Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

Two days ago The Guardian published what I think is a major story which got little notice. The Guardian published what looks like proof that the Regents of the University of Michigan have been paying large sums for private undercover surveillance of students who support pro-Palestinian positions. FIRE is apparently also aware of the allegations, and the University seems to have acknowledged at least some of them. Some students have suffered disciplinary consequences. There are allegations that this was done with involvement by the FBI.

Here is a link to the story:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/06/michigan-university-gaza-surveillance

[Dr. Ed 2]

I really don't see what the issue is -- UMass Amherst was doing this to me 15 years ago.

The only difference is that (a) it's the left's ox that is now getting gored, and (b) the left isn't being as meticulously careful to avoid doing *anything* that is a violation of any university rule.

And why shouldn't those of us who subjected to this, without anyone caring, now enjoy schadenfreude?

And as to FIRE, I told FIRE that this was happening, and they didn't seem to care. So why do they care now?

Why do terrorists have more rights than loyal Americans???

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, I'm going to say this: When they came after me for quoting the King James Bible, I pointed out that the Koran was a lot more bloodthirsty and, by their standards, they needed to stamp out Islam.

I am GLAD this is happening because maybe now questions will be asked about the underlying mentality involved.

[Magister]

While one can easily see why FIRE would not care, I am curious as to what Dr. Ed 2 quoted from the King James Bible and in what context that caused "them" to come after him. I expect it was one of the various passages that threaten rape, directed at the women Dr. Ed 2 hates so much.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exodus 22.2

[not guilty]

That verse states: "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him."

What is the context here? Where and to whom was this quotation offered? What did UMass Amherst do that would have merited FIRE's attention?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It will be in my book...

[Brett Bellmore]

Seems a bit self-contradictory. Furtively intimidating people, how's that work?

"Among those who say they are being regularly followed is Katarina Keating, part of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (Safe), a local chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine."

Ah. So U of M is investigating students in groups associated with a Hamas front. OK, that actually makes sense to do.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — On what basis—other than advocacy against Israeli attacks in Gaza—do you allege connection to Hamas? Are Students Allied for Freedom and Equality controlled by Hamas, trained by Hamas, funded by Hamas? I don't know. Do you?

If that group is not materially a part of Hamas, how do you justify secret law-enforcement surveillance based only on its advocacy? Fifty years ago it was a big deal when the Church Committee brought stuff like that to light, and laws were passed to get rid of it.

Now you say, "Bring that all back?" You seem willing to advocate for domestic secret police action on principle, without even any cognizable justification except prohibited advocacy.

[bye]

Then just say 'No demonstrations at school while you attend this school"

[David Nieporent]

A private school might be able to say that; a public school obviously cannot.

[Frank Drackman]

Why not, David Nevercoherent?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, he's actually right -- anything a public univ does is considered state action, and the 14th Amd applies the 1st Amd to state action.

[bye]

It obviously can, the point of a school is not demonstrating. You are not taking away a right by saying 'if you want to demonstrate do not do it on school time or property"
Are you allowed to demonstrate in a hospital emergency room.?
Many cases would show the tendentious nature of your statement.
Let's generalize : Is every right in the Bill of Rights exercisable at any time or place on a public campus? NOOOOOOO

[Brett Bellmore]

Students for Justice in Palestine

Deliberately obscure funding. A history of organizing violent actions. Praises the October 7th atrocities by Hamas. Puts actual terrorists in organizational positions.

Gee, I wonder why affiliation with this group would suggest to a school administration that somebody was sketchy?

[hobie]

What about all the people who advocate for, and fund the advocacy of, the razing of Gaza and the forced famines there? That's just terrorism as well

[Brett Bellmore]

Hm, do they have a history of organizing crimes in the US, the way SJP does? If not, I'm not seeing the parallel.

The problem with SJP isn't their advocacy, it's that they are a literal terrorist front that has a track record of organizing criminal actions on college campuses. Trespassing, assault, vandalism.

If you're a student or a student organization, and you affiliate with a group that has a history of encouraging students to act illegally on campus, why is a college administration NOT supposed to be concerned?

[Sarcastr0]

If you want to call an organization a terrorist front, there's a process for that.

Your vibes are not the process.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, and I'm really going to have a laugh when you're complaining that the process got followed and the federal government so officially designated them. When they get around to it.

That link I provided has a nice list of SJP activities, relating their track record of organizing 'protests' that involved criminal acts, and their public support for terrorism. A university doesn't have to wait on the government getting around to noticing that they're a Hamas front group, before responding to their public record of criminality.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think I have a lot of track with SJP?

Trump ordering they be so designated isn't the process but if there's sufficient factual predicate lets go.

I also like that an official determination can be challenged in court.

Prevents authoritarian abuse of process.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, the paranoia that one of them will be the next Virginia Tech Shooter -- forgetting that VT made him onto that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If you want to call an organization a terrorist front, there’s a process for that."

There is a process to let Brett call an organization a terrorist front?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Deliberately obscure funding.

Don't try to sell that complaint in MAGA-land.

[ReaderY]

It’s been pretty well established that that the large numbers of tents and other supplies that student encampments set up shortly after Oct 7 were not funded by the students themselves, and the fact that they were all uniform was not a simple coincidence. It’s also pretty well established that the talking points were remarkably similar to ones Hamas’ propaganda division planned for them.

[bernard11]

It’s been pretty well established that that the large numbers of tents and other supplies that student encampments set up shortly after Oct 7 were not funded by the students themselves, and the fact that they were all uniform was not a simple coincidence.

Has it been? By who, on what evidence? I spent some time wandering around one of the encampments, just to see what was going on. The tents there were not, in fact, uniform. They were a mismatched collection of various colors, sizes, and states of repair - maybe what students who like to go camping would have.

The scene was calm, and the pro-palestinian encampment had signs on the fence asking people to be respectful of the nearby (smaller) pro-Israel encampment.

Admittedly, a sample of one, observed over a fairly short period of time involved

It’s also pretty well established that the talking points were remarkably similar to ones Hamas’ propaganda division planned for them.

Again, by who? Of course pro-Palestinian groups are going to have similar views, and "talking points," true or false. That doesn't mean the whole thong was centrally coordinated by Hamas.

And if there was outside funding, what makes you so sure it came from Hamas?

[Don Nico]

"On what basis...funded by Hamas? "
Stephen, I think that is the correct question.
That question is not answered by following students, but by following the money.
While I have my suspicions, like you, I don't know.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So, like me, you are opposed to the Behavioral Intervention Teams.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Furtively intimidating people, how’s that work?

Bellmore — Know anyone who can remember East Germany?

[NoJodas]

Been there. Went through Check Point Charlie, from W Berlin to E Berlin, located in East Germany. Dreadful place. West Berlin was bright, colorful, busy with commerce and smiling faces, East Berlin was bombed out from WWII where the Commies didnt even bother to clean up the E Berlin sector. Was happy to leave Berlin, jump on a German flight into Frankfurt and breathe freely again

[bye]

My reading is : this is Univ of Michigan guilt acknowledged. Either you allow demonstrations or you don't. Really, you should not. You don't go to riots to do your math homework and you don't go to school to riot. SImple but conforms to reality

[David Nieporent]

Really, you should not.

First amendment still confuses you?

[Joe_dallas]

the word peacefully appears in 1A

As bye notes - you dont go to riots to do your math homework

[David Nieporent]

The word peacefully does not in fact appear in 1A.

[Mr. Bumble]

"First Amendment Text

The First Amendment text reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

[David Nieporent]

Thank you for quoting the thing that confirms what I already posted.

[Mr. Bumble]

Something you could have done if you weren't such a pompous dick.
You could also have noted that there is some ambiguity about the interchangeability of the words.
Most explanations of the right under the First Amendment use "peacefully" as a descriptor.
Apparently "peaceably" is the term use in matters of law.

[Joe_dallas]

Best D nonimportant can do is find a typo - yet remains completely wrong on the substantive issue.

The LA rioters are not peacably assembling.

[David Nieporent]

The LA rioters are not peacably assembling.

What the fuck does that have to do with the above exchange, which is about the University of Michigan, you pathetic cowardly lying troll who pretends to be an expert in everything despite being a bookkeeper who knows nothing about anything?

[bye]

First amendment is widely circumscribed. Your constant mistake is to say any crime becomes actually a 1A case if someone spoke.
You can't demonstrate in a college lecture hall on Physics, 1A protecting the teacher and forbidding the demonstration.

[Dr. Ed 2]

UnConstitutional.

[Supremacy Claus]

Steven supports Hamas, it seems.

[Bunny495]

Back in the day (1968) I was in a car with the head of the SDS Anti-Draft Union and a few others driving from UCB to Oakland for a demonstration when we were pulled over by Oakland LEOs. It was a Mercedes 220D and like most diesel engines produced some smoke which was the reason the LEO gave for stopping us. The LEO then proceeded to order the driver to prove the turn signals and brake lights worked. Sometime later I related this story to my father and told him I was convinced the FBI was aware of what happened and had a dossier on me to which my father replied, 'you are really a nobody if the FBI does not have a file on you'. Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was told the same thing about the Campus BIT.

[Bored Lawyer]

Whether these groups have a direct link to Hamas or not, they are organized and have a history of criminal activities, harassing people on campus, obstructing access to buildings, disturbing classes, and destroying property. That is more than enough to justify surveillance.

[David Nieporent]

I don't like these people or their viewpoint, but very very few of them are engaged in anything beyond very petty offenses. Camping out and thus blocking some of the paths through campus, or disrupting an occasional class or study session, can certainly justify student discipline, but is not really the stuff of law enforcement dossiers.

Observing and filming them at the campus demonstrations may well be reasonable — for some reason, progressives don't seem to realize that the point of public protests is to be seen — but following them around off-campus and surveilling them seems a bit much.

[Bored Lawyer]

"but very very few of them are engaged in anything beyond very petty offenses."

"Very few" means that some are. And they are an organized group, not just some kid spraying random graffiti on a wall. Sorry, given their history, some surveillance is in order.

[NoJodas]

They literally took as hostages the janitorial staff at Columbia U including assault and battery of them, all minorities. Surveil them up the ying yang as the terrorists that they are

https://nypost.com/2025/04/28/us-news/columbia-janitors-sue-protesters-who-allegedly-held-them-hostage-in-hamilton-hall-takeover-while-revealing-chilling-maps-used-in-attack/

[Sarcastr0]

This logic would condemn every protest.

“At least 5% of people are uncontrollable assholes and will behave badly in any situation, let alone a high-tension one. So a large protest without ANYONE throwing shit, yelling slurs or for violence, etc. is likely not achievable.”

https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social/post/3lr7bt7al4k2w

[Dr. Ed 2]

All the group's leadership has to do is make it clear that the group's leadership won't put up with any of that. I never had a problem...

[Bored Lawyer]

"for some reason, progressives don’t seem to realize that the point of public protests is to be seen"

How quaint. They realize. Their purpose is to intimidate, but not be held accountable for their actions if they go over the line.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Historians will note that the Mexican flags at ICE protests were a bad idea.

[bye]

But you are unknowingly saying the Broken Windows theory is wrong. This proves it isn't.

"social scientists, James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, best known by the phrase, “broken windows theory”. Looking at the growing crime rates in American cities back in the 1970s, Wilson and Kelling concluded that the reduction in enforcement of lower level property crimes created a foundation of lawlessness that enabled higher degrees of felony."

Plus, many Americans are visibly becoming like the construction workers that beat up spoiled college hippies in the 60's

You need to get out more.

[not guilty]

In Khalil Abrego Garcia's habeas corpus action in Maryland, the Defendants have filed what purports to be a Notice of Compliance with Preliminary Injunction and Request for Stay of All Case Deadlines. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.181.0_3.pdf Counsel for Abrego Garcia have filed a response. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.186.0_1.pdf

This response states, "In its latest act of contempt, the Government arranged for Abrego Garcia’s return, not to Maryland in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive to “ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,” but rather to Tennessee so that he could be charged with a crime in a case that the Government only developed while it was under threat of sanctions." Quoting Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 145 S. Ct. 1017, 1018 (2025).

As SCOTUS has opined, "A court may make an adjudication of contempt and impose a contempt sanction even after the action in which the contempt arose has been terminated." Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx, 496 U.S. 384, 396 (1990).

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is unmitigated bullshyte.

[Commenter_XY]

This is almost comical. St Abrego is coming back, in chains. Yes, the serial wife beating, human trafficking illegal alien gangbanger is making an encore appearance in the US court system.

A duly constituted TN jury will try his sorry M-13 terrorist ass, and convict him. Then St Abrego will be deported back home, in chains. Maybe Judge Boasberg can bring party favors to see him off.

What a judicially caused spectacle (aside from St Abrego being an illegal alien who should not be here), a complete waste of time and money.

[Drewski]

You've written the best part of a novel gloating over his illegal removal and now it's very fun to watch you get incoherently mad over his return. You're so upset you're losing your fluency at English.

You won't score any troll points with, "Abrego Garcia is going to face due process under the law, how do you like that, libs?" That just means my side won and yours lost.

[Supremacy Claus]

The return of Abrego will generate $10 million in lawyer jobs in trials, defenses, and appeals. Do you now understand due process? The lawyers is the Democrat Party. They want 20 million trials of illegals, including of the agents of China, of Venezuela, of Cuba, of Iran, defenses, and appeals. They keep the ballooning of census blue populations, their tax sucking parasites, and generate $billions in worthless lawyer make work jobs.

[not guilty]

"The return of Abrego will generate $10 million in lawyer jobs in trials, defenses, and appeals. Do you now understand due process? The lawyers is the Democrat Party. [sic] They want 20 million trials of illegals, including of the agents of China, of Venezuela, of Cuba, of Iran, defenses, and appeals."

Yeah, right. And who is going to pony up that $10 million?

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is why we put a 50% tax on wire transfers out of the country.

[bernard11]

This is why we put a 50% tax on wire transfers out of the country.

There is no such tax. I wire money abroad frequently. No tax.

[David Nieporent]

The return of Abrego will generate $10 million in lawyer jobs in trials, defenses, and appeals.

It will, of course, generate $0 in lawyer jobs. Anyone representing Garcia is going to be doing so pro bono.

[bernard11]

XY has been consistency incapable of understanding that no one is celebrating Abrego Garcia.

Most people who object to his treatment are upset about the lack of due process, the police-state methods used by ICE and Trump, and Trump's obnoxious, lying, claims about his inability to get him back here.

XY cheers for this treatment, laws and Constitution notwithstanding. He is quite confident Garcia is guilty of whatever Trump claims. No steenking evidence required.

[bye]

Okay, but 'vindicating his rights' is going to "worsen his life'
YOu will of course feel better, He won't.

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court said of Judge Xinis’s April 4, 2025 order: “The order properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 604 U. S. ___, 145 S. Ct. 1017, 1018 (2025). DOJ attorneys thereafter squealed like Bobby Trippe that procuring the Petitioner’s return was impossible because he was being held by a separate, independent sovereign.

The return of Abrego Garcia shows conclusively that counsel for the Defendants in the habeas corpus action were lying through their teeth. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign deserves to be disbarred by disciplinary authorities in Arizona for lying to Judge Xinis and to other courts.

The DOJ’s obduracy and contumacious conduct gave rise to harm and expense to Abrego Garcia and his habeas counsel. Remedies for civil contempt may include ordering the contemnor to reimburse the complainant for losses sustained and for reasonable attorney’s fees. In re General Motors Corp., 61 F.3d 256, 259 (4th Cir. 1995). That remains true even in light of Abrego Garcia’s return. As the Fourth Circuit opined in In re GMC, supra:

The nature of the contempt proceeding before the court is compensatory in nature, and unlike contempt proceedings that are coercive in nature, “the termination of the underlying action out of which the contempt hearing arose does not moot the contempt proceeding.” Petroleos Mexicanos v. Crawford Enterprises, Inc., 826 F.2d 392, 400 (5th Cir.1987). This critical distinction between coercive civil contempt proceedings and compensatory civil contempt proceedings “rests upon the fact that the harm or injury that gives rise to the need for compensation continues unredressed at the end of the underlying litigation while the need for getting a party to act in the underlying litigation necessarily terminates when that litigation ends.” Id.

61 F.3d at 259, n.3.

[Brett Bellmore]

All the DOJ has to do is say, "We were directed by the Court to ensure that his case was handled as it would have been if he hadn't been sent to El Salvador. Indicting him for multiple crimes IS exactly that: Had we not deported him, we would have indicted him."

[Armchair]

Moreover, the DOJ can say that there are few legal mechanisms to get a sovereign country to hand over one of its citizens to the United States. But one of those that is well precedented is extradition for crimes. So, the DOJ used that mechanism.

[Michael P]

I wonder what the court really expected when it ordered the government to use all available mechanisms to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return.

[Drewski]

"the DOJ used that mechanism"

Then it will be no trouble for them to produce the extradition warrant. Perhaps you can share a link to it, or maybe just to the docket if it's sealed.

[Commenter_XY]

Exactly, this is what they missed. Now St Abrego can be put on trial, convicted, and deported (again). It will be a spectacle, and show yet again, why we don't want illegal aliens.

[not guilty]

This matter may or may not go to trial. As I wrote on comment threads last week, I anticipate that there will be a pretrial motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution in retaliation for the accused’s exercise of his constitutional right of access to the federal courts. A criminal prosecution which would not have been initiated but for vindictiveness is constitutionally prohibited. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 27-28 (1974); Bragan v. Poindexter, 249 F.3d 476, 481 (6th Cir. 2000).

Prosecutorial vindictiveness is indeed hard to prove. A defendant may establish prosecutorial vindictiveness through one of two approaches. First, a defendant may demonstrate “actual vindictiveness,” i.e., he may establish through objective evidence that a prosecutor acted in order to punish the defendant for standing on his legal rights. This showing, however, is “exceedingly difficult to make.” Bragan, 249 F.3d at 481 quoting United States v. Meyer, 810 F.2d 1242, 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

Second, a defendant may establish that, in the particular factual situation presented, there existed a “realistic likelihood of vindictiveness” for the prosecutor’s action. A court may only presume an improper vindictive motive when a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness exists. The accused must establish that (1) the prosecutor has “some stake” in deterring the accused’s exercise of his rights and (2) the prosecutor’s conduct was somehow “unreasonable.” Id., at 481-482.

Once a court has found that a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness exists, the government bears the burden of disproving it or justifying the challenged governmental action. In the Sixth Circuit, “only objective, on-the-record explanations can suffice to rebut a finding of realistic likelihood of vindictiveness.” Id., at 482, quoting United States v. Andrews, 633 F.2d 449, 456 (6th Cir. 1980) (en banc), cert. denied by, Brooks v. United States, 450 U.S. 927 (1981).

The federal government was on notice of the traffic stop of Abrego Garcia since November 30, 2022, the day of the stop. The DOJ did not indict until May 21, 2025. A 16 year veteran of the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Middle District of Tennessee, chief of the criminal division, announced his resignation on that day. ABC News reports:

The decision to pursue the indictment against Abrego Garcia led to the abrupt departure of Ben Schrader, a high-ranking federal prosecutor in Tennessee, sources briefed on Schrader’s decision told ABC News. Schrader’s resignation was prompted by concerns that the case was being pursued for political reasons, the sources said.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/mistakenly-deported-kilmar-abrego-garcia-back-us-face/story?id=121333122

At least six alleged co-conspirators have not been charged. Abrego Garcia was himself not charged until several weeks after he initiated and pursued an action for writ of habeas corpus in Maryland and embarrassed the DOJ before every court that considered the matter, up to and including the Supreme Court. The Attorney General has taken to national media airwaves to taint the prospective jury pool by bringing up allegations of uncharged misconduct which may not be admissible at a jury trial.

These facts are plainly sufficient to establish the existence of at least a “realistic likelihood of vindictiveness,” and they may well be sufficient to show actual vindictiveness. Resolution of a motion to dismiss would require an evidentiary hearing.

[David Nieporent]

All the DOJ has to do is say, “We were directed by the Court to ensure that his case was handled as it would have been if he hadn’t been sent to El Salvador. Indicting him for multiple crimes IS exactly that: Had we not deported him, we would have indicted him."

Yes, all the DOJ has to do is lie. That's been the case from the beginning.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The bare fact of Garcia’s return is far from “conclusive evidence” that the DAAG “lied”, but it is evidence. It could have been coincidence, for example...

But we all know what the Trump Administration is doing, and why they are doing it. That’s really all that matters.

[David Nieporent]

Garcia's lawyers have pointed out to Xinis that a week after DOJ had secretly indicted him in Tennessee, they were still making filings in Xinis's court claiming they had no way to get him back.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That is more than "the bare fact of Garcia's return", which is the statement I was responding to, but it is also somewhat subject to what exactly the government put in those filings. I still think there are bigger fish to fry.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The return of Abrego Garcia shows conclusively that counsel for the Defendants in the habeas corpus action were lying through their teeth."

How so? Which statements were lies? What is the evidence that they were lies? Be specific.

[Frank Drackman]

St Abrego in Vincoli, great name for a Church

[bye]

My Latin makes me think this a play on 'St Peter in Chains"
Sancti Petri ad Vincula

[Armchair]

There are few good reasons for one country to "demand" another country hand over that country's citizens.

But of those good reasons is extradition for crimes committed. That would give the US the right to demand Garcia be handed over, via the treaties it has signed with El Salvador.

Such an extradition for criminal behavior "facilitates" his transfer to the US.

[Sarcastr0]

You, 2 months ago:

"This is an extremely dangerous separation of powers doctrine that Ilya appears to be proposing. In short, does he actually believe a district court judge can order…

1. The President of the United States to demand a foreign country release one of the foreign country’s own civilians from incarceration?

What else can the district court judge do?

Can the district court judge order sanctions be made against the foreign country if it it doesn’t agree? Can the district court judge order the US Military take direct action against the foreign country?

Ilya is correct here…much is at stake. But in the very much the wrong direction."

Not a problem anymore, I guess.

That a tool.

[Armchair]

You're missing the rest of that statement, where I mention criminal behavior.

Selectively quoting is a form of misdirection.

[Don Nico]

What else is new?

[Sarcastr0]

I quoted your entire comment.
You had one other comment on that post, on a different subject.

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/15/trump-takes-big-step-towards-defying-court-orders-in-garcia-abrego-case/?comments=true#comment-11005063

Did you think I didn’t have the receipts?

[Armchair]

Since you've apparently bookmarked all my threads from 2 months ago, you can now find the one where I mentioned criminal behavior.

