, like some of the J6 rioters, was worse than pardoning Hunter because the crimes of which they were accused were graver.

But as I suggest, I think the real grievance about the Biden pardons was many on the right being deprived of seeing someone in the Biden family pay for the family crimes, whatever they are alleged to have been.

[Ted Chen]

I will ignore the ad hominems and just take it as the cost of responding to you.

"I think the real grievance about the Biden pardons was many on the right being deprived of seeing someone in the Biden family pay for the family crimes, whatever they are alleged to have been."

So you are not only anti-Trump? You are also a Biden/Biden family partisan. Are you really going to claim that Biden/Biden family was not corrupt? Or it was just mild corruption that we should overlook?

Hunter Biden was paid off by Burisma because he was the vice-president's son. Hunter had no background in Burisma's industry (gas) before becoming an "advisor". It is documented that he did a little more than sit in an office and collect checks (still corruption, but maybe of the type that we should "accept" will go on in a country as large as the US). Hunter contacted the US Ambassador to Italy and asked them to do Burisma a favor.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/report-hunter-biden-sought-u-s-government-help-for-gas-company-burisma

Trump asked Zelensky to investigate the Burisma-Hunter connection. That triggered the first impeachment of Trump.

[David Nieporent]

Trump asked Zelensky to investigate the Burisma-Hunter connection. That triggered the first impeachment of Trump.

He did not. He extorted — not asked — Zelensky to announce an investigation, not to conduct one.

Hunter had no background in Burisma's industry (gas) before becoming an "advisor".

He was not an "advisor." He was a board member. It is quite common for corporate board members to have no background in the industry of the company whose board they're sitting on. The board's job isn't to run day-to-day operations. Al Gore was on the board of Apple. Nikki Haley was on the board of Boeing. The former president of Poland was added to Burisma's board at the same time that Hunter was.

[Ted Chen]

Sorry, I got it technically wrong. But making Hunter Biden a board member is even worse in terms of perceptions of corruption, right?

I am familiar with board members' functions. They are usually board members because they have some type of expertise (more laudable) or some connections (less laudable but this is how the real world works). But even if it is for "connections" it is usually business connections (less ethically wrong) or maybe more personal connections (by this I am using more of the Chinese use of guanxi, personal connections, which is a form of corruption). For the latter, Theranos is a poster child of abusing personal connections of board members, though my cursory following of the case, it appeared it was more Holmes using the board members names. Elsewhere, I have linked to Hunter Biden contacting the US Ambassador to Italy for Burisma while his father was vice president. What was Hunter Biden brining to the table to think he could convince the ambassdor? What role is Hunter Biden playing for Burisma?

Extorted is a very strong word. You call it extortion because maybe you are left of center, so not neutral and want to use strong rhetoric. I call it forcefully engaging in foreign policy because I am right of center.

"Zelensky to announce an investigation" This seems like an interesting position you made. I don't have the facts, but I doubt Trump would have objected to Zelensky starting an actual investigation. Are you sure that Trump wouldn't accept an investigation? I mean, if he is as corrupt as the left says, then wouldn't he want the investigation too?

[Jmaie]

No disagreement with what you've said, but is that an argument that Hunter's appointment is OK or is it an argument that boards hiring random (hopefully) influential connected persons is something corporate boards should abjure?

[Ted Chen]

I was just laying out various roles of board members as I see it and turning the question back to David.

My opinion is that Hunter’s appointment was not ok and the worst form of using personal connections. Hunter was only at Burisma because Burisma wanted to buy influence from Joe Biden. From everything I read, Hunter didn’t have any of his own personal connections outside of his father’s.

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/2025/05/27/trumps-pardon-for-former-virginia-sheriff-who-exchanged-badges-for-cash-makes-a-mockery-of-law-and-order/

"No MAGA left behind"

--Pardon Attorney Ed Martin

There is no ready remedy, but this is corrupt lawlessness. This is protecting the ingroup and not binding them.

[Kazinski]

Don't forget NBA Youngboy getting pardoned on a gun rap.

"CNN's Jasmine Wright reported on X, formerly Twitter, Wednesday, "President Trump has also issued a full pardon to rapper NBA YoungBoy (or YoungBoy Never Broke again lol), one of the most streamed rappers, who was convicted of possessing weapons as a felon."
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-pardons-rapper-nba-youngboy-2078232

Youngboy thanked Trump:
"I want to thank President Trump for granting me a pardon and giving me the opportunity to keep building — as a man, as a father, and as an artist, This moment means a lot. It opens the door to a future I've worked hard for and I am fully prepared to step into this."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I saw something about Trump's Memorial Proclamation and saw it was a prayer for peace. Promoting peace is a good way to honor Memorial Day. Still, it was not original.