I haven't bothered to memorize and bookmark them all.

[David Nieporent]

But of those good reasons is extradition for crimes committed. That would give the US the right to demand Garcia be handed over, via the treaties it has signed with El Salvador.

That is not actually correct. Remember how you people kept saying, "He's a Salvadoran citizen in a Salvadoran prison"? Well, that was meaningless in the context of the discussion we were having, but it's applicable in the context of extradition; the U.S.-El Salvador extradition treaty does not give the U.S. the right to demand that El Salvador hand over a Salvadoran citizen. (Of course, we can always "demand" anything — but that's in the same way that we could have demanded Garcia's return even before he was indicted.)

[Armchair]

ARTICLE I
It is agreed that the Government of the United States and the Government of El Salvador shall, upon mutual requisition duly made as herein provided, deliver up to justice any person
who may be charged with, or may have been convicted of any of the crimes specified in Article II of this Treaty committed within the jurisdiction of one of the Contracting Parties, who shall
seek an asylum or shall be found within the territories of the other, provided that such surrender shall take place only upon such evidence of criminality, as according to the laws of
the place where the fugitive or person so charged shall be found, would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime or offense had been there committed.

Things like "treaty commitments" are important.

[bernard11]

There are few good reasons for one country to “demand” another country hand over that country’s citizens.

No demand was necessary. Trump only needed to ask.

[Armchair]

When the POTUS "asks" for something....it's important to consider the power disparity. That disparity means that "asking" is more of a demand in many contexts.

[bernard11]

True. But that merely reinforces my point.

A simple request would have done the job.

[Shoota1488]

any white american who supports this is a race traitor. look at abrego. he's not a spaniard. he's nearly a full blood injun. these defective bipeds are genetic drunks and wife abusers.

we have our own worthless savages, we don't need more.

[windycityattorney]

"we have our own worthless savages..."

Indeed. They even comment at the Volokh conspiracy website and use terms like 'race traitor.'

[Dr. Ed 2]

What Federal agency investigates voter fraud?

If one had absolute proof that Massachusetts was registering people who don't exist to vote, whom would a civic-minded person report that to?

[A Japanese Student]

"What Federal agency investigates voter fraud?"

Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

"If one had absolute proof that Massachusetts was registering people who don’t exist to vote, whom would a civic-minded person report that to?"

Massachusetts authorities, or the Civil Rights Decision, or the courts (assuming you have standing). (That said, why would registration of "people who don't exist" matter in practice? If they don't exist, they cannot vote or request an absentee ballot anyway.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Someone else can vote in their name -- MA does not require voter ID.

[A Japanese Student]

Well, I'm not familiar with the exact process for voting there, so I'm not going to comment. Another person from Massachusetts can explain.

My view still hasn't changed - photo ID and voter registration are both unnecessary. They can register at birth, and if people move, the records transfer as well. You can't get a registration unless 1) you are just born or became a citizen, or 2) you show a certificate from your previous jurisdiction.

[Michael P]

US governments don't have specific registries of where people in the US live, or of all citizens. The kind of registration you suggest simply doesn't exist here.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The kind of registration you suggest simply doesn’t exist here."
Yet.

[Krayt]

I moved to the Netherlands for a while decades back. It was interesting to have to go register at two different government agencies. It was my understanding it had nothing to do with being a foreign national.

[Frank Drackman]

See Frank, Anne

[bernard11]

Trump and Patel are definitely working on it, though.

[ducksalad]

Depends on the nature of your “absolute” proof.

If the proof is merely that you know about someone who died or moved and is still getting a registration card, just call your local election office. They’d probably appreciate the update. They have a standard procedure for checking, which they’ll follow.

If the proof is that you uncovered the secret documents proving a statewide conspiracy to load the voter rolls with fabricated names, then A Japanese Student had the ethically correct answer. But first consider two things: talking about real conspiracies puts a target on your back; while talking about non-existent conspiracies puts you in a behavioral center. As a practical matter it might be best to just not talk.

If the proof is that you did your own “test” by successfully registering a fake name, my advice is to burn any evidence you have. Handwrite (no computer files!) a polite letter to the local election office, using the fake name, saying you’ve moved out of MA. Drive to NH and drop it in a public mailbox. Lie low and hope it blows over.

IANAL.

[Moderation4ever]

Well said. The reality is that "absolute proof" tends to be absolute BS. I would certainly like to see what DE2 calls absolute proof.

[Zarniwoop]

Something he remembers hearing about a decade ago from his father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I can only say that when I notified MY local election office that my father was dead, and my brother, sister, and mother had all moved, and yet they were all still listed in the precinct poll book, they ignored it.

Maybe that was just a local issue.

[hobie]

Why you preoccupied with voter fraud in Massachusetts? We still have to find out who tried to steal the 2020 election and by what means?

[Glaucomatose]

Ed is convinced that there might be as many as nine Republicans in Massachusetts, not seven.

[Frank Drackman]

Reagan carried MA in 84’ things change, wasn’t too long ago Florida and Ohio were “Swing” States

[bernard11]

Why you preoccupied with voter fraud in Massachusetts?

Voter fraud in MA pretty is pretty useless, at least in major elections. Anyone who decides that pushing Trump from 36% to 38% is the key to the kingdom is pretty dumb, and likely couldn't implement whatever plan they have in mind.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Anyone see the live Broadway telecast of, Good Night, and Good Luck? Any reviews from the commenters?

[Dr. Ed 2]

What's not mentioned about McCarthy is that he was a hopeless alcoholic, even by the standards of the 1950s when a couple of beers at lunch was expected of everyone.

He was drunk, if you look at his face in the movies of his rants, you can see it.

And there really were commies -- we know this from both the Verona project and then the Soviet archives.

[Frank Drackman]

And you know this how? It’s like me saying you’re an Alcoholic because most of your posts sound like the ravings of intoxication rather than garden variety stupidity. He died from Hepatitis B, at the time most commonly acquired from blood transfusions(which were often given as a “pick me up” the beginning of blood doping) rather than IV drug use as it is today(or can you tell the Senator was an addict also?)

[Brett Bellmore]

The Death of ‘Tailgunner Joe’ McCarthy

You probably want to take issue with something less well documented, than Joseph McCarthy being an alcoholic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"That fever probably was triggered by severe symptoms of alcohol withdrawal, with seizures and delirium tremens, or DTs, which in that era killed a third of alcoholic patients."

The 1/3 mortality of that era I did not know.

But the man was both a veteran and a US Senator, and this was only 15 years after the war had ended -- much like they didn't put "drunk driving" as the cause of an accident back then, they didn't always write other things.

And if it really was Hepatitis B from transfusions, why were they giving him transfusions???

[Frank Drackman]

DT's still has a high mortality rate, it doesn't know it's 2025 and people aren't supposed to die from DT's anymore.
Maybe you'd have known if you had gone to Med School instead of Ed School, it was one of the most common things we treated in the 1980's (soft restraints, minimal stimuli, "Banana IV Bag", and the Librium (first marked Benzodiazepine) drip (although a rural FP I did a rotation with used "D5-Alcohol" (5gms of Dextrose, don't remember the Alcohol proof)
Funny thing, DT's is a Boner-Fide Medical Emergency, with a high mortality rate, Opiate Withdrawal isn't (another of the inaccuracies in "Midnight Express) The Alcoholics family's would be angry we were keeping Granddad in the ICU, the Heroin Addicts girlfriend angry because we were kicking her boyfriend out of the ER.

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Read my comment, Doctor No Attention Span, I said back in the 50's Transfusions were often given as a "Pick me up", and a extra unit or 2 will do wonders for your aerobic capacity (You see, your Blood has this chemical we call "Hemo-Globin" and this "Hemo-Globin" carries a substance we call "Oxygen"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can Frank say "cause of death ~18 months later?"

[David Nieporent]

What’s not mentioned about McCarthy is that he was a hopeless alcoholic,

As I've noted before, there are two versions of Dr. Ed:

1) "Remember that [something Dr. Ed made up.]"
2) "Nobody remembers that [something everyone on the planet remembers.]"

This is an instance of #2. Hell, McCarthy's alcohol abuse is mentioned multiple times in his Wikipedia article alone.

[Frank Drackman]

What an hour long Circle-Jerk, Anderson Cooper was positively giddy over George Clooneys suits, the chick playing Wershba Was pretty hot though, about as historically accurate as Oliver Stone’s JFK

[SRG2]

My mother watched it in England and was very impressed

[Bunny495]

No question it was groundbreaking in being the first nationally televising a nonmusical Broadway play. The production values were top tier with twenty cameras being used and historically appropriate lighting and props. Critics questioned some camera choices that at times focused too much on Clooney at the expense of other actors and action on the screen. While Clooney's performance received generally good reviews many critics thought the play was 'dry' and 'preachy' and the pacing was slow. The lack of character development was also mentioned by many critics. It was definitely a commercial success taking in a cool four million in a week. From a bigger perspective it definitely had a political slant that would make one side happy and be mostly ignored by the other side.

[A Japanese Student]

Supreme Court of Japan was supposed to decide cases asking whether pawnbrokers are subject to interest-rate regulation. Appellants are the plaintiff-borrowers, and the appellees are the defendant-pawnbrokers. However, some time ago, they cancelled the oral arguments. Lawyers are speculating if the pawnbrokers unilaterally settled the case (by agreeing to pay the sum requested) to avoid an unfavorable precedent.

Is this permissible in the US? That is, in jurisdictions where the plaintiff must plead a specific sum of money (assuming that exists in the US), can the defendant pay that sum and seek to dismiss the case? (Rule 68 doesn’t seem to cover this, because the plaintiff cannot decline this in Japan.)

[Frank Drackman]

As the "Silent Partner" in an ATL Pawn Shop (and we're still "Pawn Shops" here, not "Short Term Loans" or some other crap) I can tell you Jaw-Jaw Law limits us to 25% (a month) for the first 3 months, then 12.5% a month after that, but as the Silent Partner, if you and Si work out something under the table.......
I mostly stick with the Jewelry, (Hey, I'm Jewish), and it's the old story, I'm a frustrated Jeweler, our Jeweler's a frustrated Doc... I really just enjoy looking through the Loupes.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

25 + 25 + 25 + 12.5 = 12.5 = 100

So after five months, you own the item -- or am I missing something here>?

[Magister]

The item pawned is collateral for a loan; if the loan period was five months with those interest rates, you would have to pay twice the amount (the loaned amount + 100% interest) to get it back. But usually pawn shops don't offer loans over that long a period, and the amount you get is much less than the value of the item pawned (because they intend to make a profit if you don't pay the loan back).

[Frank Drackman]

Dammit, it sounds so bad when you explain it that way, it's like in "Goodfella's" we loan money to the people banks won't, you want them going to "Bonecrusher Bart"????

[David Nieporent]

You might want to take a look at Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez. The case dealt with the question of whether Rule 68 offers mooted cases, but Justice Thomas took the opportunity in his concurrence to discuss the common law process of tenders, which discusses the issue you're seemingly raising.

[santamonica811]

Can the usual Trump defenders jump in, in regards to his push to rename battleships? What strikes me (well, what strikes all of us, of course) is the sheer pettiness of it all. To rename the Harvey Milk is just mean-spirited and small.

Hegseth is quoted as “committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief’s priorities, our nation’s history, and the warrior ethos.”

If so, I think a fitting new name for the ship might be “Bone Spur,” in honor of Donald Trump’s own personal warrior ethos.

Trump is apparently not satisfied with pissing on the name of perhaps the most well-known gay military figure in our nation’s history. He apparently is also gunning (pun intended) for the Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Harriet Tubman, the Cesar Chavez, the Thurgood Marshall, the Medgar Evans (and many others). It’s like he also is determined to tell his new black and Latino supporters, “Yeah, you really should have known I didn’t have a lot of respect for you and for your history. Psych!!!”

Yeah, it will probably delight his base to take these honors away from people of color and from this gay man’s legacy. But at what cost? And is this the best use of Hegseth’s time? Couldn’t Pete be using this time more productively–either binge drinking or sexually assaulting young women? (Or both, he’s probably learned to multi-task.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Ships can be easily re-named, should the opportunity arise. Maybe it's better that they do concentrate on reversible actions?

[Stephen Lathrop]

ObviouslyNotSpam — I get that you can maybe later reverse a gratuitous assault on a public reputation, and that if the target was already dead, maybe conclude no harm was done to the dead guy. But isn’t it obvious that this case is about publicly asserting government bias against a disfavored class? Even if you reverse that later, members of that class have suffered harms that will not be made whole.

[Mr. Bumble]

Change that to government bias for a favored class to explain the original naming.

[Kazinski]

I just wonder why they didn't name the ship the Moscone. Who was Dan White's primary target. White met with Moscone in the mayors office and when the mayor told him he wasn't going to re-appoint him to the supervisors seat White had just resigned about a week earlier, then White shot Moscone. Then when nobody rushed into the mayor's office, I guess he just figured he'd go over to the other side of the building and take out Milk too. In for a penny in for a pound.

White never testified about why he shot Milk too, He said he was depressed about his supervisors seat, ate a bunch of Twinkies, when into hypoglycemic shock and the rest was a blur.

White only served 5 years, then committed suicide a few years later.

Harvey Milk may have been just an afterthought for Dan White, but he did get a bigger riot after White's sentence was announced.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's like... He thinks war ships should be named after people known as a bad ass fighters.

"Hegseth is quoted as “committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief’s priorities, our nation’s history, and the warrior ethos.”"

So, it's exactly that.

[Commenter_XY]

Can you imagine being the communication officer, Brett? How intimidating does this sound?

Comm Ofc: Islamofascist terrorist firing on US ships, this is the USS Harvey Milk. Surrender your weapons.
Islamofascist terrorist: Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Have another missile fired up your ass.

Woke stupidity invites aggression.

[Malika the Maiz]

We’ve been naming ships after non-fighters for a long time (one was named after then Senator Buchanan’s niece in the 1850’s).

[Don Nico]

It is a stupid practice, best abandoned.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And what was the state of the country in the 1850's?

[LawTalkingGuy]

You seem like the kind of guy who still thinks Larry the Cable Guy is the funniest person to ever exist.

[Frank Drackman]

That “if your Senior Year was the 4th grade” really stung you apparently

[hobie]

I guess that makes Portugal woke. Nothing is named after military or political figures. All holidays, streets, statues and parks are named after three kinds of people: doctors, engineers and poets. Have I mentioned Portugal is a very peaceful place?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ever been to New Bedford, MA?
All of Portugal's violent people are over here...

[bernard11]

Talk about stupidity.

You think your hypothetical Islamofascist is going to be intimidated into surrender if our ship is called the USS Muhammed Ali (enough of a fighter for you?) but fight ever more fiercely if it's called the USS Albert Einstein (smart man, but not a "badass fighter").

Hegseth is quoted as “committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief’s priorities, our nation’s history, and the warrior ethos.”

Why should the C-i-C's priorities matter? Do we want warships called the USS Tax Cuts, the USS Deportation, or the USS Greed? The "warrior ethos?" Braxton Bragg was not much of a warrior, IIRC, and don't give me that BS about how the "new" name has nothing to do with him.

Thurgood Marshall and Medgar Evers, OTOH, were pretty determined, and brave, fighters in their arena.

[bye]

Brett, you aren't on the ship, it doesn't affect you, he is within his rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not understanding the comment: Did you get the impression I objected? About the only name change I objected to was the Harriet Tubman one, because she was a genuine badass.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Exactly what? An attempt to write out of the historical record people Hegseth and Trump's base wish had not won their way into it?

[SRG2]

Does this mean that all installations named for Confederate traitors woll be renamed for :US heroes and military leaders? PR that is they’re not renamed, one of Trump[‘s priorities is to commemorate Confederate traitors?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Read Lincoln's second inaugural address sometime.

And I have ancestors whom the Rebels murdered.

[SRG2]

That address is the kind of thing one might expect when a president is trying to bind a country back together immediately after a conflict. But that still does not justify the original naming of Federal installations for Confederate heroes - and you're well aware of why that naming in the first place, I'm sure. And there is absolutely no reason at the present day to restore the old names (or perhaps add them to new assets) except to appeal to the very worst political group of US citizens, namely supporters of the Confederacy, who are almost by definition disloyal and bigoted.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I guess there won't be any warships named after Hegseth, then...or Trump.

[Frank Drackman]

Hegseth is a combat vet you (stupid) fuck

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Commander-in-Chief’s priorities, our nation’s history, and the warrior ethos.”

“ So, it’s exactly that.”

Uh. No it’s not. Our commander in chief’s priorities has nothing to do with being “a bad ass fighter.” There’s A LOT of documentation about how negatively he feels about veterans and his own life is as an effete billionaire, the opposite of “bad ass.” Nor is it related to our nation’s history, except in the sense they want to bury parts of it. Unless you think Thurgood Marshall and Medgar Evers aren’t a storied part of our history?

[Malika the Maiz]

At least he’s not sending mixed Signals on this issue!

[Drewski]

At least it serves to undermine Trump's wild claims that we're being invaded and LA is occupied by enemy forces. If those things were true then the renaming project would be an awful lot like playing the fiddle while Rome burns.

Of course they aren't true and it's just Trump pissing on everything to mark his territory. It's undignified and wastefully expensive, but it's in his power and ultimately Donald Trump was elected to waste money and make America trashy. Nobody thought the man was responsible or mature.

[DaveM]

"I think a fitting new name for the ship might be “Bone Spur,” in honor of Donald Trump’s own personal warrior ethos."

When accusing someone of pettiness, it's generally a good idea to avoid it in your charge.

[Frank Drackman]

Heel Spurs are disqualifying for military service, just like being a Tranny

[santamonica811]

I'm not the fucking President. I'm a meaningless Internet troll. I hold myself (and hold you) to a far lower standard. Of course.

[Krayt]

I don't know why they want to rename the Cesar Chavez -- he was a proponent of stopping mass immigration because it threatened union man wages. So is Bernie.

He should be ripped from Democrats' annual honor and installed as a nu-Republican hero. His name should be on a ship upgrade!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Would you approve of a USS Jeffrey Epstein?!?

Both men were child molesters -- the only difference being that Epstein groomed and raped girls while Epstein groomed and raped boys.

[Magister]

Harvey Milk was not a pedophile; this baseless accusation was probably revived to defend the renaming of that ship, but maybe to distract from Donald Trump being in the Epstein files (per Elon Musk).

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Remember, there wouldn't be any gays without grooming!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you honestly believe that IF Trump were in the Epstein file, Meritless Garland wouldn’t have used it? Or someone else?

Trump may have shared a ride with the man, maybe even gone to Orgy Island — which *IS* a very nice reprieve from March in NYC. Neither means that Trump Fire trUCKED any 15 year olds….

Milk, the “Mayor of Castro Street”, did a 10 year old. I think that is worse…

[Magister]

10 year old? Another fabrication by Dr. Ed 2.

[Drewski]

Is this the best place to write fiction about your pederast fantasies? It is not. Reddit is the place for that.

[myself]

Would you approve of a USS Jeffrey Epstein?!?

Both men were child molesters — the only difference being that Epstein groomed and raped girls while Epstein groomed and raped boys.

Not sure about the accusation against Milk... but I can see you building a case for the USS Donald Trump.

[Moderation4ever]

I would point out that renaming battleships is easy and so par for the course with Trump's people. Real work would be to see if he could get the Pentagon shaped up enough to pass and audit. WHo want the hassle, so stick to renaming ships.

[Stephen Lathrop]

My guess is that renaming a ship is not as trivial as repainting the bow and stern. A lot of records will have to be changed. A lot of forms reprinted and replaced. The entire logistical system the ship depends on probably has to be combed through, just to be sure supplies do not go astray. Personnel records have to be altered.

On the scale of running an entire navy, maybe not so much, and undoubtedly well-practiced (ships retire; ships sink; ships get repurposed and renamed). But needless, non-trivial wasted effort nonetheless. And for a bad cause.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No. Ships are identified by class and hull number (the big number on the bow that fascinated me as a kid going over the bridge by Bath Iron Works)

For example, there are *four* USS Maines -- the current one, (SSBN-741), launched in 1994, is an Ohio-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine.

Before that was a Montana-class battleship (BB-69) that was cancelled in 1943.

Before that was BB-10, launched in 1901 and decommissioned in 1920, probably as part of the Washington Naval Treaty.

So the Current USS Maine is SSBN-741 (Submarine, Ballistic, Nuclear if I am not mistaken) and they could rename it the USS Alberta and it STILL would be SSBN-741...

(Ever notice the numbers on the decks and sides of aircraft carriers?)

And the USS Maine that blew up was ACR-1.

[Bob from Ohio]

"rename battleships"

We have not had a "battleship" since the NJ and Missouri were retired the second time.

If you meant "warship", its still wrong.

The "Milk" is the second of the "John Lewis" class of oilers. That's why its "USNS", not "USS". It has a civilian crew even.

[santamonica811]

Yeah, I was using shorthand. I originally just typed in "ships" and changed it to battleships later, in an edit. Should have left it as is. A fair cop.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And this Oiler will remain T-AO-206. That's her unique ID number.

[Voize of Reazon]

I just assumed Trump had got tired of pardoning war criminals and now wants to name a ship after one.

[Kazinski]

With the ongoing insurrection in LA I don't think its too early for the DoJ to start keeping track of what public officials should be prosecuted for engaging, fomenting, aiding and abetting the insurrection.

And of course who will be disqualified as "Senator, Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State", after having been duly convicted by a jury of their peers.

[Commenter_XY]

Governor Newsome just might make that list. Wouldn't it be horrible if he became the leading Team D candidate for president, and was removed from the ballot by a few states....That would never happen here. Yet, it did.

It will really suck when the rules Team D made are enforced by Team R.

[Kazinski]

I haven’t seen any lines that Newsome has crossed, but I did see one LA Council woman exhorting the rioters to ‘escalate the fight’, or something similar.

Keep in in mind that when Trump told the crowd to ‘fight like hell’, it was in the very early stages of the Capitol breech, and he couldn’t have known there was actual violence, since he had been speaking for about an hour, at a venue 30 minutes from the capitol.

But telling the people to keep fighting when there has actual fighting and rock throwing and arson going on for over 24 hours, there isn’t much doubt they are encouraging insurrection not demonstration.

Newsome hasn’t done anything like that.

[Mr. Bumble]

"But telling the people to keep fighting when there has actual fighting and rock throwing and arson going on for over 24 hours, there isn’t much doubt they are encouraging insurrection not demonstration."
...and saying nothing?

[ThePublius]

Newsom has spoken out AGAINST federal law enforcement, and done nothing to quell the riots.

[Malika the Maiz]

He’s spoke out against rioting and the Highway Patrol has been involved in arrests.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He has stated that CHiP will be keeping the highways open, but that they will NOT be assisting ICE.

In other words, “don’t riot on the highway.”

If he wanted to be neutral on ICE, he could instead have said that CHiP will "maintain order and ensure public safety", possibly adding "if you light anything on fire or throw something at someone, you will be arrested and prosecuted by California authorities under California law and go to a California prison after a California jury convicts you."

[Kazinski]

This is actually pretty funny response to Newsom where he dings James Woods for sharing a video which was of the 2020 riots, not the current one:

"Gavin Newsome wants to be clear this video is not from 2025 when he let Los Angeles burn, but from 2020 when he let Los Angeles burn."

https://x.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/1931947415973536144

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump was impeached for not acting within 3 hours -- Newsome hadn't acted within 3 DAYS..,

And it's still 16 days until the elections, and Newsome could step over the line and get arrested.

[David Nieporent]

That's not what Trump was impeached for.

[ducksalad]

after having been duly convicted by a jury of their peers.

Good chance an LA jury would acquit or at least fail to reach a verdict on a locally-popular elected official targeted by Trump. Times are ripe for some jury nullification. BTW, this happened a couple days ago:

“An El Paso jury on Thursday rendered a blow to the Trump administration’s new attempt to charge migrants with additional crimes for crossing illegally into the U.S. at the Texas and New Mexico international borders.”

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2025-06-06/military-border-trespassing-charge-jury-rejects-new-mexico-18033427.html

[Kazinski]

Nah, I think you could get an LA jury to convict a democratic politician, even if they are locally popular in their district. Because I think the Federal jury pools are bigger than the districts and the districts are highly gerrymandered.

As for popular, Bass for instance was way underwater in an April poll 37-49.

[ducksalad]

Only takes a couple committed holdouts to get a hung jury. Two holdouts plus ten people that have jobs and families they want to get back to can turn into an acquittal.

But anyway, it would take a lot more than what I’ve seen so far for me to vote guilty on anything like insurrection. There would need to be something like explicit encouragement to assault or physically interfere with federal officers, or ordering the LAPD to look the other way if federal officers were attacked.

Merely whipping up some unfocused anger doesn’t cut it. That’s why Trump was rightly off the hook for insurrection – his 1/6/21 actions were reprehensible and impeachable, but not criminal insurrection.

Even helping aliens evade ICE would be obstruction of justice, not insurrection.

[hobie]

"...start keeping track of what public officials should be prosecuted for engaging, fomenting, aiding and abetting the insurrection."

So you don't like this, eh?

[Sarcastr0]

He's got a list!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski is licking his chops. Keep in mind that false equivalence is always about more than mere confusion. Its larger point is to tailor a public relations context to discredit otherwise justifiable charges. Kazinski is pushing all-in for overthrow of American constitutionalism.

Why? In other nations, under different circumstances, a notable base of support for fascist leadership might at least have afforded reasonable scope for historical speculation, founded on questions of popular economics, or national pride. In America now, it is nakedly about creating opportunity for oligarchs to plunder everyone else. Why do so many want that?

[Sarcastr0]

Q: What crimes has Gavin Newsom committed?
︀︀
︀︀TRUMP: I think his primary crime is running for governor, because he's done such a bad job

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Maybe he should run for president?

Then Trump would, of course, have to leave him alone.

[Kazinski]

I’ll share my theory about what precipitated the Musk-Trump blowup last week. My theory is that the Tesla accountants finished their analysis of what the impact of the House reconciliation package and the end of the EV mandate would be on Tesla’s sales and profits going forward if it passes the Senate too, around June-1-2.

The House passed the BBB bill on May 22, the Senate passed the EV mandate rollback May 22 too, and it had already passed the House. Of course he knew what was in it at least shortly after it passed, what he wouldn’t know is the projected impact to Tesla sales and revenues. Elon is an eternal optimist, and the accountants are professional pessimists.

The first real shot came from Musk, on June 3rd: “Tensions began rising on Tuesday, when Musk blasted what Trump calls his “big, beautiful bill” as a “disgusting abomination,” surprising Republican leaders.”

Musk knew he couldn’t attack the EV subsidy and mandate rollbacks.directly, not only because it would look to self serving but als because it he’s Ben calling for cutting everything else.

We should be able to see if I’m right because in the next month or so Tesla will release 2nd qtr earnings, and while those should remain unaffected they will also have to release their guidance on projections for future earnings and profit and any potential impacts to the Tesla’s prospects over the next few years.

If its a big hit, I think that will pretty much confirm my theory.

[Brett Bellmore]

And my theory would be that Musk is genuinely concerned about the future of his adopted country, and understands that we either get the deficit under control in a fairly short term, or we're screwed.

The problem is, he doesn't understand the political dynamics that led to the deficit getting so bad, and get in the way of reducing it. Those dynamics need to be changed, not just ignored.

So he thought Trump and the Republicans were deliberately driving the country off a cliff. Rather than understanding that turning the steering wheel without fixing the power steering is pointless.

I expect them to reconcile somewhat (But only somewhat, they're bot prickly guys used to getting their way.) as the political realities are explained to him, and then revisit this issue in a more productive manner.

[Kazinski]

The problem with that is that there is very little new spending in the reconciliation bill, and that spending is devoted to ICE and DoD.

A reconciliation bill by the rules doesn't allow cuts of discretionary spending, only entitlements, and they did make substantial cuts there. And they cut out almost all the IRA Green tax credits, which are not technically spending.

When they "score" the bill they take not only what was in the bill, but all other spending and taxes that are already authorized and project it out 10 years.

Extending the 2017 tax cuts cost 4 trillion, and the net cost of the bill was 2.4 Trillion, meaning there was 1.6 Trillion in cuts on the OBBB.

Go ahead look at what's actually in the bill, and maybe you can tell us what new spending you object too. There are obviously some objectionable things like the SALT restoration, but its not a big list.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, when you're driving towards a cliff, not turning the steering wheel IS the problem, so Musk isn't wrong to be upset with this bill. Just being politically naive.

[Joe_dallas]

The SALT cap coupled with the increase in the AMT exemption and the increase in the standard deduction was for most everyone a non event.

[Kazinski]

"for most everyone"

But not for about a dozen GOP congressmen in NY and CA whose votes they needed.

[Joe_dallas]

I doubt that is true – there was virtually no difference in income tax for any of my clients who were impacted by the salt cap, after factoring in the amt exemption increase. I ran the 2017 numbers using 2018 tax law and rand the 2018 numbers using 2017 tax law and in every case, the 2018 tax law with the $10k salt cap resulted in lower total tax, albeit, most of the time the reduction was $1k or less.

[Kazinski]

Well read this about the negotiations leading to the SALT deal:

https://www.axios.com/2025/05/14/mike-johnson-salt-deduction-cap-taxes.

I wouldn't have thought it was so big too, but then again I don't live in a state with astronomical State and local income taxes, property taxes and sales taxes.

[Joe_dallas]

Kaz - I got that - it simply a talking point, its just that negative impact is a much smaller slice of the taxpayer population.

[Kazinski]

Well right, but that slice is the donor class of American politics.

As opposed to the foreign astroturf donor class of American politics.

[Jmaie]

No kids, restoring the pre-Trump tax policies will cost me $10K a year, and I am definitely NOT in the donor class...

[Kazinski]

You misunderstand.

Restoring the SALT tax deduction will only help those in the donor class, many of which didn't get a reduction of taxes in their bracket.

Someone who makes 500k a year with a 10m home would probably benefit with the pre 2017 rates and a fully deductible SALT.

[Joe_dallas]

kaz - a person making 500k very likely was getting hit with AMT and their tax will likely very similar using either the 2017 rates and amt with full salt deduction or using the 2018 rates and capped $10k salt cap

[myself]

Back in 2017:
Don't worry about the deficit impact of the tax cuts, they'll be gone in 10 years!

In 2025:
Don't worry about the deficit impact of the tax cuts, it's just the same cuts we've had for almost 10 years!

[Kazinski]

Nobody claimed in 2017 that the tax cuts would not be renewed.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Ah, yes. That certainly explains why they will expire automatically.

Somebody (probably someone in the "deep state") probably just forgot to delete that language before the bill was passed!

[Voize of Reazon]

A reconciliation bill by the rules doesn’t allow ...

John Thune has already gone nuclear to get around an adverse ruling from the Senate parliamentarian concerning Congressional Review Act restrictions. He claims he won't blow up the Byrd Rule too but only time will tell.

[Kazinski]

A pretty questionable ruling from the parlimentarian too.

An exemption given to several states from an EPA regulation is not itself a regulation that Congress can review?

Really?

[Voize of Reazon]

Not under the terms of the CRA at least, it allows Congress to review agencies' rules (defined as "statements of general applicability") but the waiver grants are agency rulings rather than rules.

The parliamentarian was not out on a limb here, her determination agreed with not one but two Government Accountability Office opinions, one in 2023 and another earlier this year.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree that Musk has genuine concerns, but he did not work enough with the Congress when he was steering DOGE and the opportunity was lost. The political dynamics are the failure to compromise and there is no sign of that changing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I think Musk is terrible at politics. But you can't be good at everything.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, I think that Musk simply went off the deep end -- yes, Tesla will be toast without the subsidies and credits (and subsidized charging stations) But he was doing an unknown cocktail of drugs and had been flying too close to the sun for years, and his wings finally melted.

The rich can get away with being crazy -- to a limit. Musk went beyond that.

[David Nieporent]

And my theory would be that Musk is genuinely concerned about the future of his adopted country, and understands that we either get the deficit under control in a fairly short term, or we’re screwed.

Uh huh. For how many decades have you been saying "we either get the deficit under control in a fairly short term, or we’re screwed"?

And if Musk actually were concerned about that, why would he have spent so much time and energy on his silly DOGE exercise which could not have had any significant impact on the deficit?

[bernard11]

Musk may be seriously concerned about the deficit.

But neither Brett nor any supporter of the Big Bullshit Bill shares that concern.

[ducksalad]

Simpler theory:

The senate-confirmed cabinet members believed they should be making the major decisions about their respective departments, subject only to the President, not Musk.

Musk’s belief to the contrary led to conflict, culminating in Musk shoving Bessent and getting punched in return. By the traditional 6th grade rules the one who first laid hands on the other is one who gets expelled.

The rest is just Musk being upset about his firing, although much of what he says is true.

[Dr. Ed 2]

IF there was anything tying Trump to sex with underaged girls, don't you think that Meritless Garland would have used it?

[ducksalad]

I said much of it, not all of it.

[David Nieporent]

Meritless Garland

Do you think that it's actually possible to take you less seriously than people already do?

[Bunny495]

Not to downplay the hit Tesla will take with no bribes to EV buyers but the SpaceX hit may turn out to be more important in the long run. While not money related withdrawing Jared Isaacman's nomination really POed off Musk and his homies. If you are an EV fanboy Tesla is still a realistic option but the rockets Musk makes don't really have any real competition. Who else but Musk can parallel park a 40-foot booster? Musk is still the richest man in the world and will have a positive income stream no matter what. But as Brett points out Musk is also aware without real cuts in spending the US will continue to have a negative income stream and this may be the real reason for the split with Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

Early in his first term, Trump sent a budget to Congress with proposed spending cuts. Congress responded by, instead, raising that spending, by a bipartisan, veto proof majority.

Trump took the hint, and decided that he'd spend his political capital on other fights.

Musk isn't wrong that we're doomed if we don't do something about out of control spending. But he was demanding a solution that was already proven not to work. If he really wants that problem fixed, he needed to do something completely different, like throw his weight behind a balanced budget amendment, to change the political dynamics.

[Bunny495]

Trump is not stupid and learned a lot in his first term that he is using in his second term. You are correct that Trump is now picking his fights and sad to say (at least to me) a balanced budget is not one of them. There does seem to be bipartisan agreement that the Democrats want to drive the car off the cliff as fast as possible while the Republicans insist on driving the car off the cliff while observing the speed limit.

As someone with a background in forensic accounting it is clear that unless Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are drastically cut the car is going off the cliff. No amount of trimming at the edges will come close to putting the brakes on the speeding car and no congress or president will cut those programs. There is not a happy ending to this story.

[Sarcastr0]

Odd flex - forensic accounting is the wrong discipline to give expertise about the long-term prospects for our nondiscretionary spending.

Changes are needed but more on the reindexing or cap-raising level than the drastic cuts level.

[Bunny495]

Forget forensic accounting and just go with Accounting 101. The numbers don't add up. SS, Medicare, and Medicaid pay out way more than they take in and the trends are going in the wrong direction with fewer payers and more payees. Combined with massive real inflation (not the phony revised numbers the feds put out) that will make an increase in benefits a political necessity means there is no happy ending. The real problem is your 'soak the rich' solution won't work because there are not enough rich and too many not rich.

Depending on how you value things taking every penny the rich/1% have the federal government might be able to run for six months (probably less). A good example is Musk is rich in part due to his ownership of Tesla stock (and other stock as well). If you took all his Tesla stock and tried to sell it the price would collapse. Same goes for things like real estate and other things. There would also be an economic disaster due to a collapse in investment in the economy since the money for investment would be used to pay for SS and other spending. Like eating the seed corn and having nothing to plant for the next season.

There still would be the elephant in the room of the thirty something trillion national debt with an interest payment of around one trillion annually. Adding in the unpredictable economic cycles and possible military conflicts and a pandemic or two and the picture is bleak. This is all Accounting 101 stuff.

[Magister]

Just looking at Social Security: in 2022, total cost of $1244 billion, with income of $1222 billion. A difference of $22 billion is not "way more than they take in".

The obvious tell without looking up numbers was "massive real inflation (not the phony revised numbers the feds put out)".

[Bunny495]

The difference between SS inflow and outflow has been going in the wrong direction for a long time and demographic trends and labor participation rates are not encouraging. As for the $US22 billion to quote Evert Dirksen, "a million here, a million there; pretty soon it adds up" and that was back when a million dollars was worth something. Now a million dollars is nothing and a 22 billion deficit get sneered at like it can be ignored; the obvious tell that inflation is massive.

All one needs to do is google how the CPI methodology has changed over the years. Maybe the worst example is how the increase in the cost of quality steak has been deemed irrelevant and instead the CPI claims consumers will switch to cheaper things like reconstituted chicken parts as a substitute. Same goes for lots of other things that use to be in the consumer's basket but have been replaced. Call it what you want but if the previous methodology to calculate the CPI was used it would be very different than what is used now.

[Sarcastr0]

My wife's an economist, and she's given me the short course.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/cpi/concepts.htm
"The CPI is widely used as a cost-of-living index (COLI), which answers the hypothetical question concerning what expenditure level is needed to achieve a standard of living attained in a base period at current market prices."

So if people stopped buying a particular cut of steak, you should update the index.

Otherwise what you're measuring isn't actually cost of living, it's some academic history thing.

[Jmaie]

Help me to understand. Me switching from buying ribeye to sirloin, because I can no longer afford to buy ribeye, isn't a measure of the increase in the cost of ribeye?

[Magister]

The general measure of inflation isn't tied to single cuts of meat. We do want inflation measures for broad categories; it's not much help to the consumer that electronics cost a tenth of what they did last year if food overall is ten times more expensive, since we can't eat electronics, and people won't stop buying food in favor of buying more electronics.

In a simple model of an economy in which everything except chicken and beef doesn't vary: a week's worth of chicken costs 5 quatloos, and a week's worth of beef costs 5 quatloos, and people buy equal quantities of both. If avian flu suddenly increases the cost of chicken to 95 quatloos, then if people kept buying equal quantities, they'd be spending 100 quatloos every two weeks, and we'd say inflation was 1000%. But if beef is an adequate substitute until chicken production recovers from the avian flu, people will instead switch to mostly beef, with occasional purchases of chicken, and inflation is there but nowhere near 1000%.

Political influence on the agencies that measure such things would be very unfortunate; in most administrations, the concern manifests as conspiracy theories by political opponents; in the Trump administration, the concern is very real (fire everyone and hire loyalists who will say what they're told to when the king says "let them eat cake").

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem comes in when BOTH beef and chicken have doubled in price, but as beef is still substantially more expensive than chicken, people economize by eating less beef and more chicken.

So they weight the chicken heavier now than before, and say inflation was 50%, rather than 100%.

Eventually they're understating inflation by dropping the weights of both beef AND chicken, and weighting rice and beans heavier...

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure what Brett's version of CPI measures, but it sure isn't changes in the actual cost of living as lived by actual people.

It's either a snapshot in which case where are the gas lamps, or it's some kind of theoretical 'what people SHOULD buy' based on no particular methodology.

[Magister]

Bunny495 apparently does not understand what "way more" is. Raise the cap on Social Security by a small amount and the $22 billion becomes nothing, without consuming any seed corn.

[Sarcastr0]

Accounting 101 is indeed all you need. But you're looking only at the outlay side not the income side.

your ‘soak the rich’ solution won’t work because there are not enough rich and too many not rich.
I'm not at all sure that's true.

And then you change the subject to the national debt. And you think CPI is a scam?

I like your pet peeve below about overblown rhetoric re: treason, etc. but you seem pretty out there.

Forensic accounting is a noble profession and you don't need to be macroeconomically sane to do it.

[Bunny495]

RANT ALERT

Modern tax policy started under Ike when America emerged from the WWII economy. The highest marginal tax rate was over 90%, JFK lowered it to 70something % and ever since it has been bouncing down to the current 30something %. Point is that during that entire time tax revenue has remained between 20-21% of GDP no matter what the tax rate was. So riddle me this Batman, given the history of wildly different tax rates having no effect on tax revenue what makes you think things will change?

[Sarcastr0]

You're absolutely right about tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. I have said nothing different.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax cap to like 300K is not going to bleed the wealthy dry. And I believe that's all that's needed to save that particular program.

[Magister]

Higher tax rates were offset by substantial loopholes.

[bernard11]

Forensic accounting is a noble profession

Why, the word "count" is in the name.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Early in his first term, Trump sent a budget to Congress with proposed spending cuts. Congress responded by, instead, raising that spending, by a bipartisan, veto proof majority.

Trump took the hint, and decided that he’d spend his political capital on other fights."

So he was full "TACO" even back then, eh?

They do say that the best way to fight a bully is to punch them straight in the nose. Apparently, it's true!

[not guilty]

A state prosecuting attorney in West Virginia, Tom Truman, has said in an interview on CNN that women in West Virginia "might be" at risk of criminal prosecution if they miscarry a pregnancy. https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/06/Tv/video/cnn-sitroom-pamela-brown-tom-truman-attorney-miscarriages-west-virginia

To be fair, Mr. Truman was not advocating such a prosecution, but his words are chilling nevertheless.

[Michael P]

There's a history of bad lawyers misinterpreting laws like that, leading to culpably substandard care for pregnant women who then die -- and their deaths are blamed on the laws rather than on bad legal advice and bad medical care, both by people who are opposed to the laws.

[Brett Bellmore]

There’s a political theory of “worse is better”, where you deliberately make things as bad as possible to build the support for “fixing” them by radical change. Rather than trying to do things as well as possible under the existing system, thus preserving it. Standard tactic in radical left wing politics.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s you and debt.

[tylertusta]

I remember the shutdown during the Obama years where the White House deliberately tried to make the shutdown as painful as possible to give the administration as much political leverage as possible. Things that didn’t require staff, like statutes, were gated off and closed to the public.

[Malika the Maiz]

Staff usually have to at least draft statutes, though I agree many of them should be roped off.

[tylertusta]

Your sentence does not make sense.

[Magister]

Looks like mocking your use of "statutes" where from context you probably meant "statues".

[tylertusta]

Aha. Thank you. Autocorrect is a bitch.

[santamonica811]

Mag,
I think "mocking" was a harsh take. "Gently teasing" was probably closer to the actual mark.

[Magister]

Pooh nodded thoughtfully. "It's the same thing," he said.

[Malika the Maiz]

There’s a history of lawmakers rushing to write poorly worded and vague statutes leading to the justified fear of potential prosecutorial overreach causing fearful doctors to hesitate to give pregnant women proper care who later then die — and their deaths are blamed on bad legal advice and bad medical care rather than the writers of the laws.

[Krayt]

There’s a history of bad lawyers misinterpreting laws like that

FTFY. Also, that’s bad as in evil, not bad as in incompetent.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Could it be a case of WHY they miscarried?

If we are going to prosecute domestic violence, I think we should prosecute Fetal Alcohol & Drug Syndromes.

[Krayt]

That doesn't lend itself to lawyers pocketing money for yachts, unlike medical errors.

[Malika the Maiz]

“The Trump White House has repeatedly sounded an alarm about visitors with ties to China’s Communist Party coming to the United States, arguing that they are a potential security threat.

But the administration appears to have literally left the door open to a member of a Chinese government group when it went along with a plan to give the biggest purchasers of President Trump’s digital currency access to the president and the White House.

Mr. Trump launched a so-called memecoin, a type of cryptocurrency, just days before his inauguration. To bolster sales, the president’s business partners created a contest in April, offering the coin’s top buyers a tour of the White House and a private dinner with Mr. Trump at his Virginia golf club.

One of those buyers was He Tianying, who is a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, according to government documents in China examined by The New York Times.

That government group, referred to as the C.P.P.C.C., is an advisory body that seeks to broaden the Communist Party’s influence and solicit support from influential people in Chinese society.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/06/us/politics/trump-crypto-dinner-china-he-tianying.html

[Krayt]

Memecoins are sus worldwide as long as the kleptocrats of various nations can yank on it one way or another and sway the price, taking advantage of ups and downs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I doubt that there are many national secrets hidden at Trump's golf resort, and somehow suspect that the CCP guests will be under a wee bit of surveillance as well. And like Bill O'Riley going to visit China, this could be diplomatic as well.

I like the point that O'Riley made in china about Fentanyl.
The Chinese said that they only make the precoursers.
O'Riley asked "do you use those chemicals for anything?" Do you need them for anything?"
No...
"Then why don't you just stop making them?"
Ohhhhh.....

[David Nieporent]

I doubt that there are many national secrets hidden at Trump’s golf resort,

Check the bathrooms.

Bill O’Riley

Why are you like this?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The portions of the resort that are open to guests.