Congress passed a joint resolution "requesting" presidents to encourage us to pray for peace. Nice sentiment. I rather them not do a miniature breach of the Establishment Clause to do it.

Congress shouldn't be in the business of encouraging prayer. Request the president to pass a Memorial Day resolution with a message involving peace. They can choose the details.

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2025/05/memorial-day-proclamation.html

I liked MLB having the players wear the traditional Memorial red poppy on their uniforms. Nice touch.

[Zarniwoop]

Wall Street has nailed it:

There’s a new trade on Wall Street: the TACO trade, standing for “Trump Always Chickens Out.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5320263-trump-tariff-trades-markets-rise/

[tylertusta]

That's actually pretty funny. Of course, all it takes is for Trump to not chicken out just one time for TACO investors to take some significant losses.

[Glaucomatose]

I mean, sure, but anyone betting that Trump would stick to his guns has been taking significant losses all year.

[Mr. Bumble]

Got a cite for that claim?

[Commenter_XY]

Really? Maybe you are in the red, sorry to see that. Many of us are well into black.

Why are you trading on politics, is my question?

[bernard11]

Index fund investors are not, I'm sorry to say, well into the black YTD. S&P 500 funds are up about 1.2%. Broader based funds are about the same.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172845463/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172845463.1.0_1.pdf

A good reminder that many people at the highest levels of right-wing politics, despite their pretensions to normalcy, are actually otherwise unemployable weirdos who have a lot more in common with the average criminal defendant referred for a competency exam than their voters.

[Estragon]

That’s… a lot of boozing in the office!

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Through many tears, she told me stories of Judd discussing sexual things with her, specifically regarding a disturbing sexual fantasy Judd had about me being violently anally raped by a cylindrical asteroid in front of my wife and children. According to this employee, Judd publicly described this in excruciating detail over a long period of time, to a group of OAG employees, Office of the Governor employee(s), federal judges, and other non-government employees at a table.
***
When she came back, people at the table harassed her, joking that she “couldn’t handle people talking about dicks.”

Buried story here: which federal judges (plural???) were at this table and were they part of the "people at the table" who harassed her?

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, people in politics, and especially high level politics, are not normal people as a rule. And mostly they're not normal in a really bad way.

Normal people don't WANT to get involved in politics! They avoid it like the plague.

That's one of the reasons we should give government as little power as possible. Because the people we're empowering when we empower government are really not right in the head most of the time.

[Glaucomatose]

These guys? No way.

Well, it's good to get an early start getting to know our next judges on the Fifth Circuit.

[John F. Carr]

From the "move fast and break laws" category:

The First Circuit rejected an interstate commerce and antitrust challenge to Nantucket's regulation of rental car businesses. In 1997 six businesses were granted licenses to rent cars. They and their successors are the only businesses that may legally rent cars on the island. The local government tolerates an unlicensed car rental platform. A local business was told to stop because it didn't have a license and new licenses would not be issued. It seems to me that Nantucket's refusal to enforce the law against hundreds of people renting out their cars should work against it. The court seemed to approve of non-enforcement. It's not really protectionism because the government looks the other way when residents break the law.

(The cap on the number of car rental businesses is separate from the cap on the number of vehicles. There were unused medallions.)

On the antitrust claim, the plaintiff failed to clearly assign its argument to one of the two legal categories: restraint of trade and monopolization. So plaintiff loses.

Becky's Broncos v. Nantucket, https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1649P-01A.pdf

[Moderation4ever]

Well Space X blew up another Starship. Now Space X is a private company and they can do what they like. Including making a great big pile of money and then burning it. I would not be an investor in such a company. I think that Space X, that is Elon Musk and some of his associates, are out ahead of their skies. I think they are attempting to launch a rocket that is just too big. It may be the case that these large rockets can someday be launched but I don't think that the technology is yet to a point that it will allow for successful launches.

[ThePublius]

"I don't think that the technology is yet to a point that it will allow for successful launches."

Based on what expertise? Are you a rocket scientist?

[Mr. Bumble]

No, he's a brain surgeon in search of a brain.
Guess he never saw all the films of the failures of early attempts at rocket launches, yet somehow we were able to get past that and send men to the moon.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, you're wrong here. I'm an engineer, and been interested in rocketry since the Apollo program, and your take here is uninformed.

If all Musk wanted was to make orbit with a so-so rocket, he'd have already done that. All he'd have to do is beef things up a bit, you know, add some margin here and there, and Starship would have been a fine disposable booster, it would already have been regularly carrying payload to space since last year, and cheaper than Falcon, which is already cheaper than all the other competition.

Instead his goal is an absolute marvel of a rocket, one that will totally revolutionize the rocket industry, by being completely reusable hundreds of times. By amortizing the original cost of the rocket over hundreds of launches instead of just one, he can reduce the marginal cost of launching into space to something approximating the cost of the fuel, you see, and that would make access to low earth orbit about as expensive as a long distance airline ticket, totally revolutionary.

To that end he needs absolutely unprecedented reliability. He doesn't just need to fix the failure modes that will get you every time, he needs to fix the ones that will get you one launch out of a hundred. So that you can treat a rocket more like a car, just refuel and go, repeatedly, with regularly scheduled maintenance, instead of throwing it away after one use, (As with most rockets.) or expensively refurbishing it after each use, as with his Falcon booster.

So, what he is doing here, is repeatedly pushing this rocket to it's limit, and seeing what breaks. Then he fixes that, launches again, and sees what breaks that time. The goal is that once he has a rocket that doesn't break under extreme conditions, under regular conditions it will be utterly reliable.

Most rocket companies wouldn't dare run a development program like this, because their design and build cycle is so insanely expensive that they HAVE to succeed the first time. But SpaceX's design cycle is a lot cheaper due to the use of welded stainless and in house competence, and he's got Falcon and Starlink as cash cows to fund it, so he can afford to approach it this way.

The reason the booster blew up this time, you know, is that they were comfortable enough with it's performance that they ran it in hot, instead of on a conservative trajectory, to deliberately break it, and see what needed to be improved.

And they're pulling in gigabytes of telemetry off starship, cameras all over it, it's heavily instrumented, so they'll know what broke this time, and next time it won't break. Just like this time it got way past what broke it last time.

It's a smart and daring approach to rocketry, but only Musk has the cash flow to afford doing it this way.

[Mr. Bumble]

Meanwhile, Bezos is launching "celebrities" in sub orbit.

[Moderation4ever]

I understand your point but in a way you sound a lot like what was the description of the Space Shuttle. That program was very carefully worked out and still had two disasters. The Apollo program was the same way two disasters, Apollo 1 and Apollo 13. You really cannot work out all the bugs. If as you suggest, Space X has worked out using Starship in a normal mode I think they should do that for a few years and then maybe begin pushing the limits.

[ducksalad]

If as you suggest, Space X has worked out using Starship in a normal mode I think they should do that for a few years and then maybe begin pushing the limits.

I'm not seeing it. Is there is some customer waiting that badly needs a non-reusable system that otherwise looks just like Starship? If not, no reason to divert effort into that. Conversely, the way you push the limits is by pushing the limits.

It's also worth remembering that the SpaceX development model - a lot of destructive tests with no chance or low chance of actually working - isn't that uncommon in other fields. It's just that a Starship test launch is a big deal covered by the media so you're aware of every "failure".

If there had been news articles every time Edison's lab had a light bulb filament flare out spectacularly, after the tenth or twelfth time an 1890s M4e might have written an op-ed saying he needed to back off and stop pushing the limits.

[Bob from Ohio]

Several early US rockets blew up on the pad or soon after launch. Guess we should have scrubbed that whole trip to the moon.

[Sarcastr0]

The criticism is not just 'oh there was a crash scrub the whole thing' it's that there's a flaw in Musks' development strategy that these failures point to.
That's what you should respond to; this is strawmanning.

But a certain kind of tool cannot let Musk fail because he's MAGA.

Some of the tools are claiming this is all just as planned by Musk. I don't think we're anywhere near tech readiness for trial-and-error design. If you think otherwise, present an argument. that isn't just appealing to Musk's authority.

Musk himself doesn't go so far as to say this is just as planned - he's simply minimizing the failure. Not much to be gleaned from that; it's what any company owner would say.

[Mr. Bumble]

Proving once again that you are and always will be Il Douche.

[Bob from Ohio]

"flaw in Musks' development strategy that these failures point to"

Made by people without the necessary expertise.

Certain kind of tool cannot let Musk suceed because he's MAGA

[Sarcastr0]

If you think otherwise, present an argument. that isn't just appealing to Musk's authority.

My criticisms are not Musk-specific. And go into detail about why I believe what I do.