[Michael P]

The Black Panther comic book reportedly has a new main character -- and this one is a dude with blond hair and white skin. Supposedly he's the son of the last Black Panther, which would mean either he's adopted or the Marvel people don't understand how genetics works. Either way it seems kind of dumb; this race swapping isn't better than any of the ones that came before.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you can explain a lot of what Marvel does these days by just assuming the company has been taken over by people who actually hate comic books, and despise their readers, and want to burn the place to the ground.

[Malika the Maiz]

This is funny. Stan Lee actually despised comics, he wanted to write novels but got sucked into the business reluctantly. But he put on a good act boosting Marvel and I guess it’s the act some people need.

[Brett Bellmore]

I could easily believe he didn't like comics, but he wasn't out to deliberately offend his customer base. That's the key thing here: The joint is now run by people who don't mind offending their core customer base, even if it hurts the bottom line.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett knows the comics market better than Marvel.

[Brett Bellmore]

Marvel has been losing market share to DC for a while now, Sarcastr0.

[Malika the Maiz]

How long is that while? Wasn’t too long ago when DC was slipping relative to Marvel?

https://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/57320/dcs-market-share-continues-decline

[Sarcastr0]

Lots of potential causes, including as Malike points out just the usual market churn. (I might point to the growth of manga)

You’re no expert in the comics market. Neither am I, but then I’m not telling Marvel the key to doing their job is to feed my personal partisan tastes.

[Malika the Maiz]

Comic writers are much more likely to think of themselves as artists now and artists tend to push boundaries. But I’d guess what’s more likely going on is trying to reach younger, more diverse customers.

[Krayt]

"Welcome True Believers!"

He should have been a politician.

[hobie]

Kinda like how Leonard Leo now hates America. All one has to do is say it about a person, and it becomes truth. This is fun, Brett! I see why y'all engage in it

[David Nieporent]

I think you can explain a lot of what Marvel does these days by just assuming the company has been taken over by people who actually hate comic books, and despise their readers, and want to burn the place to the ground.

Wait. Brett Bellmore, of all people, is advocating a conspiracy theory? Is it a day ending in "y"?

[Malika the Maiz]

The son is pretty clearly the son of the man who the mother left for T’Challa and was then raised as the latter’s child. But in a world where genes cause people to turn into icemen or control the weather him being his actual son would not be the wackiest thing involving genetics there.

[Krayt]

which would mean either he’s adopted or the Marvel people don’t understand how genetics works

Superman and Lois have had a kid.

I could never get around some of the lesser issues Larry Niven brought up in Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex, like their mutual scents would almost certainly be grossly repusive, as the mental sensation for that is an evolved trait, and their different, non-human (and non-Kryptonian!) molecules would stink somewhere between a farm and an exploded chemical plant.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think to make any sense of it at all you have to assume that almost all the intelligent races of the DC universe are the result of directed panspermia. And it IS canon that the Kryptonians were absolute masters of genetic engineering, and Superman has access to a lot of Kryptonian technology somehow.

[Bunny495]

Spoiler Alert: comic books are not real.

[bernard11]

Thanks.

I always thought that, but some of these discussions had me doubting it. Feel much better now.

[Malika the Maiz]

“Robert Keith Packer opted to wear a black hoodie with a large white Nazi SS skull design – and the words “Camp Auschwitz” emblazoned above it – when he joined in the assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Underneath that were the words “WORK BRINGS FREEDOM” − an English translation of the slogan emblazoned on the front gates of Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps, “Arbeit macht frei.”

On Monday night, in his first official act as president, Donald Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 people for criminal acts committed in the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, including Packer, 59, and some other reputed Nazi supporters.“

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/01/22/camp-auschwitz-jan-6-rioter-trump-pardoned/77884230007/

[Armchair]

And?

The affidavit makes no mention of any violent behavior by Mr. Packer. No mention of any vandalism. No mention of any assault on any other person. No mention of any theft. He apparently peacefully entered the Capitol. Then left.

I don't agree with his choice of apparel, nor his views. But this is a free country, with people able to freely express themselves. I see no reason to treat this individual differently, simply because he was wearing a sweatshirt I disagree with.

What about you? If someone is engaging in disorderly conduct as part of a crowd...do you selectively go after those people who have a message you disagree with? Target them for additional enforcement?

[Malika the Maiz]

What evidence is there they selectively went after him?

[Armchair]

"What evidence is there they selectively went after him?"

They did not. But you IMPLY that because of the apparel he was wearing, he should have been treated differently.

So, I'll reiterate the question. "What about you? If someone is engaging in disorderly conduct as part of a crowd…do you selectively go after those people who have a message you disagree with? Target them for additional enforcement?"

Is that something you believe in? Or are you going to back away from what you so clearly implied.

[Malika the Maiz]

I’m not implying that, just noting that Trump’s sweepingly stupid general pardon assisted some pretty bad hombres.

[Brett Bellmore]

No argument there: I've said that Trump's J-6 pardons were too in indiscriminant. And the prosecutions that led to the pardons were, too: They were going after everybody they could find who'd even been near the Capitol that day.

One wrong doesn't excuse the other, of course. But I think that the J-6 prosecutions were excessive, and corrective mercy was in order. But there should have been a lot more commutations and fewer pardons.

[Commenter_XY]

That is how I felt; he should have paused things for people with blood on their hands. Then again, he got elected to make the hard calls.

[Zarniwoop]

he got elected to make the hard calls.

Declining to pardon people convicted of beating police officers is not a "hard call".

[Magister]

Hard calls? TACO. Only with soft tortillas.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I saw it as both sides sending a message.

[Joe_dallas]

Did you voice your concerns with Biden's pardons?

[Sarcastr0]

But Biden!

[Joe_dallas]

double standards abound among the woke

[Malika the Maiz]

But no principles on the part of folks like joe Dallas, just whataboutism.

[Armchair]

Sure seems like you're "implying" that Trump shouldn't have pardoned this individual in particular.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"pretty bad hombres."

I see as more a confused hombre.

"“WORK BRINGS FREEDOM” − an English translation of the slogan emblazoned on the front gates of Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps, “Arbeit macht frei.”

I thought the translation was "work will make YOU free" which has a different meaning and it wasn't the SS doing the work.

[Martinned]

I assume it’s also perfectly normal that the White House had Terry Moran fired for tweeting something mean about Prime Minister Miller?

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought he was suspended by ABC, his employer.

[Malika the Maiz]

At the urging of the White House.

Did Obama or Biden push outlets to fire specific reporters whose speech they did not like?

[ducksalad]

Trump takes the blame for the pressuring.

ABC takes the blame for the firing, and more importantly, the caving.

When all this is over, we need to remember who caved and ask for an accounting. I could easily forgive stuff like "they threatened to arrest my wife", and maybe tolerate stuff like "the alternative was the whole organization would get shut down". But I'm not going to be impressed by excuses like "we wouldn't get invited to press conferences" or "we really wanted the FCC to approve our merger".

[Bob from Ohio]

"pressuring"

Press secretary making a comment is not "pressuring".

[ducksalad]

I sort of agree. If that’s all that led to the firing, one could conclude that ABC is either especially cowardly, or is catering to the administration’s supporters as part of their business plan. Either of which is well within their constitutional rights, but then viewers can decide whether they want to watch a cowardly network that jumps when a press secretary frowns at them.

[Brett Bellmore]

"or is catering to the administration’s supporters as part of their business plan."

I think you're missing the third alternative: Deciding to STOP catering the the administration's foes, as part of their business plan. Just avoid pissing people off unnecessarily by injecting politics into the news coverage.

[Sarcastr0]

injecting politics into the news coverage.
It's coverage of the President!

Tell me, if FOX News fired someone for tweeting mean stuff about Biden, would that also be FOX properly keeping politics out of political reporting?

[Bob from Ohio]

"It’s coverage of the President!"

Do you think Moran's comment was "coverage" or pure opinion?

[Sarcastr0]

It was a persons opinion.

Did you mistake it for reporting?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Did you mistake it for reporting?"

No, you did by calling it "coverage"

[Sarcastr0]

I would suggest you look at the comment I was replying to.

Or even just the part I quoted in my comment.

Ain’t much sadder than failed pedantry.

[Michael P]

Martinned is acting like the people who defended Dan Rather from those "pajama wearing bloggers": it doesn't matter who is right, it matters which clan they belong to.

[Sarcastr0]

How so? He seems to be objecting based on what happened not who did it.

[Brett Bellmore]

He seems to be specifically focusing on who did it. But not bothering to prove that the White House dictated this.

Reporting staff have not caught up yet with the new reality, that management want them to stop going out of their way to antagonize politicians and take sides in political fights. Management has decided that going out of your way to piss off half your potential market wasn't a good business move after all.

[Martinned]

Reporting staff have not caught up yet with the new reality, that management want them to stop going out of their way to antagonize politicians

For the record, this is you agreeing with me that the White House got this guy fired for saying something the White House didn't like.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, no, that's not my position at all.

Say you walk into a grocery store, and a clerk gets in your face over something stupid and totally unrelated to selling groceries. You complain, and they're fired.

Were they fired because you wanted them fired, or were they fired because the grocery store doesn't want their clerks picking fights with the customers? It's not exactly the same thing, you know.

The guys in the media who care about the bottom line are reasserting control, having decided that the political types are hurting the bottom line by ticking off half of the potential market.

And they WERE hurting the bottom line, because they cared more about the politics than market share, counted it as a win if market share dropped but an election came out 'right'.

[Sarcastr0]

So yuo're endorsing the coercive power of the government as cool and good.

You yelled about it re: Facebook and twitter with less proof than this, but here it's all good.

You're inconsistent, and a terrible libertarian.

political types are hurting the bottom line in the media?? 1. Not established, and 2. that's a pretty big part of their job!

You're really showing some totalitarian stripes lately.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I was specifically distinguishing my position from endorsing coercive power of government.

Trump didn't force this guy to be fired, he got fired because he was doing politics instead of and to the detriment of his job.

[Sarcastr0]

Pretending the government is basically like a grocery store is endorsing coercion by pretending it doesn’t exist.

The government isn’t just some business. It has restrictions on what it can do, and it has additional ways it can abuse its power to retaliate.

You brought that up re: social media to a hypersensitive level.

Now you sleep.

The road to authoritarianism is paved by people telling you this is fine, actually.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're a moron, you know that? ABC was the 'grocery store' in my analogy.

[Magister]

That the government in that analogy was a single grocery store customer really doesn't make it better. Or accurate, unless that customer has all the coercive power of the federal government.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That the government in that analogy was a single grocery store customer really doesn’t make it better. "

Nope, still don't get it. You think that when somebody who's nominally a journalist attacks the administration it's JUST the administration that gets ticked off? When the news coverage gets excessively political it's whole segments of society that get mad.

The single grocery store customer, in this case, isn't Trump, or the government. It's Republican voters.

[Sarcastr0]

From comics to cable news to social media, Brett is super sure that agreeing with him is smart business, and disagreeing with him is proof you're too biased and should clean house.

Good thing this new administration is so diligent in pointing out to media networks how to be properly apolitical in their political coverage!

[Magister]

That many customers may have been offended does not salvage the analogy. Maybe if the clerk had done something that reflected on the grocery store when not at work, and if the person who was offended worked in the mayor's office, and the mayor and his aides called for the clerk's termination, when the mayor's office is well known for corrupt threats to everyone they view as an enemy, such as threatening to deny permits and licensing. Maybe. But it wouldn't look good for the Trump administration that Brett loves to defend.

Before the 2020 election conservatives claimed censorship of social media had occurred, apparently by Democrats who had no official standing but were still somehow coercing these social media sites. Brett's analogy makes him look stupid, and his hypocrisy is well documented, so I won't take the trouble to see if Brett was such a conservative or not.

[David Nieporent]

And they WERE hurting the bottom line, because they cared more about the politics than market share, counted it as a win if market share dropped but an election came out ‘right’.

This, of course, never happened.

[Moderation4ever]

We are spending a lot of time talking about the consequences for Terry Moran and little about what he said about Stephen Miller. Just wondering why no one really pushing back on what was said? Is it because Terry Moran just repeated what is common knowledge?

[Kazinski]

Nobody was fired, Moran was suspended.

And while Administration officials complained, that's not why he was suspended. My 'appeal to authority' source for that is Brian Stelter, CNN's media analyst on X, and definitely not a Trump apologist:

"This morning Trump White House aides publicly pushed ABC to discipline Moran. Lots of people have well-reasoned objections to that. But let's also note: ABC didn't "need" to be pressured "

Its pretty easy to see why ABC would suspend him, the legacy news media has wasted a lot of time and effort trying to portray themselves as unbiased truth tellers making independent judgements and reporting just facts when covering the administration.

So to counter the administration's message that the media is biased and are not just presenting unvarnished facts, Moran posts a late saturday night, likely alcohol fueled personal attack on a senior administration official.

He didn't get suspended for hating on Miller, he got suspended for undercutting months of effort trying to portray themselves as just being objective, and shake off the stain of spending 4 years of covering up Biden's mental decline.

[David Nieporent]

He didn’t get suspended for hating on Miller, he got suspended for undercutting months of effort trying to portray themselves as just being objective, and shake off the stain of spending 4 years of covering up Biden’s mental decline.

This is pure sophistry. When the media holds itself out as objective, they mean that the things they publish/broadcast are — not that the people doing the publishing/broadcasting don't have opinions.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nail, meet hammer.

It's also obviously a double standard nobody within MAGA applies to themselves.

[Armchair]

I would like to congratulate President Trump on his quick thinking in sending the National Guard into LA.

Violent riots have a habit of spiraling out of control, causing death and destruction. This often happens when the local police are outnumbered and overwhelmed. Rioters see they have the advantage, and push it.

By sending in the Guard early, it provides the appearance of strength in numbers, and makes it much less likely for rioters to push and overwhelm. It's one thing to attack an isolated cop or two. It's another to attack a hundred Guardsman. Deterrence of violence is critical here.

[Michael P]

In this case, it happened because the local police hardly even tried to help -- and the politicians in charge of LA and CA wanted the police to stand down and stand by. It took police two hours to show up when a building was under siege.

[Malika the Maiz]

“local police hardly even tried to help”

They arrested dozens of people Sunday alone, they’ve used flash bangs, they’ve used choppers with surveillance equipment broadcasting to rioters that they have them on film and will come to their house to arrest them, etc.

[Don Nico]

But they did nothing on Friday, when ICE was trapped in the federal building. Clearly that was unacceptable to Homan who called for help.
But by yesterday, the LAPD was on hand.
Mayor Bass and Gov. Newsom let one fire get out of control in LA this year. It was prudent not to give them a second chance to let this fire get out of control.

[tylertusta]

I understand that feckless Democratic governance is essentially a trope these days, but even then, the national guard was able to deploy faster than the state and local cops.

Someone mentioned Grey’s Law to me a little while ago, and I think it fits here:

Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

[Michael P]

They are still able to enforce anti-building laws that keep people from replacing homes that were lost to fire and mudslides. But for some reason they are just unable to enforce laws against the riots trying to achieve the same outcomes they support.

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s almost like building code enforcement and riots might require different kinds, levels, etc., of responses.

[tylertusta]

It's almost as if the state and local governments initially didn't want to shut down the riots because they agree with the rioters.

[Malika the Maiz]

Or, It’s almost like building code enforcement and riots might require different kinds, levels, etc., of responses.

[tylertusta]

Or, it’s almost as if the state and local governments initially didn’t want to shut down the riots because they agree with the rioters.

[Malika the Maiz]

Since you continue to be non responsive to my point I’ll just repost it again:

Or, It’s almost like building code enforcement and riots might require different kinds, levels, etc., of responses.

[tylertusta]

Since you continue to be non responsive to my point I’ll just repost it again:

Or, it’s almost as if the state and local governments initially didn’t want to shut down the riots because they agree with the rioters.

[Don Nico]

After all LA is a sanctuary city and CA a sanctuary state.

[Don Nico]

Mr Newsom has announced that he will sue Trump for doing what he should have done on Friday when ICE calls for assistance.
What redress does he want? No help for the LAPD. Newsom would rather wait until the city burns as it did earlier this year.
He must be kissing a chance to run for president goodbye.

[Bob from Ohio]

I guess he wants Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807.

[Bunny495]

"They arrested dozens of people Sunday alone, they’ve used flash bangs, they’ve used choppers with surveillance equipment broadcasting to rioters that they have them on film and will come to their house to arrest them, etc."

Does this include a strongly worded letter to follow?

[Malika the Maiz]

Flash bangs, arrests and threats = strongly worded letter for you?

[Frank Drackman]

5.56 for the ones wearing masks, 7.62 for the ones wearing motorcycle helmets, or just Uber Eats some Del Taco to them and take them all out

[CountmontyC]

So on the third day of rioting , after the National Guard had arrived, they finally started getting semi-serious about dealing with the rioters. That is not the flex you thonk it is.

[Joe_dallas]

The kicker: CHIRLA, the group behind the current rioting in LA, "received nearly $34 million in revenue from government contracts during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023, with 96% of that funding from the State of CA."

Taxpayer-funded insurrection.
Quote
Laura Powell
@LauraPowellEsq
·
Jun 7
EXCLUSIVE: Taxpayer-Funded Nonprofit Behind the Anti-ICE Riots in Los Angeles.

Over the past two days, ICE agents have conducted targeted operations across the Los Angeles region, detaining more than 40 suspected illegal aliens. These enforcement actions triggered large-scale
Show more

[Malika the Maiz]

Citation to evidence this group is “behind the current rioting?”

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's not exactly surprising that 96% of its government contracts came from the State of California, is it? It is a California-based institution.

Perhaps the purpose of including the "96%" figure is to mislead people into thinking that is the proportion of its income which comes from government contracts?

In any case, it appears that the claim that CHIRLA is "behind the current rioting" is also somewhat lacking in evidence.

[Bunny495]

As I posted in another thread, due to bad weather for a few days I spent lots of time watching what was happening in LA on television. I saw almost nothing of the NG doing anything. There were some reports of the NG being posted around federal buildings, but I saw no actual confrontations with the protestors/rioters. To some extent the local LEOs seemed to be trying to keep the NG and protestors/rioters apart.

What I did see was a mostly feckless LAPD hiding under an overpass of the Interstate highway while hundreds of protestors on the overpass threw everything but the kitchen sink at the LEOs and the LEOs' vehicles below. I had to wonder why the LEOs did not simply clear the overpass and open up the blocked interstate. Lots of sporadic fire being set and vehicles torched with slow and somewhat ineffective response from the LEOs. Plenty of signs not written in English and folks waving foreign flags.

I have no doubt that FOX and MSNBC (my TV has picture in picture so I can watch both at the same time) both broadcast the most extreme stuff. Thing is there are hours of video that will be used in campaign ads showing rioters attacking LEOs with rocks, concrete, fire bombs, electric scooters, whatever and setting fires and torching vehicles with Mexican flags waving in the foreground. This was a PR win for Trump/MAGA and a disaster for those who oppose Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

PR wins for Trump and disasters for those who oppose Trump are essentially unavoidable on this particular issue, because Trump is on the right side of public opinion, and his foes very much on the wrong side of it.

Illegal immigration is NOT an issue that has the country split down the middle. This is easily his strongest issue. And video of rioters setting stuff on fire and attacking ICE are not going to hurt him one bit.

[CountmontyC]

My guess is that the rioters avoided the NG because they knew that the NG would be allowed to respond with force if attacked.

[Swede425]

Other than to poke Newsom in the eye, I don't think Trump should have deployed the NG.
That should be Newsom's job.
But only after Bass admitted that her resources weren't enough to handle the rioting.
That's how this system works.
Why should federal tax dollars be used to stop LA from burning itself down? I don't care if they do that, but I do care about having to pay to protect idiots/rioters from themselves.

[ThePublius]

How about protecting the federal agents trying to do their jobs, without the support of Bass, Newsom, or the LAPD?

[Joe_dallas]

Along with the riots funded by CHIRLA which is funded primarily by CA taxpayers

[Sarcastr0]

You saw a tweet making an assertion and it’s off to the races.

Any evidence of funding actually occurring?

Or is it common sense again?

[Joe_dallas]

The tweat had links showing the funding sources with lots of detail

You could do some basic homework

[Sarcastr0]

You quoted the tweet. You left out all this 'lots of detail.'

That's not on me, that's on you, lazy_joe.

[Don Nico]

Sure it is. Otherwise you would shoot from the hip so often.

[Brett Bellmore]

Does it really matter that he just quoted it, when at least two people in this thread have linked to it?

[Joe_dallas]

you chose to be willingly ignorant

the lazy person is not doing his homework

[Malika the Maiz]

A lazy person makes a claim without providing a link to back it up.

[Joe_dallas]

Gaslighto & malika prefer to throw insults instead of doing homework

https://www.aol.com/news/la-migrant-protests-fueled-taxpayer-011318049.html

[Magister]

The New York Post is generally pretty bad, but at least they acknowledged that "A CHIRLA spokesman denied that the group had anything to do with the violence". There's way more evidence of Trump's responsibility for the January 6th insurrection.

[Life of Brian]

“We have not participated, coordinated, or been part of the protests being registered in Los Angeles other than the press conference and rally cited above,” the rep said.

That seems like some exceptionally carefully chosen language in response to allegations that they're funding protests.

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2025/06/Screenshot-2025-06-08-at-12.53.32%E2%80%AFPM.png

[Joe_dallas]

yes very carefully crafted wording, especially considering they called for
"Immigration Fightback"
"turnout Today"
"ICE is conduction a series of raids in the LA area ... We're fighting back"
"please join and please show up"

[Life of Brian]

That image link apparently doesn't work outside the article containing it, but I think this is the same image.

[Bob from Ohio]

“A CHIRLA spokesman denied that the group had anything to do with the violence”

They denied being involved in a criminal conspiracy. I did not see that coming.

[Magister]

I remember when saying "fight" was just rhetorical. But violence is counterproductive to their cause, unlike the January 6th violence that Donald Trump encouraged.

[Kazinski]

Its a difference in context, saying 'fight like hell' and 'peacefully' make your voices heard at a political rally when nobody is fighting is normal political rhetoric, and fails the imminent threat standard.

Saying 'fight' when rocks are being thrown and cars are burning in the street, exceeds the imminent threat standard, the violence is no longer speculative, but current, and the speech is clearly aimed at encouraging it.

[Magister]

No evidence that this group did such a thing. But Trump added fuel to the fire of his insurrection by tweeting that Mike Pence didn't have the courage to advance the coup.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I think you mean, "fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, peacefully"...