Your praise, by contrast, is. And you offer no details at all other than accusing me of bias in a shallow, knee-jerk way that makes me wonder if you read the post you're replying to.

[Sarcastr0]

So, what he is doing here, is repeatedly pushing this rocket to it's limit, and seeing what breaks. Then he fixes that, launches again, and sees what breaks that time.

This is not smart or daring, it's *terrible* engineering R&D.

"Failure mode" engineering is the tactic the USSR used. Our open and more deliberate program surpassed and beat them to the moon because of it.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, do you run 5 companies as CEO, Sarcastr0? LMAO. I think Elon has you beat on engineering.

[tylertusta]

Huh? No.

The Soviets lost because landing men on the moon was damned hard and expensive to do with 1960's technology. Unlike the USA, the Soviets didn't have similar resources to spend on a prestige project such as a moonshot program as they discovered in the late 60's.

Their N1 rocket was extremely complex with thirty engines in the first stage(!). Their engineers didn't have enough time or resources to debug all of the problems before their leadership pulled the plug on the program to focus on more earthly concerns such as building more nuclear weapons and trying to paper over their growing economic woes.

The Soviets were enthralled with the 'good enough' ethos, which is why they went with ultimately more complicated engineering solutions. On paper, the N1 had aspects that would have been better than the Saturn V had it worked.

[Sarcastr0]

But their style of engineering absolutely was 'build as best as you can to do the most you can, and throw as many cosmonaut lives at the problem as it takes.' The Soviet space program had multiple siloed areas that competed with each other for resources, encouraging this tactic.
Because it was a secret program to enable their ignoring cosmonaut safety, we don't know how many it took.

The USSR mistook operational testing for experiment. The US had more resources, sure, but it had it's own challenges to overcome, being behind in launch tech, deciding to make their program open and public (making every failure politically costly), and dealing with a ton of fear-fueled political pressure to go fast.

Despite this, the US had the wisdom to take the time to run the Gemini program, rather than trying to go straight from Mercury to Apollo.
Because rather than try to go as far as we could as fast as we could, and learn from those failures, we grabbed a ton of foundational information on design and operation that made our Apollo a much more robust program than anything the USSR had put together.

So no, it's not a story of pure resource dominance. It's a story of a unified effort, and a well-founded strategy that included taking the time to build the knowledge needed to make informed design decisions, superior resources, and enough insulation from political needs to get going.
-----------
The success of Apollo created a problem, though - NASA spent the next 50 years trying to chase that same inspirational tentpole model without the resources.
The Space Shuttle did the inspiration right, but was a dangerous resource-suck.
The next Apollo culture nearly killed Space Station Freedom till we got International buy-in (including Russia lol).
The NASA Constellation Program was never going to happen as planned.

Since then, NASA has gotten much better at planning and staying on schedule/cost. I did a paper on their Instrument Cost Model, which uses Monte Carlo simulation to pretty great success, even given JWST's delays.

I also have a soft spot for their Cassini Probe, designed via the Cassini Resource Exchange, where instrument teams bid for mass their designs needed.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The Space Shuttle did the inspiration right, but was a dangerous resource-suck."

The chief difference between Apollo and the Shuttle is that Apollo had enough political backing that they didn't have to make stupid compromises. If you look at the problems with the Shuttle, they were basically all a result of engineering compromises that they knew at the time were a bad idea, but had to make for political reasons.

For instance, one failure was the seal on the segmented booster. But the booster was not originally supposed to be segmented! It was originally planned to be manufactured in one piece at the Cape. It ended up segmented in order that it could be manufactured in a particular Congressman's district, and the segments shipped by barge to the Cape.

The other failure was due to the incredibly fragile ceramic heat shield tiles being damaged by ice falling off the external tank during launch. Those tiles were something else, but why were they needed?

Because the airframe, instead of being built of very heat resistant titanium as originally intended, which would have allowed for the use of much more robust heat shielding, (Because it wouldn't need amazing insulating properties!) was built of aluminum, which would anneal at a very modest temperature. So it needed an amazingly good insulator for the heat shield, which was correspondingly fragile.

In fact, as soon as the Shuttle landed, it had to be hooked up to a truck that would pump refrigerated air through the airframe, to keep it cool while the heat from reentry soaked in through the tiles. Without doing this, the heat treat on the wings would be lost after one flight!

So, why aluminum, when they knew it should be titanium? Politically driven budget cuts, mostly.

[JohnSmith97]

Feel free to invest in SLS or Blue Orgin then.

[Sarcastr0]

Commercial space always seemed early to TRL to me, based on the government's desires.