[tylertusta]

“Immigration Fightback”
“turnout Today”
“ICE is conduction a series of raids in the LA area … We’re fighting back”
“please join and please show up”

Remember when Jack Smith argued that similar words were proof of Trump's crimes in DC and justified his prosecution? Pepperidge Farms remembers.

[Magister]

Pepperidge Farms has memory issues, having forgotten the substance of the indictment of Donald Trump. (Of course, "Pepperidge Farms remembers" is really an appeal to nostalgia for things that never actually happened.)

[David Nieporent]

Remember when Jack Smith argued that similar words were proof of Trump’s crimes in DC and justified his prosecution? Pepperidge Farms remembers.

No.

[tylertusta]

Why should federal tax dollars be used to stop LA from burning itself down?

What about all of those regular people who didn't riot and just want to go about their lives?

Do we wash our hands of the millions living in the LA metro area because the state and local governments would rather everything burn down?

[Michael P]

One of the supposed libertarians here keeps going on (and on and on) about the superiority of foot voting over throwing the bums out when it comes to the problems of people living in shitholes. So in the interests of a small-government solution, we should just make sure that there are no regulatory barriers that keep those non-violent migrants from moving to the United States.

Oh, wait, maybe that only applied for shithole countries, not for shithole counties.

[tylertusta]

Fortunately for me, I'm not a libertarian. I'm a conservative. We needn't allow American states to collapse into anarchy because we're too scared to actually enforce the law.

[Swede425]

At what point is anybody else responsible for the decision that people make for living where they live?
Are these riots shocking because they're unprecedented in LA?
No.
What expectation should we have, then, for "regular" people to wake up and make some hard, but necessary, decisions? Any?
Your life is not more valuable to me than it is to you.
So why would I act like it is?

[tylertusta]

If we do not have the fortitude to protect our own citizens from the mob, then what basis does the US government have to even exist?

That's the reason for governments to exist in the first place. If rioters want to burn down a US city, then the answer is to put down the riot, not to let the city burn.

[Swede425]

There are at least 2 other government entities who have that responsibility before it becomes a federal one.
There's even a process in place, that's been used many times over the years, by which those other government entities can request the help of the next higher authority.
You can argue that the lower government entities are/were slow in recognizing that they need help. You can even question why that might be. But that process exists for a reason.

[tylertusta]

You changed your argument.

First, you argued that we should let LA burn itself to the ground. My response: No, we shouldn't.

Now we're arguing that state and local officials should be called in first. My response: Are they actually willing to stop the riots? If they are, then I agree that we don't need the federal government to stop the riots. However, the state and local governments have seemingly made common cause with the rioters and seek to enflame and empower them in order to prevent the Federal government from carrying out its duties.

Should the state and local officials either not intervene to put down the riots- or worse, continue to tacitly support the riots- then the Federal government should step in to preserve the safety of the citizens of LA even if that means protecting them from their own government.

[Swede425]

My argument is that I don't care if LA burns itself to the ground.
And I don't.
That being said, there are city, possibly county, and state government authorities that have the responsibility to prevent riots.
I think we're disagreeing on when the feds should jump in.
I'm of the opinion that the feds reacted when they shouldn't have.
I understand that others will, and do, disagree with me that it's ok for local and state entities to fail at their jobs. To include asking for help. There are remedies for government failure that the citizens of California, and particularly LA, have decided do not need to be exercised. They have the government that they have because that's the government they want. If that government wants to let rioters burn, loot, and generally run amok, I'm fine with that. I'm not the one that has to live in the ashes because I do a much better job at risk assessment. Generally speaking, I like for the federal government to not exercise it's executive powers until after those other, lesser executive powers have exhausted theirs.

[tylertusta]

"Let them burn" and "Federalism means that locals are the ones to keep them from self-immolation" are definitely takes, for sure.

[Joe_dallas]

correct is the local authorities first, the state authorities second. the problem is that both the local and state authorities were taking various steps to impede a timely response.

[bye]

NO, the ultimate principle is :Defend law-abiding citizens.Mayor won't do it, governor is not doing it --- President most laudably is doing it.

[ReaderY]

The head of the Tennessee US Attorney’s Office in Tennessee, Ben Schrader, resigned rather than comply with orders to prepare a prosecution of Garcia, because he concluded there was simply no or insufficient evidence to support the charges, and charging him was politically motivated and had no legitimate legal basis.

https://tennesseestar.com/news/former-nashville-federal-prosecutor-ben-schrader-resigned-over-political-nature-of-kilmar-abrego-garcias-indictment-report/khousler/2025/06/07/

[Mr. Bumble]

So, one man's opinion.

[SRG2]

Not all opinions are equal. Schrader's is likely to be well-informed. Yours are generally worthless.

[Mr. Bumble]

If you say so, but that's your opinion which I hold to be generally worthless.

[Kazinski]

Don't tell me that you've stooped to quoting the Tennessee Star?

Now you have completely lost any credibility.

Sarcastro will be along soon to drop a link to a bias report.

[Michael P]

Political operative resigns for political reasons. News at 11.

[Malika the Maiz]

He’s worked in the US attorney’s office since 2010 through four administrations. Clerked for a GOP district court judge before that.

[Kazinski]

Someone who came aboard during the Obama Administration quits during Trump Administration.

News at 11.

[LawTalkingGuy]

A THIRD person who has never met an AUSA.

[tylertusta]

As someone who has met and somewhat regularly converses with an AUSA, you're dead wrong.

Obama/Biden sought to transform the DOJ/FBI by hiring like-minded liberals from elite institutions and people who had left-wing resumes. They filled career prosecution positions with social justice warriors because those administrations wanted to prioritize those enforcement objectives.

As that AUSA put it, it was especially bad during Obama's first term. It was known that having FedSoc on your resume was a "death blow."

[LawTalkingGuy]

Okay well I spent a summer in a USAO and have known more than one and a former US Attorney who was previously a DOJ lifer. And I also know many many state level prosecutors who are careerists.

People who spend their career at DOJ or in state prosecutor offices are one thing above all else: prosecutors. Doesn't matter if they're liberal or conservative or whatever. They like investigating crimes, prosecuting crimes, and saying how much they protect the public and stand up for victims by doing those things. That's the office culture. The biggest libs were often the toughest prosecutors!

Getting to prosecute a slam-dunk human trafficking case is why they get into prosecuting in the first place. Think about the Eric Adams case. People resigned because there was a serious political corruption case that had a lot of evidence and DOJ didn't want them to do the thing they were born to do: prosecute cases.

So if there is actually a slam-dunk human trafficking case a career DOJ person would not resign over it unless he seriously thought there were serious problems. They would be giving up on their one true passion otherwise. True social justice warriors (whatever you think that means) don't spend their careers at DOJ.

[tylertusta]

People who spend their career at DOJ or in state prosecutor offices are one thing above all else: prosecutors

I agree with what you're saying here. AUSAs don't see themselves as liberals first- but prosecutors and professionals, and that's a good thing.

However, the kinds of cases that they would prosecute is a reflection their views of ethics and morality. In a world of limited time and resources, do you prosecute the low-level drug user, or do you go after the 'white supremacists' that your boss in the White House rails against?

One decision advances your career, and the other one does not.

So if there is actually a slam-dunk human trafficking case a career DOJ person would not resign over it unless he seriously thought there were serious problems. True social justice warriors (whatever you think that means) don’t spend their careers at DOJ.

They can and will. There's even a term for prosecutors like them: true believers. (The term isn't exclusive to SJWs, but SJWs who are committed to the cause will remain with the DOJ). Some non-true believers will take their time in the DOJ on their resume and then move on to big law firms or boutique firms for their pet SJW projects.

Unfortunately for AUSAs that were hired in the Obama era, enforcement priorities have changed. A trafficking case that the Biden administration would have passed on is now a priority. They can either do their jobs or resign, as Schrader now has.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Their job is to prosecute cases in line with professional conduct standards. So by refusing to prosecute a case they believe has serious problems, they actually did do their job.

[tylertusta]

Prosecutors don't prosecute every prosecutable case. They just don't have the time, so they pick and choose.

The idea that politics has no part of play in prosecutorial decisions is a fanciful fiction regardless of how AUSAs perceive themselves.

For example, The DOJ didn't increase its post-Dobbs enforcement of the FACE Act to go after pro-life protestors because pro-lifers were suddenly more apt to break the law than before.

The DOJ went after pro-life protestors because Biden ordered a "whole of government" effort to help abortionists, and that meant taking a pound of flesh from abortion foes wherever they could. They wanted to make examples of them. That meant that 'bar' for when the DOJ would step in to prosecute pro-lifers was lowered- to the floor, actually.

[Sarcastr0]

that meant taking a pound of flesh from abortion foes wherever they could. They wanted to make examples of them.

What, precisely did this entail? Persecution narratives from the right are all too often smoke and whining.

[tylertusta]

What, precisely did this entail?

It’s called deterrence. Please keep up.

Persecution narratives from the right are all too often smoke and whining.

For someone who posts his own "smoke and whining" here, you’re going to regret writing those words.

[Sarcastr0]

So the pound of flesh didn’t happen because everyone was preemptively deterred.

This is nonfalsifiable.

[tylertusta]

In today's thread, Sarc tries to troll by pretending to not understand idioms.

[bernard11]

The idea that politics has no part of play in prosecutorial decisions is a fanciful fiction regardless of how AUSAs perceive themselves.

Of course politics plays a part. After all, this case is clearly politically motivated, as Schrader said. But that part shouldn't be the leading role.

[David Nieporent]

However, the kinds of cases that they would prosecute is a reflection their views of ethics and morality. In a world of limited time and resources, do you prosecute the low-level drug user, or do you go after the ‘white supremacists’ that your boss in the White House rails against?

Fantasies about unitary executives notwithstanding, AUSAs do not have a boss in the White House. They work for their local USAO, and they don't decide what kind of cases to prosecute.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Unless he hopes the next Dem president will make him a Judge.

[Malika the Maiz]

He served the entire first Trump term.

[tylertusta]

You may not be aware of this, but Trump's administration was not the best administrator of the executive departments.

[Malika the Maiz]

What point do you think this makes? Remember he just resigned, he wasn’t let go.

[tylertusta]

My point is that Trump's first term was beset by such chaos that he was unable to effectively enact his enforcement priorities, which allowed AUSAs like Schrader to continue doing what they had been doing under Obama.

Trump 2.0 is a very different beast, at least when it comes to implementing enforcement priorities.

[bernard11]

They were all incompetent except for Trump, who hired them all and could have fired them all.

That's your utterly lame answer? Forget it. The straws are slipping out of your hand.

[tylertusta]

Huh?

I don't know what drugs you're taking, but you should stop. Drugs are bad, m'kay?

[bernard11]

Pretty much what you said, Tyler.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Someone has never met an AUSA.

[David Nieporent]

Political operative resigns for political reasons. News at 11.

He's a career prosecutor; literally the opposite of a political operative.

[Bob from Ohio]

"because he concluded there was simply no or insufficient evidence to support the charges, and charging him was politically motivated and had no legitimate legal basis"

The article only weakly supports the third of those alleged reasons.

"reportedly did so out of “concerns that the case was being pursued for political reasons,” according to sources"

"sources"!

Seems ironclad!

[Bob from Ohio]

Oops, "third of those alleged reason" should be second ["politically motivated"]

Still just total speculation.

[Commenter_XY]

Uber-lib prosecutor leaves b/c uber-libs are no longer in charge and he doesn't want to enforce the law. No great loss in his leaving.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Another person who has never met an AUSA.

[Malika the Maiz]

Uber-lib who served the entire first Trump administration and clerked for a GOP district judge?

You see, for servants of the Mad King like Mikie P, Kaz or XY, they can’t even imagine someone not being a partisan hack like them and instead having an adherence to professional standards and values.

[Kazinski]

Win-win for everyone.

As Pam Bondi said when she came aboard addressing career attorneys at DOJ: if you aren't willing to do your job as assigned to the best of your ability, then quit.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Doing your job as assigned to the best of your abilities also requires adhering to the rules of professional conduct. Or at least it is if your job is to be an attorney for the government. But maybe that’s not what the job is to you and the Trump admin.

[David Nieporent]

To be fair, Pam Bondi probably is doing her job to the best of her ability. But that's kind of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

[Malika the Maiz]

See?

[bernard11]

Uber-lib prosecutor leaves b/c uber-libs are no longer in charge and he doesn’t want to enforce the law. No great loss in his leaving.

You’re full of shit.

Where the fuck do you get off claiming that a guy is quitting a job he’s held for 15 years for reasons manufactured out of thin air?

You never heard of Ben Schrader before this recent business.

You have no idea what his political opinions are.

You have no idea of his record as an AUSA.

And for you, Mr. Oopsie, to claim based on zero evidence, that he, or anyone, “doesn’t want to enforce the law,” is laughable. You’ve consistently declared that you don’t think the government ought to be bound by the law in the Garcia case.

Where the fuck do you get off claiming that a guy is quitting a job he’s held for 15 years for reasons manufactured out of thin air.

[ReaderY]

The President has no inherent authority to call out the national guard on his own say-so. The Constitution assigns Congress the specfic power to provide for calling forth the militia for federal matters, and federal troops can only be used to protect states from domestic violence at the request of the state government. In all cases, the President has no autuority to act on his own. He can only act pursuant to either an Act of Congress or the request of a state government.

The Framers of the Constitution intentionally did not assign the entirety of the decision to call forth troops to the sole discretion of one person. The President can act only if another body authorizes it. He has no unenumerated “inherent” or “structural” power whatsoever in these matters. The entirety of his power is clearly laid out in the text.

[ThePublius]

That is simply not so, you're making stuff up.

[Krayt]

During hurricane Katrina, one of Bush’s excuses was that Louisiana (state “LA”, hmmm, connection there) had not requested federal troops, and hence posse comitatus forbid it, as people kept screaming for federal troop help.

So which is it, in defense of federal Republicans?

[Michael P]

So where do you suppose that President Trump has exceeded the bounds of, say, Chapter 10 U.S. Code section 12406?

[Magister]

Pretty clearly that would be "Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States". If he wanted to do this without the governor of California, he needed to invoke the Insurrection Act as Johnson did in 1965.

[apedad]

Tells us where this federal law is applicable.

It's a short read:

Whenever—
(1)the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2)there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3)the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I think this is more of a case for 10 U.S. Code § 252.

[tylertusta]

If California orders state and local forces to stand down and yield to the riots, it becomes a case for 253. If California makes the excuse that they lack sufficient power to do so, 253 also is in play.

[Michael P]

Fair enough, but Gavin Newsom has effectively declared himself to be part of the insurrection and demanded to be arrested over it.

[Malika the Maiz]

By saying he doesn’t think he needs federal help and that it might make things worse? Interesting to see an ostensible conservative think that stance is tantamount to insurrection.

[not guilty]

"Gavin Newsom has effectively declared himself to be part of the insurrection and demanded to be arrested over it."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, Michael P?

[Michael P]

It is, you perpetually wrong and dishonest lieyer.

https://deadline.com/2025/06/newsom-troops-lapd-alert-trump-ice-raids-1236427176/

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link. It doesn't support your claim. Why am I unsurprised?

Governor Newsom nowhere declares himself to be part of the insurrection. As for the "demand[] to be arrested," the article says this:

“Come after me. Arrest me,” a visibly angry Governor Gavin Newsom challenged the Trump administration late today.

Newsom was responding to comments made by Trump border czar Tom Homan who, when asked if his threat to arrest anybody who got in the way of immigration officials included the California governor and/or Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, replied, “I’ll say it about anybody. You cross that line, it’s a felony to knowingly harbor and conceal an illegal alien. It’s a felony to impede law enforcement doing their job.”

Newsom challenged Homan today in an interview with MSNBC, “Why doesn’t he do that? He’s a tough guy. He knows where to find me.” The governor was upset by what he said was ICE detaining “four year old girls who are just trying to get an education. Lay your hands off these people who are just trying to live their lives.”

Kind of like John Wayne drawling, "Smile when you say that, mister."

[Krayt]

I hate it when politicians try to arrest political opposition that irritates them, faceting around how awful, just awful, the dude is, and hyperbolating how bad it is, and it’s a fair cop, and obviously this is disinterested concern for rule of law. Look, a whole bunch of talking heads lined up to say so!

I feel like Matthew Broderick at the end of Wargames, talking about the W.O.P.R., “Learn, dammit!”

[Michael P]

So you don't like the evidence that Newscum demanded to be arrested over his role. And you don't like the fact that I assumed you knew about his bogus lawsuit, mentioned below.

Thanks for proving me right.

[not guilty]

There is no "insurrection," doofus. The lawsuit is about President Trump ignoring the plain requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 12406: "Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia."

The President taking an ultra vires action does not make for an insurrection.

[PeteRR]

So the guys running around fighting state and federal LE, while waving the flag of Mexico. Not an invasion?

[Michael P]

Hey, they're masked up, so it's not obvious to tell whether they're aliens or not! It could be an insurrection or rebellion instead of an invasion.

[Martinned]

None of that happened, and even if what you say did happen, it still wouldn't be an invasion, because it would be US citizens doing the "fighting".

Happy to help.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it would be US citizens doing the “fighting”"

Did the rioters have their passports on their heads? How do you know they were US citizens?

[Martinned]

How do you know they're not?

[Mr. Bumble]

A distinction without meaning.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Maybe he means they're obviously just those brown, "second-class" US citizens who were only incidentally whelped on the sacred soil of the USA (and who Trump contends are not actually US citizens at all)?

[Malika the Maiz]

Yes, because that’s not what an invasion is.

[Bubba Jones]

No. Not an invasion that warrants federalization of the national guard for domestic deployment.

[SRG2]

Is wanting someone to be convicted before they're sent to prison defending that person's behaviour? Obviously not, yet it seems that the cultists haven't grasped this basic point.

[Malika the Maiz]

Due process is only for billionaire Presidents, white collar criminals and people who shoot brown people and claim self-defense.

[bye]

Defending that person's behavior --- is a hanging participle.
To what is is joined? IF it is 'someone' that is very bad writing , very bad.

[SRG2]

Defending that person’s behavior — is a hanging participle.

It isn't. My guess is you've been exposed to the principle but either didn't understand it, don't read enough for comprehension, or what you read tends to lack any complexity. Regardless, your knowledge of English grammar is not what you think it is.

"Is X the same as Y?" is the construction. X is "wanting someone to be convicted..." and Y is "defending someone's behaviour". In both cases the participle applies clearly to the succeeding few words - "someone to be convicted" and "someone's behaviour".

What you complain of: dangling modifier

What I actually wrote: Absolute construction

Seppos, innit?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Now, now... Please leave the Aussie slang in Oz.

[SRG2]

"Seppos" is perfectly good British slang (as is "innit?") - it originated in London.

[Michael P]

So how's that pocket ace parliamentarian working out for the DNC?

https://www.lifezette.com/2025/06/democrat-civil-war-explodes-dnc-chair-threatens-to-quit-over-david-hogg-watch/

[Sarcastr0]

This is an article that quotes a daily caller article about someone in the DNC reportedly considering stepping down.

Not even Hogg cares about every morsel of inside baseball speculation that mentions Hogg.

But there seems a cottage industry on the right. And you seem the audience.

[Bunny495]

There has been plenty of MSM coverage about a majority of the DNC not happy about Hogg's public positions to the point that it is not close to being 'inside baseball'. A simple google search will turn up dozens of links about the feud between the DNC power brokers and the Hogg supporters.

[Commenter_XY]

The autophagy of Team D has been fun to watch.

[DaveM]

There’s an interesting thread over on X about the funding behind some of the organized members of the LA riots. I think the author goes too far in claiming that the riots themselves were funded and organized, but it clearly is the case that some of the participants were organized and paid.

Generally, that’s not a “scary” or bad thing. No one has ever been hurt by the fact that people are holding up pre-printed signs. I worked most of my career in downtown DC, and watched organized protesters unload from busses and walk down to the Mall in their matching T-shirts for decades.

But the fact that this author was able to trace the bulk of the funding back to a single billionaire (Neville Singham) who has some rather interesting connections to the communist party in the US and to protesters at Columbia University, and that even the federal government had given them grants was pretty eye-opening.

https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1931508083127362024

[Michael P]

That's what the left calls stochastic terrorism, right? Not necessarily planning a specific act of politically motivated violence, but engaging in speech that is calculated to significantly increase the risk of such violence?

[DaveM]

I think being evil is too much like work for most people.

[Michael P]

I think exceptionally few people view themselves as doing evil. People who are criticized for being evil generally act out of strong motivations for what they think are worthwhile outcomes; they are strongly invested in achieving those outcomes, whether as a vocation, an avocation or both. Even Satanists at least make excuses along those lines.

[bye]

Okay but it is well nigh universal in moral theory that such people are more evil than most other people are. Your ignorance makes it CULPABLE IGNORANCE

You are actually more guilty --- far more guilty --- for wrongly thinking these are worthwhile outcomes. Consider Dante's HELL

"there emerges a sin so pervasive, so insidious, that it can be considered the root from which all other sins sprout: the sin of Willful Ignorance and Apathy. This sin, often overlooked in its subtlety, is perhaps the most dangerous of all, for it is the foundation upon which other transgressions are built."

IT is the Biden/Kamala sin of being stupid from laziness and inflicting your mediocrity on MILLIONS Of people

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not clear to me that there's this hard and fast line between funding and organizing the riots themselves, and funding and organizing key participants in the riots.

If you organize a protest and it quickly becomes a riot, and you don't call off the protest, I think it presumptively becomes the case that you were actually organizing a riot.

And then you look at the character of the organizations that did the organizing, and, frankly, that they'd set out to organize a riot does not seem like much of a stretch. You expect organizing revolutionary violence out of a group like the PSL, which outright advocates violent revolution.

[Malika the Maiz]

“If you organize a protest and it quickly becomes a riot, and you don’t call off the protest, I think it presumptively becomes the case that you were actually organizing a riot.”

Like January 6th?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, if Trump hadn't organized a separate event at the OTHER end of the Mall, and we didn't have people literally convicted in court of organizing the violence without coordinating with Trump, you might have a point.

As it is, you don't.

[Magister]

A separate event at which he encouraged people to go to the Capitol, and eagerly watched the violence there and refused to do anything to stop it; even tweeted encouragement to his insurrectionists who wanted to kill Pence.

[Sarcastr0]

I presume Brett also doesn't think Bin Laden did 9-11 since he wasn't on one of the planes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"he encouraged people to go to the Capitol"

And do what?

[LawTalkingGuy]

What do you think he wanted them to do? What was the end result that Trump wanted?

[Bob from Ohio]

What words did he use?

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

These words. Read them all and ask yourself: What result was he was hoping for after this speech? What thing did he want to happen? And how was it supposed to happen?

[Bob from Ohio]

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

[LawTalkingGuy]

Setting aside that you’re ignoring the rest of the speech, let me ask you this: would doing what you quoted result in Trump getting what he wanted?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

(To reiterate, Trump actually said, "fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, peacefully". The ratio was 20:1.)

[Brett Bellmore]

The end result he wanted was, minimally, the count being delayed while he could contest outcomes in several states, and, maximally, the alternate electors being counted resulting in him being declared the winner.

To that end he wanted his supporters OUTSIDE the Capitol, engendering in members of Congress fear of the political consequences of doing otherwise.

People INSIDE the Capitol, putting members of Congress in fear of their lives, would predictably do exactly what it did: Make his cause radioactive. So the last thing he wanted was a riot inside the Capitol, which is why he didn't arrange for one.

Now, it's true he did find it vastly amusing in light of Congress having refused his offer of extra security. Until he realized it was ending his last hope of changing the election outcome. But that's not the same as having wanted it to happen.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Why would protesters peacefully standing outside result in a delay?

[Brett Bellmore]

That's pretty obvious: It would shift the political calculations of Republican members of Congress in favor of demanding one, on account of increasing their perception of Trump's support among the Republican electorate. Getting loads of people to show up far from home is a pretty good measure of political influence.

I personally don't think it would have shifted those calculations enough to get Trump anything he wanted, but I thought he was being greatly unrealistic in contesting the election past the EC meeting in the first place. He was letting his sheer incredulity over Biden having defeated him color his evaluation of the probabilities too much. Backsies just aren't a thing in Presidential elections.

[John 4]

Brett, are you gullible or a liar?

[bernard11]

He's both. He makes up lies and then believes them.

Among a million other problems with his view of events is that if Trump didn't want the insurrectionists going into the Capitol he could have told them not to, or to leave as soon as he learned about it.

He didn't do that. Instead he praised them, said he loved them, etc.

Oh, and this,

The end result he wanted was, minimally, the count being delayed while he could contest outcomes in several states, and, maximally, the alternate electors being counted resulting in him being declared the winner.

is an absurd justification. Why is Trump entitled to endless challenges and recounts of all sorts? He's not. The election was held. He apparently lost. He got recount after recount, filed lawsuit after lawsuit, for which he had plenty of time, all of which confirmed his loss. Do you think he was ever going to stop contesting? No, he wasn't.

He wanted to go on forever until someone somewhere somehow declared him the winner.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

One could equally persuasively argue that he had wanted them to succeed.

When they failed, he TACOd...

[Magister]

Trump wanted security removed at his separate event, because he wanted armed people for his insurrection.

Trump said: “I don’t fucking care that they have weapons, they’re not here to hurt me. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here, let the people in and take the mags away.”

Who were they there to hurt?

[Kazinski]

His objection was the screening was slowing the crowd down in filling the ellipse.

It wasn't like not keeping people exercising the RTKBA out of the ellipse jad any effect on making it easier to get in the capitol.

In fact letting them into the ellipse kept them away from the capitol longer.

[Magister]

So they can march with their weapons to the Capitol, so they would be ready for the insurrection.

[Kazinski]

Well explain to me how they are going to be diarmed in they go straight to the capitol without entering the ellipse?

[Magister]

The point was that Trump wanted them armed (and wanted to go to the Capitol with them).

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"They're not here to hurt anyone", he must have meant.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

[Kazinski]

"The point was that Trump wanted them armed..."

Worst plan ever then since only 3 people among the ten thousand or so, were credibly alleged to have guns at the capitol at Jan 6th.

Its almost like it wasn't planned at all.

There are more guns at Superbowl victory parade.

[Magister]

Can you still be in the cult and not post stupidity? Evidence suggests not.

We don't know how many guns were present, only that some were; if relatively few. then thanks to DC's gun laws, but with caches of guns nearby. They did a fair bit of damage in only a few hours, and it could have been much worse if they had taken legislators as hostages and given Trump an excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act. Fortunately, the outnumbered police held them off and then TACO.

[Mr. Bumble]

You dipshit. Insurrectionist are concerned about violating gin laws?
Who is the cultist?

[Magister]

You are the cultist, Bumble. There were fewer guns present because of Washington DC's gun laws. The Oath Keepers kept their cache of weapons in Virginia in part because of strict Washington DC gun laws, but close enough to use "to fight a bloody revolution/civil war to defeat the traitors" if Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act. Enrique Tarrio of the Proud Boys was arrested before the insurrection itself, as were several other people because they violated Washington DC's gun laws; getting arrested before the insurrection was not something they wanted. (Tarrio was arrested on a warrant for a previous crime, but maybe he could have made bail in time to join in if he hadn't been carrying.)

[David Nieporent]

And do what?

Stop the steal.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, a separate event, where the riot started BEFORE he encouraged people to go to the Capitol, because it was pre-planned by other people who have been duly convicted of that.

The degree to which we have certainty that Trump DIDN'T plan or incite the riot is remarkable, thanks to the efforts made to prosecute the people who actually did it.

[Magister]

The first trial resulting from the events of January 6th was a trial of ... Donald Trump. Pity that the many Republican Senators who condemned him in January couldn't bother to convict him in February.

Susan Collins was sure he learned his lesson from the first impeachment. It was like the lesson that Republicans learned from Watergate, plausible deniability, but the lesson learned then was that 40+ Republican senators would always back their party over the country.

[Malika the Maiz]

Trump told his supporters to turn out for a wild time and then waited hours watching the riot before calling off his supporters.

[bye]

Well this is the ole Muslim paradox.

Many calling for killing of infidels but no one even exists who could even theoretically say "This is wrong for our people, you should not do it" This is one reason the Catholics have a Pope

[DaveM]

“If you organize a protest and it quickly becomes a riot, and you don’t call off the protest, I think it presumptively becomes the case that you were actually organizing a riot.”

I think a protest that happens to get away from you can be distinguished from one meant to get away — but probably not at the time, I agree. At the time, the two would be indistinguishable.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe for a short while, one could be mistaken for the other. It becomes obvious pretty quickly.

In this case, organized by groups with a history of starting riots, so I don't think there's a lot of doubt to give them the benefit of.

[Martinned]

O, and just checking, is Trumpland OK with the police shooting at a camera crew reporting on the news?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-09/los-angeles-protests-day-three-national-guard-trump-newsom/105395112#:~:text=The%20US%20Correspondent%20for%209News%20Australia%2C%20Lauren%20Tomasi%2C%20was%20hit%20by%20a%20rubber%20bullet%20fired%20by%20an%20LAPD%20officer%20while%20reporting%20live%20from%20the%20scene%20in%20downtown%20LA.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow. Not "Standing next to people doing illegal stuff in front of police is risky."? You're going with pretending they were deliberately targeting the camera crew?

[Krayt]

Even the article just casually mentions he was hit by a rubber buller, not targeted specifically for being a journalist.

The next paragraph even details a federal agency ready to help diplomatically with an Australian similarly tagged.

[Joe_dallas]

The article is also missing considerable detail on how and why the reporter got hit the rubber bullet

[John 4]

There's a video, rube.

[Sarcastr0]

deliberately targeting the camera crew

If that's what's going on, we'll see more of it. And more testimony that they ignored media identifying themselves.
If not, this will die down.

I would hope that if more comes out indicating the admin is targeting the media, you will not defend it, or pretend it's a media conspiracy to smear the administration.

[Joe_dallas]

It was martineed that made the unfounded comment
Brett was only pointing out martineed's unfounded comment

[Sarcastr0]

You lost even TiP.

Just you and Brett pretending your eyes don’t see what they do.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Looking at the video it seems pretty clear the journalist was deliberately shot.

Of course, journalists don’t have any more rights to refuse to disperse that rioters do, but there isn’t clear justification in the video.

[Martinned]

I am. If you watch the longer video you can see the cops discussing the camera crew before one of them takes a shot at them.

https://bsky.app/profile/democracynow.org/post/3lr6ljrttfs2p

That's the problem with shooting at a camera crew while they're working; the evidence is right there.

[Bunny495]

Reporter and cameraman position themselves between a line of rioters throwing thing at a line of LEOs and the LEOs respond with rubber bullets, one of which hits the reporter (a kinda hot blonde babe dressed in jeans and a T-shirt). Cliff’s Notes version FAFO. Need to add the "brave" reporter is OK according to her employer and is still out and covering the riot.

[Martinned]

With all those rioters around it's surprising she wasn't harmed by any of them. Are you sure they aren't a figment of your fascist imagination?

[Kazinski]

I'm OK with it.

If Karen Bass' LAPD, which has not been federalized and is under local control, think its necessary then I am not going to try to second guess them.

If anything it validates the President's decision to bring out the National Guard to get the situation under control where the police don't feel the need to use rubber bullets.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump also trips on stairs Nice recovery, though. Last time I tripped on the stairs I tore a muscle catching myself.

Frankly, if I'm still above ground at Trump's current age, let alone climbing stairs under my own power, I'll be doing well. But people his age shouldn't be running the country.

[tylertusta]

Agreed. I would be in favor of a maximum age to serve as President or in Congress.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree, if only the Republicans had a chance to nominate a younger candidate. Wait they did I remember voting for Nicki Halley? But you know the incompetent looked so much better to the Republicans.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump is not "incompetent" but I assume you are referring to him. He still looks "so much better to the Republicans". Most are pretty happy with him.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, I would have gladly voted for DeSantis, if he had still been in the race by the time we voted here in SC. As it is, I didn't bother voting in the primary.

[Commenter_XY]

Meatball Ron isn't the guy.

[Brett Bellmore]

He was the candidate most aligned with Trump's voters, who are most of the Republican base, who had executive experience and no legal exposure. And I've met him, he seems pretty reasonable.

Having his support base be almost a perfect overlap with Trump's would have taken him to victory if Trump hadn't run. It was fatal, when Trump decided to run again.

Halley had almost no support overlap with Trump, which is why Trump deciding to run didn't cause her support to totally implode. But because Trump's base IS most of the GOP, it also meant that she had a ceiling that was down in the crawlspace. She couldn't even carry her home state.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Ron Ron the neocon!! Of course you would have supported him.

[bye]

Brett: self-defeating assertion since your only way to bring it about is to deny citizens to vote for him as they did.

You are probably --- I can picture it-- one of these term limits nuts who voted for 90-year old Sen Feinstein because "she is an exception" ,which of course EVERYBODY says, obviously

[Martinned]

If only someone had warned American voters that Trump wanted to send the army after them!

https://www.aol.com/harris-plays-trump-clips-rally-010404802.html

[Joe_dallas]

quite dubious reporting

[Krayt]

The powerful direct the government against the little guy. The powerful direct the government against the big guy, tryng to jail him, charge him with crimes, remove him from office, knock him off the ballot, and expropriate an uppity lord’s estate to the tune of half a billion dollars, like tyrant kings of yore.

Which, since we are a democracy, is also an attack on the little guy. Rhetoric about limited choices the powerful offer us in sarcastically-quoted “democracy” is no stranger to either side.

Welcome, concerners of the powerful misusing their government power! Welcome!

[bye]

americans are thrilled he is doing this. I bought my first gun after Biden's standoff from BLM, looting, rioting, fires in the streets.

So did the most anti-gun demographic in the country

BLACK WOMEN WHO ONCE HATED GUNS ARE EMBRACING THEM AS....
The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com › 2022/07/28 › black-...
Jul 28, 2022 — Across America, Black women are taking up arms in unprecedented numbers. Research shows that first-time gun buyers since 2019 have been more ...

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/09/nx-s1-5382447/federal-judges-workplace-clerks

Forcing clerks to drink and be social with you and your judge buddies is such pathetic loser behavior it should be impeachable. These judges should spend time with their family or get some real friends. They’re not in their 20s and the clerks won’t think they’re cool because they want to party. If they’re actually an alcoholic, calling a clerk to pick themselves up while trashed should be rock bottom and a sign to get some help.

[Ridgeway]

That was an interesting read, but that story at the end about the clerk applying for AUSA spots didn't make a lot of sense.

It seems pretty obvious that the judge thought the clerk had signed up for a 2-year hitch. You'd think the two of them could have resolved that. Instead, the clerk just went ahead and did what the judge warned him not to do, with predictable results. What was he/she thinking?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What was he/she thinking?"

He/she was apparently thinking that the two of them couldn't resolve it, despite what you or I would think. Which is kind of the point of the article.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Agreed. Politics aside, it would appear that the judiciary has a systemic character/integrity problem.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like the "mostly peaceful" demonstrations have progressed to the mostly peaceful looting stage.
"Looters ransacked stores across downtown Los Angeles last night as the protests against President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown entered a third day.

Businesses across the city were targeted amid the demonstrations, which saw cars torched"
Daily Mail

[Brett Bellmore]

And CNN's "fiery, but mostly peaceful" idiocy is back.

[Bob from Ohio]

"cars torched”

They ordered up Waymo cars and then burned them!

That's showing Drumpf!

[Sarcastr0]

Your comment would seem to illustrate that such actions don't comport with someone actually protesting against the government.

I would hope those burning these cars go to jail. That's all there is to it.

[Bob from Ohio]

My comment would seem to illustrate that the rioters are idiots.

No one is "protesting", they are "rioting". You always minimize riots.

How come you think burning cars deserve jail, you pooh poohed buildings burning buildings in 2020 as no big deal..

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, rioters do tend to be idiots.

No one is “protesting”,
Bullshit.

you pooh poohed buildings burning buildings in 2020 as no big deal.
I'd be surprised if I said that wasn't a crime.

[ThePublius]

Is burning cars protesting?
Is assaulting LOE's and federal officials protesting?

You're pitiful.

[Sarcastr0]

You're furiously agreeing with me.

[ThePublius]

Nothing is ever an invasion.
Nothing is ever a rebellion.
Nothing is ever an insurrection. Oh, except when it suits their politics and narrative.

They can't define these things, but they will tell you when they see them.

[ThePublius]

I meant to type "never" for those. Duh!

[Sarcastr0]

I do not forget that you said calling it a rebellion is important because when the state kills someone and you call it a rebellion, it's not a murder.

You're mad about labels because you think that can rationalize the government shooting liberals.

Awful.

[ThePublius]

"I do not forget that you said calling it a rebellion is important because when the state kills someone and you call it a rebellion, it’s not a murder."

I did not say that! Stop lying!

[Magister]

ThePublius:

You’re a liar, Sarcastr0! I never called for murdering anyone, and I support ICE grabbing ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. I never said insurrection.

Pushing state murder! You friggin’ liar. I never pushed or said any such thing!

You persist on attacking me rather than addressing the issue.

Sarcastr0:

What does insisting it’s a rebellion allow, TP?

ThePublius:

Using deadly physical force to put down a rebellion is not murder.

QED.

[ThePublius]

QED nothing! I never pushed for state murder.

[Magister]

You wanted it to be called a rebellion to justify the killing, as Sarcastr0 said.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Using deadly physical force to put down a rebellion is not murder."

That's just fact, it would be lawful force and not murder.

[Magister]

Only if it is actually a rebellion.

[Kazinski]

99% of the time the state kills someone its not murder, rebellion or not.

But regardless anyone throwing Molotov cocktails or rocks is an imminent danger and should be shot.

[Sarcastr0]

anyone throwing Molotov cocktails or rocks is an imminent danger and should be shot

Imminent danger is an individualized interpretation.

And there are plenty of nonlethal options that include plenty of stopping power.

You seem eager for some lib blood.

[Kazinski]

It's not an individualized determination.

The standard is a prosecutor first determines if a 'reasonable person' would feel that the person throwing the object is a threat to someone's life, or serious bodily injury.

And if it goes to the jury they make similar determination.

It isn't just left to each person to decide how personally threatened they felt.

So yeah if someone is alone out in a field with the nearest person outside of throwing range, then a reasonable person would not see that as a justifiable threat to use deadly force.

In the middle of a crowd people running around confronting police, its a slam dunk.

[Sarcastr0]

That is not the law of when law enforcement get to use deadly force. There was a recent case on this actually. Barnes v. Felix (2025).

You still seem eager for lib blood.

[Kazinski]

Well, you will be relieved to know that the CA National Guard is using far less than lethal measures to contain the rioters:

"Guard just did an EPIC takedown running after a rioter ripping off his mask"

https://x.com/MAGAVoice/status/1932262128888791195?t=65nH_CxCjVs59Vw92dU8Fw&s=19

This is just from a random account in my feed, not anyone i follow.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

But high on meth and smashing windows when a cop has an unholstered sidearm is no “danger” at all…right??

[bye]

Well this only proves you never heard of Kent State -- and that will sideline you with many intelligent informed folk

[LexAquilia]

The new "Firey, but mostly peaceful protests" just dropped.

Don't bring in the LEO's, folks!

"it’s just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burn.”

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1932046509572321410

[Mr. Bumble]

“it’s just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burn.”

...and getting their reparations.

[Malika the Maiz]

“and getting their reparations”

Ah, there it is!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Reparations would ultimately benefit white Republicans in the southeast…who do you think owns McDonalds franchises and other small businesses in the southeast?? Everyone else can just buy Walmart and Nike stock to make money.

[Bob from Ohio]

IDF seized the 60 foot single ship making up a "flotilla" with our gal Greta on it. IDF will now deliver the 110 pounds of flour that was going to "break the siege".

[Estragon]

“This is not what we voted for. I have
always supported Trump, @realDonaldTrump, through thick and thin. However, this is unacceptable and inhumane. I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings—in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims—all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal. This undermines the sense of fairness and justice that the American people value.”

-Ileana Garcia, co-founder Latinas for Trump

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I like that she's used the term "Miller-like", with the expectation that everyone will know what she means.

[Sarcastr0]

The Miller-as-lighting-rod push, to get around Trump's culty support, seems pretty effective so far.

[Estragon]

He is so viscerally and obviously odious, in a way even Elon seems not to have managed. Someone smarter than me pointed out the other day that Roald Dahl had this pegged long ago:

“If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier and uglier until you can hardly bear to look at it.”

[LexAquilia]

Estragon,

Stephen Miller has classic Jewish features given he is Jewish. Roald Dahl was a notorious antisemite and it looks to have surfaced your latent hatred for Jews too.

[Estragon]

“A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts it will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.”

You’re so right— this passage describes Miller much better.

You get the heroes you deserve.

[LexAquilia]

So look like a classic Jewish trope.

Not many people double-down on antisemitism.

[Estragon]

He is one of— if not the— single most odious individuals in American political life today. So odious in fact that Trump-supporting Republicans are willing to call him out by name. He is a world-class hater and it shows. But by all means— hitch your wagon to this guy. I’m sure history will remember him well.

[Estragon]

“classic Jewish trope”

“… black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys who wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the people I want counting my money. Nobody else…”

-Roald Dahl, 1991

[Bob from Ohio]

whataboutism

[Estragon]

Whatever. Tell us Bob, did you think you were voting for detaining and deporting people complying with their immigration hearings and following the lawful asylum procedure? One of the ladies who founded Latinas for Trump doesn’t think so.

I know the answer already but it’s useful to see it in black and white.

[Bob from Ohio]

"did you think you were voting for detaining and deporting people complying with their immigration hearings and following the lawful asylum procedure?"

I didn't vote

But most Trump voters did vote for that IMO.

[LexAquilia]

“…white guys picking my cotton! I hate it. The only kind of people I want picking my cotton are blacks who eat watermelon and fried chicken every day. Those are the people I want picking my cotton. Nobody else…”

- Estragon, 2025

[Estragon]

Indeed. And if I were the leader of a big (bigly huge?) political party having said that— would you tend to view my supporters’ accusations of their opponent’s anti-black bigotry as more or less genuinely held?

[Sarcastr0]

Estragon calls Miller ugly, and you declare that's antisemetic.

It's like you're working hard to devalue that label.

[LexAquilia]

Please unsubscribe from this thread. You weren't invited. No one is interested in your kibitzing and personal attacks.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't seem to be familiar with how a public forum works.

Maybe you want to try more of an echo chamber.

[LexAquilia]

Not interested.

[Estragon]

This is a key point. The more accusations of anti-Jewish bigotry are used as a rhetorical cudgel to merely bash one’s political opponents, the more that its very serious meaning is naturalized and drained. Which is, a) I suspect the point and b) actually fomenting— not opposing— anti-Semitism.

[Estragon]

“Neutralized”

[Sarcastr0]

Intentionally fomenting antisemitism I cannot be sure of, but surely someone abusing the term so doesn't sincerely care a jot about Jews or Israel.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It's nice to promote basic principles, but you did vote for that.

[Estragon]

I agree that what we are seeing now should have been foreseeable. But she is drawing a reasonable distinction here: in the lead-up to the election Trump talked a lot about deporting criminal aliens. The problem was— most of those people were already in jail. So in order to meet these insane quotas promised by Steven Miller enforcement naturally had to turn to people like this lady’s constituents and Carol Hui (among countless others): people lawfully seeking asylum and complying with the court appearance and check-in process to adjudicate their legal claims. So while it may have been stupidly naive, shortsighted, willfully blind to obvious consequences— whatever terms you want to use— it is certainly true that this is not what this lady and others like her voted for.

“[W]hat we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings—in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims.”

[JoeFromtheBronx]

She references “Miller-like desires”, and we knew full well Trump had them. She very well voted for that.

She does not get a pass for being “willingly naive,” especially after years of clarity of what Trump stands for and what he will do when it office. She wanted certain goals and was willing to vote for a certain person to have them come to pass.

You get the bitter with the sweet there & it’s bluntly speaking bullshit for her to skip over half of the equation. This isn’t Trump’s first term, though even there, his actions were far from surprising.

If she wants to join the coalition of due process, that's fine, but "I didn't vote for this" is phony.

[Estragon]

“Arrests in immigration courts, including people with I-220A and pending asylum cases, the termination of the CHNV program, which has left thousands exposed to deportation, and other similar measures, all jeopardize our duty to due process that every democracy must guarantee. I remain clear in my position: anyone with a pending asylum case, status-adjustment petition, or similar claim deserves to go through the legal process.”

-Maria Elvira Salazar (R) represents Florida’s 27th congressional district.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Cubans and Venezuelans and Haitians, oh my!!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Does she not understand the consequences of the Mexican flags?

[Zarniwoop]

"'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party."

[Estragon]

I deeply sympathize with this sentiment and the temptation to dunk all over people like this is near irresistible but the truth is that if we are going to beat back the wave of fascism crashing upon our shores today— we are going to have to bring people like this along with us. Once (if?) the battle is won, then there will be plenty of time for recriminations and reckoning.