[Kazinski]

Here is what Elon had to say about it:

"Starship made it to the scheduled ship engine cutoff, so big improvement over last flight! Also, no significant loss of heat shield tiles during ascent.

Leaks caused loss of main tank pressure during the coast and re-entry phase. Lot of good data to review.

Launch cadence for next 3 flights will be faster, at approximately 1 every 3 to 4 weeks."

So actually they have the launch part figured out, its the reentry that was the problem.

And to put the launch frequency into perspective, here was the turnaround for the space shuttle:
"The fastest turnaround for any shuttle in the history of the program was 54 days. And after the Challenger disaster, the fastest turnaround was 88 days — a far cry from what NASA officials thought they could accomplish."

They had problems with launch and reentry too. And in 2020 dollars it cost 49 billion to develop and launch the first space shuttle and 450 million for each mission.

[Kazinski]

As for the cost here is a comparison of Starship and Nasa's SLS:

Feature___Space Launch System____Starship
Payload Volume 988 cubic meters 1,083.5 cubic meters
Development Cost $25 billion $5 billion
Cost per launch $2 billion $100 million (currently, $2-$10 million is the target)**
Reusability Expendable/Not reusable Booster reusable (currently, full reusability is the target)

So Elon can have 20 Starship launches for every SLS launch, and as he brings the costs down 100.

[tylertusta]

Wow. With expected efficiencies like that I'd be building Starships like sausages, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Commercial space always seemed early to TRL to me, based on the government's desires.

Thinking you're higher TRL than you are is how you get catastrophic failures, unexpectedly slow progress (because you need to develop foundational knowledge you didn't expect), and badly developed strategies (because you assume too many things you don't yet know).

Until recently, government requirements were driven by 'why is this better than paying Russia.' These days, though, necking down the product to what we had might be a good chance for us to make a market, as we build the required fundamental research foundation for the more advanced stuff.

Space launch and operations is a tricky market because government demand and accepted cost can be inelastic on some items (I'm thinking DoD). Which borks the supply/demand curve and makes for perverse incentives.

[Brett Bellmore]

The key point here that you seem to be missing is that the government isn't the primary market for space launches anymore. Most of the traffic to space is now commercial.

[Ted Chen]

"I would not be an investor in such a company. "

Yes, please don't invest in SpaceX. It's a terrible company. It will never make any money. Leave it to somebody dumb like me to buy their stock.

Sorry for the sarcasm. I will be buying SpaceX stock the first day possible. SpaceX is doing nearly 90% of all launches in the world. Yes, SpaceX is doing 9 times as many launches as every other organization in the world. Yes, that is almost all Falcon rockets and not StarShip. But it shows that SpaceX is able to build the best rockets in the world.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/05/spacex-launching-87-90-of-all-orbital-payload-in-2024.html

[Mr. Bumble]

"But it shows that SpaceX is able to build the best rockets in the world."
...and land them and reuse them.

[Ted Chen]

Yes, I forgot to include that really important point.

[John F. Carr]

In more First Circuit news, Gonzales v. Raich is still good law despite plaintiffs' desire to sell marijuana in intrastate commerce. The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment did not eliminate a rational basis for Congress to regulate personal use, much less the commercial activities plaintiffs wanted. Nor did the growing trend of states to relax restrictions on marijuana create a substantive due process right to grow and sell it.

Canna Provisions v. Bondi,
https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1628P-01A.pdf

How many votes on the Supreme Court to permit commercial cultivation and intrastate sale of marijuana? I'm not sure there are any.

[SRG2]

RFK jr's MAHA report is FOS.

The MAHA Report Cites Studies That Don’t Exist

The Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” report misinterprets some studies and cites others that don’t exist, according to the listed authors.

The most obvious explanation is that much if not all the report was written by ChatGPT or one of the other AIs prone to hallucinations.

[David Nieporent]

Um, RFKJ is far more prone to hallucinations than any AI is.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't know about hallucinations, but he's definitely got some Cohones wanting Vaccines to go through the same testing your Flonase or Viagra had to pass before being sold to a trusting public. Given the power of Big Pharma I hope RFK Jr stays away from Hotel Kitchens.

[ThePublius]

I have a question for the lawyers. It pertains to the principle of "finders, keepers."

What if you are at the beach and you find the skeleton of someone who died 200 years ago, washed up on the beach or uncovered by the surf. Do you own it? What can you do if "authorities" take it and refuse to return it to you?

[Frank Drackman]

"Asking for a Friend"??
I'd keep it, I don't think the heavy remains will come in for a while.