[Bob from Ohio]

"wave of fascism crashing upon our shores"

Melodramatic and pathetic all at once!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed; it isn't coming from outside the country.

[bye]

Then we learn from STUPID_AS_SHIT Biden's handling of BLM, riots,looting --- it increased gun ownership drastically, which surprised him , proving folly is a sin that comes from the heart

[Kazinski]

Its not a self-fabricated goal, it was a campaign tested, voter approved goal.

All of them.

[Sarcastr0]

Like many successful populists, Trump said a ton of contradictory stuff and people picked up what they wanted to hear.

You heard blanket hostility to include some on visas if they step out of line.
She heard only going after the ones who were evading law enforcement.

To speculate some, it looks like something colored both your PoVs in different directions.

[Kazinski]

Just what did he say that was contradictory about sending illegal aliens home?

[Sarcastr0]

WHICH illegal aliens was the ambiguity.

The bad hombres? Or the easy to target people who are going to immigration hearings?

She heard the first. You heard the second.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The ones who were following the prescribed legal process, which the Trumpanzees subsequently terminated, leaving them without legal recourse?

[Sarcastr0]

It's like the cruelty is the point.

And Kaz is here for it.

[Kazinski]

CNN:
"This is Trump’s net approval rating on immigration,’ Harry Enten said on air Monday while comparing his -21 approval rating in June 2017 to his current +1 rating on the issue.

‘It’s gone up like a rocket now versus eight years ago during Trump’s first term,’ he explained.

‘There is no issue on which Trump is doing so much better than he was in his first term more than the issue of immigration.‘"

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/06/trump-popularity-surges-on-la-riots-immigration-stance.php

[David Nieporent]

+1%! We've been assured that the Democrats are getting played like a fiddle because this is an 80/20 issue for Trump. +1%! And that's Trump's only "accomplishment"!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Top government officials (or any really) calling governors "scum" is not a good thing. Dehumanizing people is generally bad.

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/trump-dehumanizing-language

[Mr. Bumble]

Does that include calling people "Hitler"?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Dehumanizing involves treating persons as non-humans. They are "scum" or "vermin" or "animals." Hitler was a person.

[LexAquilia]

Is being called a "Nazi" humanizing like a person, or dehumanizing like "scum" or "vermin"?

[SRG2]

Neither.

[Martinned]

Glad to see that you still think being called a Nazi is a bad thing...

[bye]

NO, you made that term up. BECAUSE they are persons they are all the more failures

Terribly and swiftly he shall come against you,

because severe judgment awaits the exalted—

For the lowly may be pardoned out of mercy

but the mighty shall be mightily put to the test.

[bye]

NO, that is illogical to say, as if scum never ran for office or scum never won a political race. Stalin, HItler, Mao, Pol Pot -scum, do you differ ?
It isn't dehumanizing, it is the opposite:YOU are a person in power, with great responsibilities and you are letting businesses burn, people get hurt, other government officials be harmed.

[Michael P]

Thanks, Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/09/technology/youtube-videos-content-moderation.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey, did the travel ban go into effect or has some judge in Hawaii stopped it?
Asking for a friend.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Remember in Trump’s first term when an Iraqi Muslim assassin intent on killing Bush mysteriously entered the country during a lockdown with a travel ban??? That was weird, right?? 😉

[David Nieporent]

No. What's weird is that you keep repeating this over and over again. Regardless of its relevance to anything. (It's never relevant to anything.) Are you stuck in some sort of fugue state?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You have shit for brains and don’t remember something that came to light in 2022!?! The Iraqi’s name is Shihab…although the fact you have shit for brains means you don’t care.

[Martinned]

The "conservatives" on the supreme court said it was OK during his first term, so how could a lowly district court judge disagree?

[bye]

are they 'conservatives' before or after that decision you are attempting to turn to your own meaning 🙂

[LexAquilia]

https://x.com/GuntherEagleman/status/1932093146378215921

If a local government is organizing impediments to Federal LEO's executing their lawful authority, is that insurrection?

[apedad]

You tell us.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

[LexAquilia]

A straight read of the text of the law would suggest "yes".

[Michael P]

(deleted)

[Bunny495]

The answer is no. See my post below. Even January 6 and the far more on point Bonus Expeditionary Force marching to and “invading” Washington, DC failed to produce any insurrection charges.

[tylertusta]

10 U.S. Code § 253:

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

[SRG2]

I suspect a number of the cultists here are kinda hoping that the NG kill one of the protestors so that they can respond to outraged commenters here by saying, "you didn't care when Ashli Babbitt was killed"

[Mr. Bumble]

Change your name to The Projectionist.

[Michael P]

How many Waymos did Ashli Babbitt summon and then set on fire? How many concrete blocks did she throw at federal law enforcement officers? How many Mexican flags did she wave while blocking ICE agents from doing their jobs?

[Malika the Maiz]

I like how throwing concrete blocks and waving a Mexican flag are lumped together here!

[Bunny495]

I still don't get the Waymo thing. I don't have a dog in this fight but why go out of your way to find/order/whatever a Waymo when there are plenty of other vehicles to torch?

[Kazinski]

Because by their lights owned by a corporation, and no driver, makes it ok.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Stop the ste!

The last words of the Ashtray Babbitt that will inspire a new generation of patriots! Gee, I wonder what she meant by “ste”?? 😉

[Dr. Ed 2]

Who shot the Australian girl journalist?

Rubber bullet. Lots more smoke than from a real bullet being fired.

[SRG2]

Well, it wasn't a protestor

[Martinned]

Of course! Why would anyone object to the cops shooting at the press as long as it's with rubber bullets?

[Mr. Bumble]

Take your objection up with Mayor Bass.

[Martinned]

What makes you think I wouldn't? In a nutshell American cops are over-armed, under-trained, and under-funded. The fact that Trump wants to go to war with California doesn't change that.

[Bunny495]

RANT ALERT

One of my pet peeves is the use of terms like "treason" and "insurrection".

Treason is almost never charged (maybe 40 times so far) and there are even less convections (13) yet almost every thread here seems to have more folks than that needing to be charged.

While things like the Whiskey Rebelion and Shays Rebelion could qualify as insurrection even the Bonus Expeditionary Force marching to and "invading" Washington, DC (with deaths of two of the Veterans due to being shot by the US Army (led by Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur, with junior officers like Dwight D. Eisenhower and George S. Patton under his command) failed to produce any charges of insurrection; in fact, there were almost no charges and convections.

One would think reading these threads treason and insurrection are as common as white on rice when in fact they are as rare as hen's teeth.

[Michael P]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_convicted_of_treason lists 18 or more people convicted of treason against the US, depending on how you count five of those connected to Herbert Hans Haupt. Hans Max Haupt and Herbert John Burgman are illustrative examples.

[Bunny495]

Not trying to split hairs but that list includes convections for both federal AND STATE treason and as you point out "it depends on how you count". Even then you post 18 or more. There does seem to be agreement that while the total number of treason conviction is not easy to determine it is still in the low double digits. That list also includes a Mexican citizen (later determined to be wrongly) convicted by the US.

[Michael P]

There are 23 named people, including two convicted of treason against Virginia rather than the US, plus two unnamed confederates of John Fries. If you subtract the five associated with Herbert Hans Haupt who are not his father, you still have 18 convictions for treason against the US. I stand by my count.

[Bunny495]

playing the devil's advocate Adam Gadahn was indicted for treason: n 2006 for making propaganda videos for al-Qaeda. However, he was killed in an airstrike before he could be brought to trial so how do you count him. There is also the Taos Revolt in January 1847 where 15 peeps were tried for treason and executed. Your wiki source only lists one. The confusion may arise from questions of American citizenship as it is not clear if some of the 15 were Mexicans, Indians, or a combination of the two. In any case I stick by my position that while the number is small (and in low double digits) it is not easy to claim an absolute accurate number.

[tylertusta]

I posted this in the ICE thread, but I'll repost it here:

Below is Bill Shipley’s take on events. Paywalled, but free trials are available, and I highly recommend even if you disagree with him.

Pres. Trump Did Not Invoke the “Insurrection Act” in Los Angeles — But He Can Now.

https://shipwreckedcrew.substack.com/p/pres-trump-did-not-invoke-the-insurrection

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I posted this under the Yoo post:

I was just thinking the same thing …water boarding is kosher but tariffs are not. Btw, I actually agree with Yoo on torture and Democrats and the media really screwed up the issue. The issue should have always been about eliciting false confessions which is wrong irrespective of whether or not torture is used. So I support torturing high value detainees with doctors standing nearby but I oppose getting puppies to tickle a detainee’s feet to elicit a false confession. Bush/Cheney were pressuring CIA interrogators to elicit false confessions tying 9/11 to Saddam in 2002 to lie us into a war.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I recall these debates & Yoo’s opponents talked about how torture didn’t work, partially because it could lead to false confessions.

People talked about how Bush/Cheney screwed up in a variety of ways. Still, an issue remains with using cruel and inhumane tactics.

Certain things are off the table even if they “work.” Some people tried to avoid the subject by arguing that torture never works. That’s dubious. Torture sometimes works.

The problem is twofold. One, the system as a whole doesn’t “work” even if it might work in specific instances. Part of this is that other practices work better overall. Torture overall can be counterproductive big picture.

Second, civilized countries don’t do certain things. Yoo was also attacked for a third reason -- he played fast and loose with the rules, making very dubious legal arguments.

I don't think it was wrong to call him out for that, too.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

When water boarding initially came to light but before anyone knew the details all of the stories were about false confessions. But then when the story came to light it was about attempts to get actionable intelligence from KSM. Only years later did I read things saying Bush and Cheney pressured interrogators to water board in order to elicit false confessions. Whatever they did to KSM including sticking things in his peehole I 100% support. Anything they did to elicit false confessions including getting puppies to lick the feet of detainees while the detainees get unlimited cookies and milk I 100% oppose. In 2025 people only know about the KSM stuff and so they support the torture program.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I appreciate your opposition to mistreatment or favorable treatment if the result is false information. But I'm concerned with a lot more than that.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I’m differentiating between false confessions and false information. I oppose anything to elicit false confessions because that is backwards looking and extremely dangerous and anathema for free society to start doing. The CIA wanted actionable intelligence but in the process they might get false information…that is their job to determine what is good information and it is very important to preventing future terrorist attacks to get good information. So Trump’s first military operation involved SEAL Team 6 conducting an operation in which 10 children including a little American girl were killed and no actionable intelligence was gathered and a SEAL died in the process. Nobody was satisfied with the results to say the least.

[tylertusta]

'California's impending lawsuit will seek a court order to rescind Trump's deployment of the National Guard to L.A., saying it violated federal law and the 10th Amendment.'

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/09/california-national-guard-lawsuit-gavin-newsom-00394609

[tylertusta]

Lawsuit now filed: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450934/gov.uscourts.cand.450934.1.0.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

Q: In 2020, you said 'we have to go by the laws. We can't call in the National Guard unless a governor requests it.' What changed now?
︀︀
︀︀TRUMP: The biggest change from that statement is we have an incompetent governor ... we would bring more in if we needed it

[tylertusta]

It turns out that you don't actually need the governor's request to federalize the Guard, but being polite is always nice.

[Roger S]

While LA was burning, Ilya Somin posted in support of the rioters. He wrote: "civilians ... have a right to resist in ways that would otherwise be illegal and unjustified." He does disapprove of “violence that harms innocent people”, but the post implies that everything else is okay with him.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So what were the colonists doing at Lexington and Concord?? Hmmmm, what do you need arms and munitions for?? Such a head scratcher.

[Roger S]

They were participating in a revolutionary war. If that is what is going on in LA, we need more troops.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Not in April 1775.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it doesn't imply that.

You're giving off stalkerish vibes re: Somin.

[Life of Brian]

What in the world is "stalkerish" about quoting someone who has been spraying 4-5 feverish articles a day here lately?

[Bwaaah]

Have you noticed how Sarc has been putting out a really weird vibe lately, sort of like a pedophile covering his tracks?

[Martinned]

Careful where you throw that particular shade, now that we have official confirmation that Trump was friends with Epstein.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That's probably not going to carry much weight with people who already don't really care that Trump is into teenage girls.

It's not like his creepy statements about his Miss Teen USA experiences and his own teenage daughter have been kept secret...

[Martinned]

something, something pizza restaurant, QAnon, ...

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Shocked to see you've omitted the necessary context. Despite your error having already been pointed out to you when you did it the first time. Shocked!

[bye]

How illogical then !!
The legal point is that in such situations violence will ultimately harm innocent people. Does Ilya then resurrect that person and yell : "cut that's a wrap, justified and legal riot !!"

[Malika the Maiz]

Roger is lying or can’t read. Somin distinguishes and denounces rioting over and over after that quote.

It shows tha paucity of his argument or reading skills for him to repeat this lie or failure to understand.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, the "other witness" referenced in today's Strict Scrutiny Podcast episode, who also testified along with Prof. Kate Shaw recently, blogs at Volokh Conspiracy. Blogs a lot.

[Kazinski]

I saw the clip where Senator Kennedy called out Shaw for calling some Supreme Court justices evil.

She was supposedly testifying about respecting justices and why universal injunctions are necessary.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UQkFwfSwFjw

Kind of blows out of the water any claim of a reasoned legal observer.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

She calls a justice “evil” on a podcast at some point, an unofficial platform that uses colloquial language, and this somehow trumps (ha ha) her position on universal injunctions?

The feigned tone policing from a side that regularly uses [used] crude talk (up to and including one of their heroes, in his court opinions, Justice Scalia) is pathetic. And, even on that level, Prof. Kate Shaw is a rather silly target given her overall restrained style.

Senator Kennedy ranting and raving if anything diminishes reasons to take him seriously though that ship has sailed long before now.

[Bored Lawyer]

Next theme song of Republican ads for the 2027 elections:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5lSeYd_riw

Boy are the Dems dumb.

[John 4]

The insurrectionists are obviously Proud Boys who are masquerading as anti-ICE protesters in order to frame them.

Also the so-called "insurrectionists" were entirely peaceful and the president should pardon them all.

[Frank Drackman]

Sly Stone gone, like any of you Poindexters could name an Album

[ThePublius]

Fresh

[Kazinski]

May CPI is coming out on Wednesday morning.

I'm predicting 2.2 in core inflation, 0.1 adjusted m/m.

And another month where Trumpflation fails to materialize.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Biden solved all of the issues created by Covid….this is 2002 all over again with Republicans going nutz when everything in America is trending in the right direction. Bush’s 2001 tax cut wasn’t even a big deal and 9/11 allowed Republicans to pass an insane tax cut. All because Clinton got a BJ and it drove you crazy because that’s where the pee comes out.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Clinton drew down our military and created Putin.

If Bush '41 had won in '92, we wouldn't be dealing with Putin, Chima, DPRK and there wouldn't have been a 2nd Iraq War.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Biden played the Ukraine War perfectly! We are now energy dominant and so Putin’s asinine invasion of Ukraine has been great for America. The Bush family’s goal was to make China great again…had Bush won in 1992 China’s strengthening would have happened earlier. But I agree anything that made Bush/Cheney less likely would have been better for America because Bush 43 was the worst president in history.

[Bunny495]

You need to learn how to read a map. Russia under Putin has control of around 1/5 of Ukraine (and more than that of the good part) while devastating Ukraine's human capital (something like two million military age males have fled the country) along with depleting America's military stockpile of vital weapons and shipping vast sums of newly printed money to the most corrupt country in Europe. Biden (or whoever was in control of the autopen) screwed the pooch in dealing with Ukraine; but his son was able to make big bucks in a do nothing job so there is that. As an aside Richard M. Nixon was the worst president in history for making sure America was a fiat money country by eliminating gold backed currency; but Grant was a somewhat close second (his brother was tried and convicted of accepting bribes along with members of Grant's cabinet all the while Grant was too drunk to do anything about it; as well as Grant living as pauper off Mark Twain's money after he left office since he was always an failure at making a living)

[ReaderY]

The State of California and Governor Newsome have filed a lawsuit against President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, and the US Department of Defence claiming that the federalization of the California National Guard was unlawful and unconstitutional.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25969321-california-lawsuit-over-national-guard-deployment/

[Dr. Ed 2]

It is unmitigated bullshyte.

[bye]

They will surely lose that:)
Newsom and Bass are getting near the hate level in CA. People want their asss OUT

[Bored Lawyer]

Sorry, I missed your post. I posted below about the case of In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890) should be considered. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/135/1/#tab-opinion-1913597

[SRG2]

US health secretary dismisses entire vaccine advisory panel

US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday announced he was dismissing all members of a key federal vaccine advisory panel, accusing its members of conflicts of interest -- his latest salvo against the nation's immunization policies.

If he appoints anti-vaxxers to the panel, no doubt the cultists here will applaud because they voted for it.

[Martinned]

Indeed. After all, it's not like he promised in his confirmation hearings not to mess with the vaccine advisory panel...

[Brett Bellmore]

So, do they have the conflicts of interest he claims? I find that even crackpots are frequently right about some things, just a bit obsessive.

Supporting a demand that young children be vaccinated for Covid did rather undermine my own trust in that bunch.

But isn't the real takeaway that we shouldn't have the government dictating what sort of medical care we can/must get?

[Martinned]

Supporting a demand that young children be vaccinated for Covid did rather undermine my own trust in that bunch.

That's because you're a crackpot too.

But isn’t the real takeaway that we shouldn’t have the government dictating what sort of medical care we can/must get?

No, because vaccination (let's stick with that for now) is a matter that has massive externalities. The whole point of vaccinating children against Covid, for example, is to prevent them from accidentally killing granny who is immunocompromised.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That’s because you’re a crackpot too."

No, that's because I actually looked at the data, which said that Covid was basically no threat to anybody who wasn't either already sick of something else, or elderly. (But I repeat myself...)

"The whole point of vaccinating children against Covid, for example, is to prevent them from accidentally killing granny who is immunocompromised."

Right, that's why we forced senior centers to admit Covid carriers, to protect granny. [/sarc]

The common cold can kill you if you're immune suppressed. There are limits to the degree to which we compel people to be vaccinated against diseases that are no threat to them, in order to protect others, and this was well beyond those normal boundaries.

[Martinned]

There are limits to the degree to which we compel people to be vaccinated against diseases that are no threat to them, in order to protect others

Yes, and someone with a) expertise and b) democratic authority has to decide where that limit is. But the Trump approach seems to be to do it without expertise. (And, soon, without democratic authority too.)

this was well beyond those normal boundaries

Sure, why worry about adding to the 1.2 mln US Covid deaths? Minor inconvenience, that's all.

[SRG2]

So, do they have the conflicts of interest he claims?

Do you believe him?

Forget Covid. If the new panel is predominantly anti-vaxxers, what defence of JFKjr will you make?

[Commenter_XY]

After our experience during the pandemic, how could you not expect accountability, SRG? That is what you are seeing here.

Look, I am much more interested in what will happen going forward wrt methodological standards used to conduct trials, and any potential financial entanglements of board members. With 17 (or fewer?) new members, it is a clean sweep; new thinking.

[SRG2]

After our experience during the pandemic, how could you not expect accountability, SRG? That is what you are seeing here.

Bullshit. What you are seeing is an attack on vaccination.

but ok – if RFKjr replaces them with genuine subject matter experts, fine and I’ll concede I was wrong to criticise. But if he replaces them with anti-vaxxers, I will expect vigorous condemnation from you.

[Martinned]

Speaking of ABC's version of "objectivity", see if you can spot where ABC explains that this cop was shot in the back by another cop: https://abcnews.go.com/US/36-year-cop-mother-young-daughter-shot-killed/story?id=122567914

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It appears the Chicago Police were remiss in mentioning that fact. I don't know why. Perhaps ABC News could have done a tiny bit of investigation, rather than take the police statements as sufficient.

But I'm not sure what you're implying about their objectivity. Why would ABC News want to cover up for the Chicago Police Department? To please Trump?

[Martinned]

To please the cops?

[Martinned]

The FTC is dropping cases left, right, and centre, but they're still investigating people for not wanting to do business with Elon Musk: https://www.wsj.com/business/media/ftc-seeks-information-from-top-advertising-agencies-as-part-of-ad-boycott-probe-9c98ad82?mod=hp_lead_pos3

[Martinned]

Speaking of the FTC, I wonder why Alvaro Bedoya suddenly needed to resign to "take care of [his] family".

https://bsky.app/profile/bedoyaftc.bsky.social/post/3lr7baxnarc2m

[Martinned]

Also in FTC-world, gender affirming care is now a deceptive trade practice. Cruelty is the point...

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/06/ftc-announces-workshop-exploring-unfair-or-deceptive-trade-practices-gender-affirming-care-minors

[ThePublius]

"Cruelty is the point…"

No, it is not. Many children and their families are being irreparably harmed by the wrong headed notion that affirmation of gender dysphoria is "care." Psychological care is infinitely more appropriate. From the linked article:

"The order asserted that “medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions.”

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act gives the FTC broad authority to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices. This authority could be implicated if there is evidence that medical professionals or others omitted warnings about the risks or made false or unsupported claims about the benefits and effectiveness of gender-affirming care for minors."

"Gender affirming care" is indeed a deceptive practice that causes lifelong harm.

[Martinned]

It is a practice that is a) not deceptive, and b) preventing lifelong harm. But I wouldn't expect you to worry about anything other than the latest culture war shibboleth.

[ThePublius]

I disagree. It's deceptive to tell minors that they can change their gender; it's a lie. And irreversible surgeries to alter their genitalia constitutes lifelong harm. These folks need psychological counseling, not hormones and surgery. It's like telling a paranoid that people really are out to get them, and giving them guns; paranoid affirming care.

In addition, I think that many cases of minors seeking so-called gender affirming care are victims of Munchausen by proxy, "also known as Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (FDIA), is a mental illness where a caregiver, often a parent or another person in a caretaking role, exaggerates or creates symptoms of illness in a person under their care." The caregiver can be a parent, teacher, other adult, or even the result of societal or peer influence or pressure.

[Sarcastr0]

Sex != gender.

The rest is some fan fiction you wrote based on nothing.

[ThePublius]

Another content-free snarky comment from Sarcastr0, sure as the sun comes up in the East. I suppose you also think there are 72 genders, or something like that.

[Sarcastr0]

I so think gender is complicated, and sometimes kids treat it silly.

I agree you can't change your sex. Changing your gender is a different thing since they are different words and mean different things.

[Commenter_XY]

Then be precise, b/c you've just conceded it is a psychological issue = I agree you can’t change your sex.

[Malika the Maiz]

This isn’t content free. The idea that sex and gender are different things is a fairly common and at least decades long one.

[ThePublius]

I also don't know what you mean calling my post fan fiction, based on nothing. What does that mean? What's the "fan" part mean? What's fictional about it? And what does "based on nothing" mean, when it's my view?

I suppose you just throw that out there to disparage me, and attempt to negate the expression of my view.

[Sarcastr0]

You made up a theory of causality based on a neato disorder you saw on TV or something.

Yes, I am disparaging that.

[ThePublius]

Substance free, as usual.

[Sarcastr0]

"I think that many cases of minors seeking so-called gender affirming care are victims of Munchausen by proxy" is the substance free part.

You made an accusation based on your layperson's vibes.

Useless in describing what's going on; it just provides insight as to your agencyless view of trans people.

[Malika the Maiz]

I think he’s talking about your Munchausen by proxy idea for gender affirming care.

[ThePublius]

https://www.votervoice.net/iframes/EAGLE/newsletters/359247?isInformationalBroadcast=true

[ThePublius]

There are only two genders, and they correlate with the two sexes. Everything else is fantasy.

[Malika the Maiz]

Correlate? And that’s enough for you to invoke the power of the state to override individual and parental choice?

[SRG2]

The actual science says you're wrong.

[David Nieporent]

Munchausen by proxy involves a caregiver does as you suggest in order to get attention/sympathy for the caregiver. It's a stretch to say that a teacher could suffer from the mental illness in that way; it's impossible to see how societal/peer influence could be shoehorned into that.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"I disagree. It’s deceptive to tell minors that they can change their gender; it’s a lie. And irreversible surgeries to alter their genitalia constitutes lifelong harm. These folks need psychological counseling, not hormones and surgery. It’s like telling a paranoid that people really are out to get them, and giving them guns; paranoid affirming care."

I would change the word "gender" to "sex", but otherwise spot-on.

[Martinned]

By the way, in case anyone was wondering, it turns out that threatening to do hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of damage to someone's business interests is a great way to get them back into line.

https://bsky.app/profile/juddlegum.bsky.social/post/3lr6myzhvv62p

(Not linking to Twitter, obviously.)

[Martinned]

But it's good to know the 3rd Amendment is safe, for now.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/national-guard-california-photos-20368334.php

(But yes, Trump is as bad at preparing for an invasion as Putin was. Oddly comforting, I guess.)

[ThePublius]

Oh, I see, so, the CA National Guards failure to prepare for and provision for a bivouac is on Trump. Jerk.

[Martinned]

No, what's on Trump is that he decided to invade California without worrying about such details as where the soldiers might sleep. Frank incompetence, as always.

[ThePublius]

That's nonsense. First, he didn't invade California. Second, it's not on POTUS where soldiers will sleep. You have an extremely warped sense of reality, or you just hate Trump so much you blame everything on him, personally. Get a grip.

[Sarcastr0]

So where does the buck stop, TP?

[OpinionsVary]

Federalised national guard troops are under the command of the president. Commander and chief and all that. It probably was someone further down the chain of command that didn't make accommodations but the buck, in a very real sense, stops with him. It comes with the big hat. You don't get to take just the good while ignoring the bad.

[ThePublius]

You guys are ridiculous. You either don't understand how a military force operates, or you are being deliberately obtuse because you hate POTUS. If there's a rodent infestation at a military barracks is that Trump's fault? Geez.

[Malika the Maiz]

Not immediately, I’d agree, but does the buck ultimately stop there?

[SRG2]

Not in Trump's case, because Trump must never be blamed for anything, It's always someone else's fault

[Bored Lawyer]

"invasion"

What an utter clown you are. In case you don't know, LA is part of the United States and is subject to federal jurisdiction. See my citation below to the case of In re Neagle.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yeah, it's only okay to trigger the libs!

[Bunny495]

Wonder if the NG would rather sleep on a floor inside a building with AC in CA with hot meals and running water in the bathroom or in a fox hole in Vietnam while literally having to burn shit from latrines in 50 gallon drums using fuel oil.

[Martinned]

If Trump is going to give ICE a bigger budget than the combined military budgets of France and the UK, does that mean ICE will also get its own nukes?

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently you have been taking SarcastrO’s douche course.

[Martinned]

A republic, if you can keep it

[Malika the Maiz]

Inconvenient facts make bumble mad.

[Mr. Bumble]

Martinned comment is not a fact.

[Malika the Maiz]

Your douche comment was about accuracy?

[Mr. Bumble]

"If Trump is going to give ICE a bigger budget than the combined military budgets of France and the UK, ..."
Not accurate.

[Magister]

Martinned provided a link below, long before Bumble's last two comments. The total does seem to include CBP as well as ICE.

[bye]

As if France and UK were not doing horribly

Dec 28, 2023 — 2023 was a year of exceptional social unrest, marked by France's largest protest movement this century and the worst bout of rioting in almost two decades

Loughborough University
https://www.lboro.ac.uk › uk-riots-spread-scotland-wales
Aug 9, 2024 — The violent unrest that has caused so much damage in the UK has not in fact happened across the UK. It has almost been exclusively confined to England.

[ThePublius]

That says more about the UK and France than it does about Trump and ICE. Neither could withstand an invasion by even the tiniest adversary, with the sorry state of their militaries and military budgets.

[Martinned]

If you say so

[ThePublius]

But this is bullshit, anyway. The combined military budget of France and UK is $122B. ICE's budget is $8.5B. So, WTF are you talking about?

[Martinned]

I am talking about Trump's budget request/the House reconciliation.

https://www.wola.org/analysis/160-billion-to-detain-and-deport-congresss-reconciliation-bill-is-a-betrayal-of-priorities-and-will-harm-the-most-vulnerable/

[Bunny495]

Link has popups that cover too much stuff. Maybe more to the point is how much it will cost to deport has to include the big bucks needed to deal with legal challenges to deportation. The cost for the government to deal with twenty million hearings is staggering. Same goes for housing and feeding twenty million illegal aliens while they wait for those hearings. No telling how much it will cost to get Garcia back to where he belongs now that lawyers are involved but I would be happy if my 401k was that big.

[Don Nico]

Geez, that is a stupid snark or a even stupider question. Take your pick.

[Martinned]

I'm sure this won't cause people here to get hysterical:

UK places sanctions on two far-right Israeli ministers over ‘monstrous’ Gaza comments
Canada, Australia and New Zealand also to freeze assets of Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich and impose travel bans

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/10/uk-and-allies-sanction-two-far-right-israeli-ministers-itamar-ben-gvir-bezalel-smotrich-over-monstrous-gaza-comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Speech is violence?

[Martinned]

If that speech is in the form of a government minister telling the army to go kill a bunch of people, absolutely.

[Bored Lawyer]

Good to know that these countries are dealing with the real threats to their country. Firebombing synagogues, harassing Jews on buses, cutting down mezuzahs from Jewish homes, no big deal. Extreme rhetoric by an Israel minister, now THAT's monstrous.

Priorities, my boy, priorities.

[Commenter_XY]

If they had no double standard, they'd have none at all.

[Bored Lawyer]

And here is more rhetoric that one of these countries (the UK) is fine with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5irQUXb-1A

[Bored Lawyer]

WRT to the president's recent federalizing of the National Guard, and use of military, one point that should not be overlooked is that here he is using federal force to protect federal officers (ICE) in the conduct of their job. IOW, the latest riots are not like, say, the Rodney King riots, that involved no direct federal interests. Here, the rioter are using violence to attack federal officers and prevent them from doing their duties.

The case of In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890) should be considered. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/135/1/#tab-opinion-1913597

There, a disgruntled litigant and his wife attacked a SCOTUS justice, who was riding Circuit in California, and had ruled against them. A U.S. Marshall had been directed to protect the justice, and ended up killing the attacker. SCOTUS held that the president has inherent power to protect federal officers in the discharge of their duties. It's a long, colorful opinion, worth reading. But I expect the Government to cite it in the upcoming litigations.

But the notion that the president is powerless to protect ICE workers from attack while doing their duty is risible.

[Malika the Maiz]

I think the argument is that this escalates things.

I do think this is a bad situation in that it bolsters Trump and Newsom with their respective bases. Opponents of Trump should realize that appearing to restore order is going to play to Trump’s favor politically. Newsom can use this to bolster his flagging left support in his future Presidential nomination run.

[Bored Lawyer]

I am talking about the legal issues. The CA AG said he plans to file suit that Trump's actions are illegal.

The question is, what is Trump legally allowed to do to protect federal officers from attack. The answer cannot be nothing.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the counter argument is that not doing this would embolden the attackers.

The optics of this are obviously favorable to Trump. They may be favorable to Newsom, too, but Newsom's problem is that they're only favorable in a few places that are outliers in terms of public opinion.

California is one of those places, so it might help him as long as he sticks to running in California, but it's poison nationally.

[Malika the Maiz]

You’re forgetting he has to win a nomination first.

[Bored Lawyer]

True. But you know what you call someone who wins the nomination but loses the election? Out of office. (That's the nicer way of putting it.)

If the net result is that Newsom increases his chances of nomination and decreases his chances of election, I think that's a net loss.

[Magister]

That doesn't follow; it would depend on specific changes in the probability.

Newsom needs to stand out in the primary to beat a number of Democratic governors, senators, representatives and so forth, but only look better than the Republican nominee in the general election. It's not an unreasonable belief that Trump's erratic and autocratic administration will hurt Republican chances in 2028, when Trump will not be running (too old, already elected twice). So Newsom might guess that this raises his chances in the primary by 20% and lowers his chances in the general by 20%, but from a base chance of 20% in the primary and 80% in the general election - so 16% without, 24% with this.

Of course, he might be doing this out of principle, a concept foreign to Republicans.

[tylertusta]

That’s correct. However, Newsom’s most favorable national environment is the Democratic primaries and caucuses. That’s a much more left-leaning electorate than in the general election.

So it’s possible that he rides a wave of progressive energy to get the nomination only to crater when moderates vote R in the general out of revulsion to his past left-wing excesses.

[Sarcastr0]

ICE workers were not in danger until Trump escalated.

They were being prevented from doing their jobs, but there was no immediate exigency there.

This is not like Rodney King.

[Commenter_XY]

ICE LEOs were literally being attacked (a dangerous circumstance), and otherwise impeded (illegal) in performing their duties. ICE is arresting illegal aliens, targeting gangbangers. If there are other illegals there, they will not be ignored/overlooked...they're going home, too.

As for the rioters and looters, CA is reaping what their political ideology has sown.

[David Nieporent]

ICE is arresting illegal aliens, targeting gangbangers.

Nope; you want that to be true so you can look at yourself in the mirror. It's just MAGA fanfic that there are many gang members ("gangbangers" makes you sounds like you're a rejected scriptwriter from a bad 1980s cop show ) out there to deport. ICE is arresting otherwise-law-abiding illegal aliens that are easy to find and that pose no threat to them. For example, the raids on Friday that sparked this confrontation were at workplaces, like a garment factory.

[tylertusta]

CE is arresting otherwise-law-abiding illegal aliens that are easy to find and that pose no threat to them ... For example, the raids on Friday that sparked this confrontation were at workplaces, like a garment factory.

Law-abiding except for all of their convictions, you forgot to add.

• Cuong Chanh Phan - Convicted of 2nd degree murder
• Rolando Veneracion-Enriquez - Convicted of burglary and sexual penetration with a foreign object with force and assault with intent to commit rape
• Lionel Sanchez-Laguna - discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling and vehicle, battery on a spouse or cohabitant, willful cruelty to a child, DUI, assault with a firearm
• Armando Ordaz - Sexual battery, receiving stolen property, petty theft
• Francisco Sanchez-Arguello - grand theft larceny and possession of a prohibited weapon
• Jose Gregorio Medranda Ortiz - conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more cocaine while on board a vessel
• Victor Mendoza-Aguilar - possessing unlawful paraphernalia, possessing controlled substances, assault with a deadly weapon: not firearm, obstructing a public officer
• Delfino Aguilar-Martinez - assault with a deadly weapon with great bodily injury

That's just part of the list, but I think you get the point.

Looks to me like ICE is taking out the trash. Good riddance.

That you preen over some fantasy that these were law-abiding people says more about how unhinged you and your ilk are.

[Sarcastr0]

Pick that cherry!

There are countless stories of ICE going after soft targets like people going to their court dates. Or children.

I'm sure some criminals are getting deported as well, but that's not the new ICE policy that has everyone up in arms.

[tylertusta]

Talk about picking those cherries!

How many children or people going into court were picked up in the ICE actions at warehouses and factories (as David put it)?

Should we be arresting people for practicing law without a license or for breaking child labor laws, too?

[Sarcastr0]

DMN said 'for example'. You're playing games with scope today.

[tylertusta]

And you're just playing games today.

[Magister]

They also appear to be carrying out rapid deportations of non-criminals without required due process. The "worst of the worst" list has 11 names, but it appears that hundreds were arrested in Los Angeles. Same story as the earlier deportations to El Salvador, with great effort being taken to hide the details from family members, advocates and the public.

[David Nieporent]

but it appears that hundreds were arrested in Los Angeles.

And the administration has been boasting about thousands of people arrested per day, nationwide.

[tylertusta]

Uh huh. Rioters attacked federal agents and bystanders, destroyed property, and looted businesses solely because they were overcome with concern for the welfare of the aliens arrested on Friday and to ensure that their due process rights would be respected.

Riiiight.

[Sarcastr0]

Not just Friday.

You're playing games with scope today.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, so "Rioters attacked federal agents and bystanders, destroyed property, and looted businesses solely because they were overcome with concern for the welfare of the aliens arrested on [Thursday and] Friday and to ensure that their due process rights would be respected."

That makes much more sense.

[Magister]

Neither of us knows how many protesters became rioters, or if the rioters were provocateurs, agents of chaos, conservatives under a false flag, opportunistic looters or venting some other frustration; we've seen all of those in previous riots. We do know that lawless activity by the government led to both the protests and the riots.

[tylertusta]

How many of the arrests made on Friday were lawless? Did the rioters even know? Did they even care?

If it was 100% all above board and following the law, does that change anything that happened?

[Magister]

If it were, then maybe, but there are reports of improper conduct in the Los Angeles actions.

In addition, we have had months of defying courts, deporting citizens, denying due process and arresting people while wearing masks without identification. Courts are recognizing that the administration's statements in court are not trustworthy, so it's unsurprising that ordinary citizens do not trust them.

[tylertusta]

If it were, then maybe, but there are reports of improper conduct in the Los Angeles actions.

Reports or just wishcasting?

Arresting someone who had a final order of removal isn't improper. Even arresting someone who doesn't even have a final order of removal isn't even illegal, depending on the circumstances.

so it’s unsurprising that ordinary citizens do not trust them.

Preemptive rioting. That's a new one.

[Magister]

Are you too lazy to look for the reports yourself? Yes, reports; people without criminal records already deported without due process.

Ordinary citizens not trusting the administration does not mean they are rioting. That you have to misrepresent comments suggests you've lost the argument.

[David Nieporent]

Same story as the earlier deportations to El Salvador, with great effort being taken to hide the details from family members, advocates and the public.

Yesterday's WSJ story elaborates on this:

So in late May, Stephen Miller, a top White House aide and the architect of the president’s immigration agenda, addressed a meeting at the headquarters of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE. The message was clear: The president, who promised to deport millions of immigrants living in the country illegally, wasn’t pleased. The agency had better step it up.

Gang members and violent criminals, what Trump called the “worst of the worst,” weren’t the sole target of deportations. Federal agents needed to “just go out there and arrest illegal aliens,” Miller told top ICE officials, who had come from across the U.S., according to people familiar with the meeting.

Agents didn’t need to develop target lists of immigrants suspected of being in the U.S. illegally, a longstanding practice, Miller said. Instead, he directed them to target Home Depot, where day laborers typically gather for hire, or 7-Eleven convenience stores. Miller bet that he and a handful of agents could go out on the streets of Washington, D.C., and arrest 30 people right away.

“Who here thinks they can do it?” Miller said, asking for a show of hands.

ICE agents appeared to follow Miller’s tip and conducted an immigration sweep Friday at the Home Depot in the predominantly Latino neighborhood of Westlake in Los Angeles, helping set off a weekend of protests around Los Angeles County, including at the federal detention center in the city’s downtown.

There's a lot more, but I'll just include these brief anecdotes, showing how cowardly ICE agents are:

In Coral Springs, Fla., at least eight agents in tactical gear, shields and rifles surrounded a home with guns raised to arrest a father with no criminal history. In Irvine, Calif., ICE agents drove a phalanx of military vehicles in the Orange County suburb to arrest a person, though not for illegal immigration. They were seeking a resident’s son who had allegedly posted fliers alerting neighbors to the presence of ICE agents.

[Commenter_XY]

Earth to David...child molesters, rapists, child abusers were arrested by ICE.

[David Nieporent]

If so, only by accident. Read the excerpts from the WSJ I just posted.

[Mr. Bumble]

So that doesn't count?

[Magister]

Bumble the cultist has also joined the "give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety" club, and rejects Blackstone's ratio. Every dictator has justified atrocities by claiming the necessity of dealing with criminals, without regard to how many actually committed crimes.

[tylertusta]

I don't agree that ICE employees were not in danger.

However, that's not all that relevant because the statute expressly allows the federalizing of the National Guard if the federal government is unable to enforce Federal law.

10 U.S. Code § 12406:

Whenever—

(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;

the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

No, these were not like the 1992 riots, but also the 1992 riots are not the benchmark by which the National Guard can be employed.

It's an example, not the floor, for the statute.

Trying to say "These were not as bad as the 1992 riots" is a rhetorical device but has no legal meaning, and Brett's comment was about the legality of the action.

[Sarcastr0]

Since “orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States” this statute is does not apply to the current situation.

But if the federal government's choices are responsible for the escalation, that puts a real question mark in the activation of the insurrection act.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've already said it would have to be under U.S. Code §253, not 12406. And that doesn't require routing through the governor, for obvious reasons.

[tylertusta]

But if the federal government’s choices are responsible for the escalation, that puts a real question mark in the activation of the insurrection act.

That would result in this being the argument (and feel free to correct me if I misunderstand the implications):

'It's the government's fault for enforcing Federal law in the first place, and it's the government's fault for bringing in the Guard to assist with enforcing Federal law after people got violent the first time'

I think the problem here is not that the government is bringing in the Guard.

It's that people just don't want the government to be enforcing Federal immigration laws, period, and they're use any excuse to achieve those ends. Complaints about "escalations" by bringing in the Guard and Marines when chaos is already reigning in the streets means that the people rioting are not actually accountable for their own actions. The 'it's not my fault that I'm lighting this car on fight and looting this department store!' excuse simply does not work.

[Magister]

I don't want the government to violate laws, especially on the scale this administration has, far more widely than immigration. It's more than just a question mark if the federal government can use its own violations of the law to justify invoking the Insurrection Act.

[tylertusta]

Since when has the government used its past violations to justify invoking the Insurrection Act?

[Magister]

Really, you ask the most obtuse questions. The Insurrection Act has not been invoked, which may be TACO, but this president and administration are uniquely lawless.

[Don Nico]

I guess that you prefer to know that they were trapped in the federal building by the crowd for hours. How convenient of you to forget.

[Voize of Reazon]

CA isn't arguing that the President is powerless, I mean ICE agents themselves are armed for self-protection and California isn't disputing that. They are taking issue with the particulars of this response, e.g. that Hegseth issued orders directly to the state National Guard instead of going through the governor's office as the statute requires.

[tylertusta]

That's probably Newsom's strongest point. However, the statute says "shall be issued through the governors," and Newsom has been very open that he does not approve of the national guard's activation. Newsom pretends that the statute requires consent when it very much does not.

Even if we assume that Newsom is correct, then the President is probably still covered because of 10 U.S. Code §253:

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

I think a case can be made that both (1) and (2) can be satisfied.

Not only did Newsom not want the Guard deployed, but Mayor Bass and other elected representatives made statements to whip up the mob to halt ICE's operations. Even then, the President is still covered under (2) since the goal of the riots and attacks on Federal agents was clearly designed to prevent the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.

[Voize of Reazon]

The statute requires the governor's complicity. If he doesn't comply there is no statutory alternative, the US would have to look to the courts for relief. and the anti-commandeering doctrine would prevent them getting any.

I can't agree that (1) works. What Constitutional right, privilege, immunity or protection is being denied to the people of California?

(2) is a better fit, at least according to the statutory text. It's vulnerable to a constitutionality challenge though, thanks to Article IV Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The federal government is only permitted to intervene to quell domestic violence if the State asks for help, no matter what the statute says.

[tylertusta]

If he doesn’t comply there is no statutory alternative

253 arguably is that alternative.

I can’t agree that (1) works. What Constitutional right, privilege, immunity or protection is being denied to the people of California?

I think we can easily imagine situations where a violent riot threatens life or the rights of people.

... and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

And Congress's passage of the Insurrection Act arguably satisfies that application; Congress delegated this to the Executive through the passage of the Act.

[Magister]

Yes, imagination can do a lot. By your standard, a traffic jam would qualify for federal intervention. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act as of now; another TACO, maybe.

[Voize of Reazon]

The Legislature that the Constitution requires an Application from is the state legislature, not Congress.

[Martinned]

ICE agents themselves are armed for self-protection

That's one way of putting it...

[David Nieporent]

I know the conversation has moved on from Trump sending people to foreign concentration camps without due process, but yet another judge has now rejected Trump's attempt to use the AEA, holding that there's no invasion/predatory incursion by TdA, and that it's not a foreign nation or government. (The judge also held that the removal process being used by Trump wouldn't comply with AEA's terms if the AEA had been lawfully invoked.)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841828/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841828.59.0_1.pdf

[DeAnnP]

I still don't understand why one of Trump's last orders his first term to grant TPS to Venezuelans, where TdA is from.

[tylertusta]

Now back to your regularly-scheduled LA riot news:

Maxine Waters gave a press conference this morning where she said that it doesn't count as violence if no one was shot or killed.

I'll be charitable and say that the old bat was probably unaware that a body had been found nearby a looted store earlier today.

[Bwaaah]

Did somebody forget to make the donuts today?

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha! When the Professor introduced this thrice weekly format he indicated that the Wednesday Open Thread would start midday. But, he's started it in the morning most of the time since.

I pinged him, we'll see.